User talk:Morbidthoughts

Boxing rankings

Greetings. You've removed a few of these sections from boxers' articles on the premise that such rankings need secondary sources, yet on tennis players' articles (e.g., Novak Djokovic) they seem just fine to use an ATP ranking—a primary source—with no secondary sources. Out of curiosity, are WikiProject Tennis doing things wrong too? Likewise for snooker players (e.g., Ronnie O'Sullivan) they use a primary source from their tour. The rankings used in boxing are not even affiliated with the boxers themselves, so what would be inappropriate about them being used as primary sources? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sports articles are riddled with trivialities of what editors think is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Why are those specific rankings included if they are not mentioned in relation to the boxer in secondary reliable sources? WP:WEIGHT is policy and inclusion can be seen as promoting and endorsing the rankers like whatever hell the Transnational Boxing Rankings Board is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the equivalent argument to ATP rankings (who the men play for) would be the sanctioning body rankings. Boxing articles seem to address this by noting the boxer's title history. Those are also widely reported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Granted, and that's why I mentioned other examples because I was interested to see a rationale. I've long considered the myriad rankings in active boxers' lead a bit of a mess, but they've been a mainstay for years so I hadn't given them much thought until now—in fact I'd completely forgotten that I once brought it up at WikiProject Boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding reinstatement of website link on pageedit]

Greetings to you. My intention for removing the website link on that person's page was that it directed users to a website that sold pornographic performances by that person instead of directing them to a website she maintains. I have no interest in championing censorship, but that link was an advertisement, not (necessarily) a relevant link. Perhaps my original statement could have been worded better, but that was my intention. 203.212.241.19 (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ahhh. Thank you for clearing that up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

BLPNedit]

Thanks for cleaning up that duplicate David P. Weber entry. I didn't realize that one had been created prior to mine. JohnInDC (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

BLPN - self-identifying individualsedit]

Hi, I just wanted to give you a heads up that there are categories such as Category:American people who self-identify as being of Chumash descent, so if you remove "self-identify" type language, there is likely an associated category. I fixed the categories for Lorna Dee Cervantes and Stepfanie Kramer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

As an FYI, I am going to putter away at these categories to verify if the category applies or not. I am starting with Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent.–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Might interest youedit]

Hello. The BLP article, Bagrat Galstanyan, is being influenced again by the claim that concluded to have no consensus for inclusion at the BLP committee. Apparently there is a “new” source but it doesn’t actually prove anything, the source verbatim uses the word “allegation” for this claim which means it has no proof. I have reverted the WP:BLP and consensus violating edit [1], but it looks like it was restored again. I’m not very active on Wikipedia, and I thought you might be interested in this as an experienced user and someone who participated in the BLP discussion. Cheers! AntEgo (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It was restored with a recent reference to what seems like a reliable source that verified the allegations existed. This was bound to happen since he is now in the public eye as a political dissident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

ok, should we not use the word "alleged" then since that what the sources uses? just "accused" is vague imo, it omits the fact that the accusation has no proof like the new source states it with "alleged". AntEgo (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't a fundamental difference between alleged and accused in this context, proof or no proof. They are synonyms of each other. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Accolades section in a BLP?edit]

Thanks for your previous clean-up work on Dominic Ng. Do you think its Accolades section violates WP:NOTCV. - Amigao (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as there is secondary reliable sourcing about the individual accolades, it's not really an issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)