| Revision as of 17:12, 4 May 2009 editTheo789 (talk | contribs)204 edits →Please seek consensus on the talk pages.← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:30, 4 May 2009 edit undoTheo789 (talk | contribs)204 edits →NeutralityNext edit → | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
| The point is that the article should be NEUTRAL. The Markoff article when I first came upon it read like a story about a serial attacker, which is not the reality. I made numerous edits to tone it down from what it was--which was an extremely biased one-sided article. I think it is much more balanced now, but it took a lot of effort to get it to that point. It is not that I care so much about the accused man Markoff, it is that I object to one sided articles that paint someone as guilty before he or she has been convicted of anything. That is not NEUTRAL. This article is about a living person, so needs to avoid being defamatory. I think that Mr. Wales needs to know that some of these articles are painting subjects as guilty before they are convicted, which could pose problems for him if they are later acquited and turn around and sue him for defamation. In particular, the use of anonymous sources to provide "evidence" of guilt in the article needs to be restricted as a matter of policy. | The point is that the article should be NEUTRAL. The Markoff article when I first came upon it read like a story about a serial attacker, which is not the reality. I made numerous edits to tone it down from what it was--which was an extremely biased one-sided article. I think it is much more balanced now, but it took a lot of effort to get it to that point. It is not that I care so much about the accused man Markoff, it is that I object to one sided articles that paint someone as guilty before he or she has been convicted of anything. That is not NEUTRAL. This article is about a living person, so needs to avoid being defamatory. I think that Mr. Wales needs to know that some of these articles are painting subjects as guilty before they are convicted, which could pose problems for him if they are later acquited and turn around and sue him for defamation. In particular, the use of anonymous sources to provide "evidence" of guilt in the article needs to be restricted as a matter of policy. | ||
| :No, I'm afraid that you are not correct. What you're doing is not making the article more neutral, but making the article less neutral. The sources in question are major newspapers, which are considered ] by Misplaced Pages. If you aren't able to find a way to stop disrupting the article on ], you will certainly be blocked from further edits. I want to make sure you are fairly warned before that happens. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | :No, I'm afraid that you are not correct. What you're doing is not making the article more neutral, but making the article less neutral. The sources in question are major newspapers, which are considered ] by Misplaced Pages. If you aren't able to find a way to stop disrupting the article on ], you will certainly be blocked from further edits. I want to make sure you are fairly warned before that happens. -]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] · ])</span> 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| FairyQueen--if you don't stop with these intimidation tactics of making threats perhaps you should be banned. My edits have been helpful in providing neutrality in an article that once was far more biased against the accused. Theo789 | |||
| == Edit warring. Does NOT Apply to BIO of Living Persons == | == Edit warring. Does NOT Apply to BIO of Living Persons == | ||
Revision as of 17:30, 4 May 2009
|
April 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Philip Markoff has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Misplaced Pages. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Misplaced Pages. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search, http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search (redirect from http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162619985050&ref=search)).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Misplaced Pages's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheFeds 20:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Caylee Anthony homicide
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Caylee Anthony homicide. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please do not continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Caylee Anthony homicide. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. TheFeds 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the problem: you're introducing information into a controversial article in a suspicious way. It looks like you're inserting weasel words into several paragraphs, including vociferous denials of guilt. You say you're looking for sources—and that's good—but the proper way to edit this is to find your sources first, then make the edit, so that everyone can see these are verifiable.
Also, don't belabour the point about guilt or innocence—that's already clear from the article, and by adding it frequently, it looks like you're trying to advance a biased viewpoint. Why don't you assure us that you're not trying to skew the article in favour of some point of view? TheFeds 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The Feds:
I don't understand your comment--"Don't belabor the point about guilt or innocence, that is already clear from the article." What do you mean by this? Are you saying that it is already clear that she is guilty so that there is no point to discuss it?
May 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philip Markoff. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Please seek consensus on the talk pages.
Hi, Theo789. Regarding your edits to Philip Markoff and Caylee Anthony homicide, I think you should consider seeking consensus on the talk pages before making any more edits. You have seen that many users have a problem with your edits, though many of have been willing to engage on the talk pages, so why not just make a case BEFORE making potentially contentious edits to controversial articles? Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I made only a few minor edits on the Casey Anthony page since there seems to be such hyper-sensitivity about anyone making changes which do not support the view that she is guilty even before there is a trial.
- That's misleading. The article says that she has been charged, not convicted, and twice states that she and her family maintain her innocence. The article only reflects what has been reported, and does not make any claims about her guilt or innocence. Not to mention that you aren't really responding to my suggestion - I didn't say anything about specific edits, just that it is good etiquette to seek consensus. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that seeking consensus is the best way to proceed, but that is not what you did. I tried making a few very, very minor changes to the Caylee article and you immediately reverted them within minutes. Why did you not seek consenus before deleting such very minor changes? If you are seeking consensus from others, then why not adopt that approach yourself with your edits? That Caylee article is not neutral in my view. But to present additional info would only create a hassle, based on what I have seen so far.
- The difference is that the editors who reverted your changes were reverting back to the already established consensus version, while you were making substantial changes to the consensus version. Dawn Bard (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Substantial changes"? That is a misrepresentation. I added a sentence that said that Casey Anthony maintains her innocence, and a sentence that the cause of death had not been determined. Within just a few minutes you had deleted the additions. It seems you just did not want any statements at all that might support the other side--the side of the accused (who I might add is innocent until proven guilty). Theo789
Neutrality
I have reviewed your contributions, and almost all of them seem to be focused on the same purpose- adjusting articles to reflect a specific point of view about Philip Markoff, namely, that he is innocent of the crime of which he is accused. Neutrality is important for an encyclopedia, and editors whose main purpose is pushing a specific opinion are sometimes blocked from editing. We all have subjects about which we care so passionately that it's hard to write neutrally- it's sometimes a good idea to just refrain from editing, or edit very minimally, in those areas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- By the way- you appear not to know how to sign your posts? You can sign by typing four tildes after your comment- it looks like ~~~~. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the article should be NEUTRAL. The Markoff article when I first came upon it read like a story about a serial attacker, which is not the reality. I made numerous edits to tone it down from what it was--which was an extremely biased one-sided article. I think it is much more balanced now, but it took a lot of effort to get it to that point. It is not that I care so much about the accused man Markoff, it is that I object to one sided articles that paint someone as guilty before he or she has been convicted of anything. That is not NEUTRAL. This article is about a living person, so needs to avoid being defamatory. I think that Mr. Wales needs to know that some of these articles are painting subjects as guilty before they are convicted, which could pose problems for him if they are later acquited and turn around and sue him for defamation. In particular, the use of anonymous sources to provide "evidence" of guilt in the article needs to be restricted as a matter of policy.
- No, I'm afraid that you are not correct. What you're doing is not making the article more neutral, but making the article less neutral. The sources in question are major newspapers, which are considered reliable sources by Misplaced Pages. If you aren't able to find a way to stop disrupting the article on Philip Markoff, you will certainly be blocked from further edits. I want to make sure you are fairly warned before that happens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
FairyQueen--if you don't stop with these intimidation tactics of making threats perhaps you should be banned. My edits have been helpful in providing neutrality in an article that once was far more biased against the accused. Theo789
Edit warring. Does NOT Apply to BIO of Living Persons
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Philip Markoff. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Dawn Bard, you have been making all these threats since I first tried to make some simple basic edits on the Caylee Anthony thread.You come across as retaliatory. Why don't you stop reverting the edits of others and then there would be no need to revert back. Plus, the three revert rule does NOT apply to Biographies of Living Persons when there are issues of libel, which is what my edits are trying to address in the Markoff article. So once again your threats are misplaced.
- You're starting to use words like 'libel' and 'sue.' Be very, very cautious- users who make legal threats are required to be immediately blocked, and you're very close to that line. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Too funny! The lack of basic fairness of some of the editors here is stunning. Now FisherQueen is concocting the claim that I have made a 'threat' of legal action. No I made no threat at all. But FisherQueen is now making an unsubstantiated threat, which is just harassment.
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)