| Revision as of 22:07, 15 May 2008 editBVande (talk | contribs)68 edits →Fraud Protection Unit← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:11, 15 May 2008 edit undoOnorem (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,744 edits →Fraud Protection Unit: don't label (possible) mistakes as fraudNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :::oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --] ] 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | :::oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --] ] 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". ] (]) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | ::::What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". ] (]) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::And I'm not convinced yet that the information was false. You've provided a source that disagrees on his age by a year. I've found several apparently reliable sources that list his age as 5. Please practice ] and don't label (possible) mistakes as fraud. --]]] 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:11, 15 May 2008
Hello. See my talk page for information about me.
Improper move
Please do not make copy/paste moves as you did with Seattle SuperSonics possible relocation to Oklahoma City. Because Misplaced Pages uses the licenses under GFDL, it is important that the edit history be maintained with the article. If you feel that the article should be moved to a different location, there are a number of different ways that you can do so properly. Please see WP:MOVE for information on the proper way of moving an article. --Bobblehead 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your move request has been corrected as you requested on my talk page. --Bobblehead 23:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Joe Paterno
Mr. Vanderbilt, from another user who uses his real name, Gerry's the first, do you think that Paterno's stay in the hosptial is worthy of being in the article at this point? According to the article on pennlive.com he wasn't admitted, just tested. I will leave it in for now, but I have my doubts. Dincher (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Dincher is the last name. Yahoo sports must have jumped the gun. Dincher (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Fraud Protection Unit
Just to let you know - efforts like this one have been deleted in the past, and this particular version is likely to follow that same route. You are welcome to coordinate activities between yourself and interested editors in your userspace, for the most part - but hierarchical bureaucracy (chief of unit, etc.) and authoritative titles is likely to put off most Wikipedians and lead even more quickly to a WP:MFD for the page you have created. There are noticeboards in existence already for purposes similar to yours; for reliable sources there is WP:RS/N, for biographies of living people there is WP:BLP/N, and there are boards for fringe theories etc. Actual hoaxes are deletable under the criteria for speedy deletion, as well. Avruch 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. I have removed the hierarchy. BVande (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is no board to tabulate wrong information. What if a sneaky vandal stops blanking pages and just inserts wrong information? Nobody will know it but my efforts may put a stop to it. BLP doesn't work because the wrong information that I corrected wouldn't be appropriate for BLP. BLP is only for "so and so is a homo" BVande (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- What if we find out that the editor involved made 50 bad edits? This way we know. We AGF but verify. Доверяй, но проверяй. The famous Russian phrase "Trust, but verify". BVande (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm not convinced yet that the information was false. You've provided a source that disagrees on his age by a year. I've found several apparently reliable sources that list his age as 5. Please practice assuming good faith and don't label (possible) mistakes as fraud. --Onorem♠Dil 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- oh for heaven's sake. Your unit has, to date, found one instance of some poor wikipedian who mistakenly added an allegedly wrong age - 5 - instead of 4. The possibility that he or she was working from some other source which identified that child's age as 4 and has added a good faith edit has not occurred to you. The rest of the paragraph the wikipedia added was fine. And unless tyou definition of fraud is somewhat new and bizarre, how could the wikipedian's mistake be understood as fraud? And here's the kicker: your edit severely broke the page, because you screwed up the closing reference tag. I very strongly suggest that you get the FPU page deleted and move on. With the best will in the world, I really do not see how you would even begin to put a dent in the incidence of mis-information being added to wikipedia; and that fact that you think that your unit can make a difference merely signals to me that you do not have a clue. Sorry to be so blunt, but there we are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)