Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:17, 22 March 2009

March 2009

External Links normally to be avoided

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for biographies).

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

Mischaracterizing the Good Faith edits of others as vandalism

Please do not mischaracterize the edits of other editors as vandalism, when they are clearly not. You appear to be engaged in an edit war over a wide spectrum of articles with User:72.74.209.246. He seems to be adding references to articles, and you have removed his references repeatedly while calling them vandalism. You are clearly in a content dispute, and you should not use terms like vandalism to gain some sort of moral high ground. Instead, detach and stop editing, and use the talk page of the articles to establish consensus. Seek outside input by asking for a Third Opinion or ask for help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. There are many ways to do the right thing here, and calling someone elses good faith attempts to improve an article vandalism is NOT IT. If you do not desist this edit war, you may be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite. User:72.74.209.246 undid over 20 of my edits. All of mine were good faith edits. He (or she) just started to undo all of them. That was the ONLY edits he(or she) did. They are in an edit war with me.

When someone just starts to undo ALL of your edits randomly, this is vandalism. If just looked at the last 20 edits of your, undid them all, would that be good faith?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmoremotor (talk • contribs)

I don't care who started it. This is not the school play ground. I will, however, take actions to stop it if you do not stop it yourself. edit warring is disruptive, and I am telling both of you to seek dispute resolution. I have given you some links above to help resolve the problem. Do any of these things, but don't keep reverting back and forth. And don't call it vandalism when it is not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We communicated back and forth and they stoped undoing all my edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenmoremotor (talk • contribs)

Good deal. Lets keep it that way. Its a good start. Also, please remember to sign all of your discussion page comments with four tilde's ~~~~ which will sign your comments so others know who is leaving them. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough....It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Evenmoremotor (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons.

The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines.

Evenmoremotor (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Misplaced Pages content policies and guidelines.

Evenmoremotor (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Evenmoremotor

Do not remove references

Please do not remove legitimate references as you did in Gaspare Mutolo. The link you removed is used to reference a direct quote. It is unfortunate that it is on pay site (it was not when the link was made), but it is a legitimate source and should be there for people who want to verify it. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests

Hi there. I've recently declined two of your speedy deletion - attack page requests. Please can you review the speedy deletion criteria as you appear to have misunderstood what Misplaced Pages considers an attack page to be. Thanks. --GedUK  17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)