|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
-- Banjeboi
01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:E.O. Green School shooting. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Rivertorch (
talk)
19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The accusation that you made here—that I tried "to influence other editors in 'secret' off-side conversations"—is false, offensive, and arguably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Please consider:
For the record: did I try to influence Moni3? I sure did. She's a terrific editor and a skilled sysop, but I felt she had erred in this case and I called her on it (as I hope that others would do when I err). I violated neither letter nor spirit of any Wikipedia rules, I acted in an open and aboveboard manner, and I would do it exactly the same way again. I ask that you strike the accusation. Rivertorch ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this matter and for removing the word "secret". Friendly hint for future reference: the code <s> (placed before text) and </s> (placed after text) applies strikethru formatting . . . like this. That way, you can cross out a word or phrase without having to explain that it's gone. Re "I would prefer the discussion about a topic to be contained within the topic to ensure all ideas are discussed in a single place", you make a valid point and in a perfect world I'd agree, but, aside from talk page guidelines which discourage non-article-related discussion on article talk pages, as a practical matter threads get too complex and hard to follow if they stray off into the periphery.
Rivertorch (
talk)
19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank, when you first made edits to the E.O. Green School shooting I had assumed you were yet another conservative/anti-gay POV pusher with a singular purpose to edit that particular article (though, to be honest I have that knee-jerk reaction to any newly registered user). However, I see you're honestly trying to work towards neutrality (even if we happen to disagree on what that may include) and I assume you'll be working on wikipedia for quite sometime. I just had to ask, why pick such a nightmare article to work on as you first major contribution? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
More than any other star today, Britney epitomizes the crucible of fame for the famous: loving it, hating it and never quite being able to stop it from destroying you...Even Michael Jackson never deteriorated to the point where he was strapped to a gurney, his madness chronicled by news choppers' spotlights...Every day in L.A., at least a hundred paparazzi, reporters and celebrity-magazine editors dash after her, this braless chick padding around town on hilariously mundane errands — the gas station, the pet store, Starbucks, Rite Aid. The multibillion-dollar new-media economy rests on her slumped shoulders, with paparazzi agencies estimating that she has comprised up to twenty percent of their coverage for the past year. It's not only bottom feeders running after Britney — a recent memo leaked from the Associated Press, which plans to add twenty-two entertainment reporters to its staff, announces that everything that happens to Britney is news (they have already begun preparing her obit). The paparazzi feed the celebrity magazines, which feed the mainstream press, while sources sell their dirtiest material to British tabloids, and then it trickles back to America.
Your edits on the page are being reverted primarily because the two sources you've provided only state that Maher said the word, not that it was significantly notable in any way. I didn't see any evidence of protests in either source.
By the way, you're at three reverts on that article, I would advise you to take your discussion to the talk page of the article and try and explain. Good luck! Dayewalker ( talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you
assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
-- Banjeboi
01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:E.O. Green School shooting. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Rivertorch (
talk)
19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The accusation that you made here—that I tried "to influence other editors in 'secret' off-side conversations"—is false, offensive, and arguably in violation of Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Please consider:
For the record: did I try to influence Moni3? I sure did. She's a terrific editor and a skilled sysop, but I felt she had erred in this case and I called her on it (as I hope that others would do when I err). I violated neither letter nor spirit of any Wikipedia rules, I acted in an open and aboveboard manner, and I would do it exactly the same way again. I ask that you strike the accusation. Rivertorch ( talk) 01:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this matter and for removing the word "secret". Friendly hint for future reference: the code <s> (placed before text) and </s> (placed after text) applies strikethru formatting . . . like this. That way, you can cross out a word or phrase without having to explain that it's gone. Re "I would prefer the discussion about a topic to be contained within the topic to ensure all ideas are discussed in a single place", you make a valid point and in a perfect world I'd agree, but, aside from talk page guidelines which discourage non-article-related discussion on article talk pages, as a practical matter threads get too complex and hard to follow if they stray off into the periphery.
Rivertorch (
talk)
19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
To be perfectly frank, when you first made edits to the E.O. Green School shooting I had assumed you were yet another conservative/anti-gay POV pusher with a singular purpose to edit that particular article (though, to be honest I have that knee-jerk reaction to any newly registered user). However, I see you're honestly trying to work towards neutrality (even if we happen to disagree on what that may include) and I assume you'll be working on wikipedia for quite sometime. I just had to ask, why pick such a nightmare article to work on as you first major contribution? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
More than any other star today, Britney epitomizes the crucible of fame for the famous: loving it, hating it and never quite being able to stop it from destroying you...Even Michael Jackson never deteriorated to the point where he was strapped to a gurney, his madness chronicled by news choppers' spotlights...Every day in L.A., at least a hundred paparazzi, reporters and celebrity-magazine editors dash after her, this braless chick padding around town on hilariously mundane errands — the gas station, the pet store, Starbucks, Rite Aid. The multibillion-dollar new-media economy rests on her slumped shoulders, with paparazzi agencies estimating that she has comprised up to twenty percent of their coverage for the past year. It's not only bottom feeders running after Britney — a recent memo leaked from the Associated Press, which plans to add twenty-two entertainment reporters to its staff, announces that everything that happens to Britney is news (they have already begun preparing her obit). The paparazzi feed the celebrity magazines, which feed the mainstream press, while sources sell their dirtiest material to British tabloids, and then it trickles back to America.
Your edits on the page are being reverted primarily because the two sources you've provided only state that Maher said the word, not that it was significantly notable in any way. I didn't see any evidence of protests in either source.
By the way, you're at three reverts on that article, I would advise you to take your discussion to the talk page of the article and try and explain. Good luck! Dayewalker ( talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)