User talk:Redelig81

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. Your recent edit to Ole Martin Moen appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Ole Martin Moen. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Liliana ^(UwU) 08:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That info is all over the web. Googling "Ole Martin Moen" and "pedophilia" returns over a thousand hits. Adakiko (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on that one, you were clearly right to remove the accusations. @Adakiko: I'd suggest reading WP:BLP and WP:RS, as that "source" very obviously is pure hoax. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 08:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adakiko: @Maddy from Celeste: are you sure it is a hoax? You might be interested in the talk-page discussion at Ole Martin Moen [1] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section that was removed here contained an incorrect presentation of Moen's writings, arguments and conclusions. And it referenced a source that do not satisfy the reliable source criterium of Wikipedia. It's that simple, in my view.

If one is to write a summary of a phiolosopher's writings on a subject on a Wikipedia page, it should be a correct summary of the arguments. Not, like this was, an abvious attempt to misrepresent them. Redelig81 (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in the discussion on Talk:Ole Martin Moen#Removal of material. It won't happen here on your talk page. You should demonstrate, with evidence, how that content you removed is misrepresentation of Moen's writings. That is not my area of expertise. You might ask at the wp:Teahouse for guidance and what policy/essay pages to read. See help:talk pages for the basics and wp:talk page guidelines for more details on how to discuss. There may be more useful essays on the matter. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my job to spend time to prove they are incorrect (especially when they have not even bothered to use a decent source). It is their job to represent Moen's work correctly. With good sources. Not webpages that misrepresent the work. Redelig81 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to join the discussion or not. If they misunderstand the sources, it may be restored. Your choice. Adakiko (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

My apology. I saw there were lots of sources on that. Mad men read it and went crazy. Fortunately, Maddy from Celeste saw and corrected it. Again, my apology. I hope Moen's research gets some traction. Cheers Adakiko (talk)