User talk:WOFall

The file is indeed now orphaned and unneeded, and should be removed. —WOFall (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WOFall,

I corrected the luas page as the information contained on it was incorrect. Could you kindly put my changes back in? Thanks, irishalanl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishalanl (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RTÉ reference says "35-year-old Yao Webster". It's not impossible that RTÉ is wrong, but we need a credible

reference before making any claim the victim was "36-year-old Fu Webster". See the reference used in the article and one more. Thanks. —WOFall (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WOFall, the victim was my 2nd cousins wife, who is Chinese. She is also called Fu (not Yao) and is aged 36. She is an only child and has a 2 year old. I would like the article to contain the correct facts if possible. Thanks. Irishalanl (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise with that wish. Unfortunately Wikipedia will never be 100% correct, but the referencing policy aims to keep it as correct as possible – referencing makes information

verifiable. From this link: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I suggest you contact RTÉ and other publishers, or find an appropriate supporting reference. —WOFall (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks WOFall, I will contact RTE. My one remaining concern is how can RTE sites be treated as verifiable? Where is the proof that what they post is accurate (my circumstances have already proven that they display inacurate information) 80.111.125.121 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOFall, I wanted to extend my gratitude to you for assisting me in making The Los Angeles Film School a better article. Per my COI, I will continue to only make suggestions to the Talk Page should it need them. If I ever need your assistance with the article, would it be OK for me to reach out to you for review? Thank you again. --Tylergarner (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to have been of help. Of course you are also welcome to ping me in future. —WOFall (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WOFall. It's been a bit, but I've returned to Wikipedia to make suggestions to the Los Angeles Film School article. If you're available, I'd be grateful for your input. --Tylergarner (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely beside the point, so I'll put it here. Apology accepted for the "repeated accusations" thing, and I should in turn like to apologize for making it seem like I was accusing you of making repeated accusations. What I initially meant was that I made one off-hand comparison between DQ and Slump's relative popularity, I was then asked (not by you) to alter the wording and replace Slump with whatever I believed was more well known (something I had never proposed), I then clarified my meaning and specified that I wanted the article to specify his single most popular work, not replace Slump with something else.

Then when you later made what looked like a similar argument, I said that I was annoyed by the repeated strawmen. I did not mean to imply that you had repeated the same strawman argument more than once, merely that you had perhaps missed my earlier reply where I specified that I wasn't trying to put DQ in where Slump had been.

As for strawmen, I should specify that the other strawmen that (I feel) have been repeatedly used against my edit are Americocentrism and using raw Google searches as sources. Americocentrism was mentioned twice by ProKro based on some my edit's other proponents using this argument -- even though I'm the only one in the dispute who has yet cited a source from Toriyama's home country. Raw Google hits were mentioned twice by Farix, based on both my initial actual linking to a raw search, when (as I have already said) I assumed my edit would not be reverted (I only posted to the talk page because the URLs wouldn't fit in the edit summary), my later using GBooks to count the relative number of print works that mention Slump without mentioning DB and vice versa, and my using Google's "search within site" tool to locate every instance of Toriyama's name on the websites of large Japanese newspapers. If Farix does not speak Japanese, then I can see how these actions might appear to him like using raw Google hits as sources (are you getting why I want people to be transparent about their Japanese ability?). But the fact is that so far "you are using raw Google hits!" is the closest anyone has come to even acknowledging that I have provided any evidence at all.

182.249.134.31 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, WOFall. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WOFall. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WOFall. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]