| Revision as of 18:56, 23 May 2017 editNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits →You removed one of my edits: rp← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:59, 23 May 2017 edit undoSwreynolds92 (talk | contribs)21 edits →You removed one of my editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| For a lack of validity in the publication I posted - yet other sources in the page are from personal blogs... Care to explain why? If I cite a government source will you allow it? Feel free to sanction me away - I've yet to break a single rule in the Misplaced Pages court of law. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | For a lack of validity in the publication I posted - yet other sources in the page are from personal blogs... Care to explain why? If I cite a government source will you allow it? Feel free to sanction me away - I've yet to break a single rule in the Misplaced Pages court of law. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :{{User:Swreynolds92}} Welcome to Misplaced Pages — you are new at editing, and you have leaped to insert yourself into a contentious, sensitive issue relating to a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a court; we are a collaborative Internet encyclopedia project. We have policies and standards for ] and one of those is upholding high standards for sourcing of material. The Daily Mail does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for such sourcing. Moreover, the issue you are editing has been rehashed several times and there is a standing consensus for the wording in question. If you wish to modify it, you will need reliable sources ''and'' consensus on ]. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes in more detail on that page, and I will also warn you that making unsupported or poorly-supported claims about living people can and will lead to sanctions under the ]. We are ''required'' to treat living people with sensitivity, fairness and neutrality. ] (]) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) | :{{User:Swreynolds92}} Welcome to Misplaced Pages — you are new at editing, and you have leaped to insert yourself into a contentious, sensitive issue relating to a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a court; we are a collaborative Internet encyclopedia project. We have policies and standards for ] and one of those is upholding high standards for sourcing of material. The Daily Mail does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for such sourcing. Moreover, the issue you are editing has been rehashed several times and there is a standing consensus for the wording in question. If you wish to modify it, you will need reliable sources ''and'' consensus on ]. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes in more detail on that page, and I will also warn you that making unsupported or poorly-supported claims about living people can and will lead to sanctions under the ]. We are ''required'' to treat living people with sensitivity, fairness and neutrality. ] (]) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC) | ||
| - Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda. Am I missing something? | |||
Revision as of 18:59, 23 May 2017
Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Southern Poverty Law Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 813 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
You removed one of my edits
For a lack of validity in the publication I posted - yet other sources in the page are from personal blogs... Care to explain why? If I cite a government source will you allow it? Feel free to sanction me away - I've yet to break a single rule in the Misplaced Pages court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swreynolds92 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Swreynolds92 Welcome to Misplaced Pages — you are new at editing, and you have leaped to insert yourself into a contentious, sensitive issue relating to a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a court; we are a collaborative Internet encyclopedia project. We have policies and standards for writing about living people and one of those is upholding high standards for sourcing of material. The Daily Mail does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for such sourcing. Moreover, the issue you are editing has been rehashed several times and there is a standing consensus for the wording in question. If you wish to modify it, you will need reliable sources and consensus on the article talk page. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes in more detail on that page, and I will also warn you that making unsupported or poorly-supported claims about living people can and will lead to sanctions under the biographies of living persons policy. We are required to treat living people with sensitivity, fairness and neutrality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda. Am I missing something?