Hello, Nicetry8, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Greg Kelly, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 ( talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Nicetry8. I noticed you keep adding additional material about the BuzzFeed page to the Greg Kelly article. When editing articles, Wikipedia allows editors to include an "Edit summary", which can be used to explain why certain changes are being made to articles. When you look at the history for the article in question, you'll see that I removed some material about the BuzzFeed page for the following reason: "Two paragraphs about the rape accusation is too much. After all, Kelly was not charged. Even mentioning the BuzzFeed article may be too much." Your edits seem to indicate that you disagree with my reasoning. In my opinion summarizing what the BuzzFeed page contains, as you did, is disproportionate. All allegations were dropped and Kelly was not charged. Please share your thoughts. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, ask for a third opinion. Maria's reputation should not continued to be tarnished and her legacy be that of a "criminal" i.e. reporting a false crime, as articles such as Andrea Peyser's and others by the NY Post (his company) more than suggests. She too is innocent in all of this.
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on User:Nicetry8 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
I have read the article and the prior edits carefully. In my opinion, there are several problems with the material that has been added by NiceTry8. First: speaking of "the re-victimization of the accuser in the New York City press" is a possibly libelous statement, since it was never determined that she was in fact victimized a first time. Second: even if "re-victimization" were replaced with another word, it still speaks of "the victimization of the accuser in the press" as if it were a matter of encyclopedic fact, when it is a matter of opinion and subjective interpretation. Such a statement is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia-type reference. If the press said "X and Y," then (assuming it were relevant here) it should be stated as a matter of fact what they indeed said. Third: the sentence "The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp" seems like too much of a detour in what is supposed to be a biographic article. It is a clear invitation for the reader to wonder about the involvement (or possible shared bad motives) of these news corporations. A biography of a living person is not really the place to conduct a mini-trial of two news corporations. IMO, that sentence should be removed and the statement about Buzzfeed condensed to one sentence. Keeping a single sentence reference at the end of the paragraph is a good compromise. After all, every person who makes a public accusation has a story to tell, and a biographic article of the person they accused is not ordinarily the place to insert statements bolstering or impeaching either the personal character or believability of the accusers, or the merits of their accusations. To do so will risk having articles devolve into pure "character trials," with a parade of sources lined up on either side, and spilling into the text of the article. I can fully understand and appreciate the desire of Nicetry8 to ameliorate some of the damage that was done to the accuser's personal character as a result of her encounter with the press. That is a noble goal. However, the article on Greg Kelly is not the most appropriate space to do this. For the above reasons, I support reverting the current version of the page back to IP 82.136.210.153's suggested version here: [1]. Xanthis ( talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, Nicetry8, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Greg Kelly, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Flyer22 ( talk) 12:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Nicetry8. I noticed you keep adding additional material about the BuzzFeed page to the Greg Kelly article. When editing articles, Wikipedia allows editors to include an "Edit summary", which can be used to explain why certain changes are being made to articles. When you look at the history for the article in question, you'll see that I removed some material about the BuzzFeed page for the following reason: "Two paragraphs about the rape accusation is too much. After all, Kelly was not charged. Even mentioning the BuzzFeed article may be too much." Your edits seem to indicate that you disagree with my reasoning. In my opinion summarizing what the BuzzFeed page contains, as you did, is disproportionate. All allegations were dropped and Kelly was not charged. Please share your thoughts. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 16:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, ask for a third opinion. Maria's reputation should not continued to be tarnished and her legacy be that of a "criminal" i.e. reporting a false crime, as articles such as Andrea Peyser's and others by the NY Post (his company) more than suggests. She too is innocent in all of this.
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on User:Nicetry8 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
I have read the article and the prior edits carefully. In my opinion, there are several problems with the material that has been added by NiceTry8. First: speaking of "the re-victimization of the accuser in the New York City press" is a possibly libelous statement, since it was never determined that she was in fact victimized a first time. Second: even if "re-victimization" were replaced with another word, it still speaks of "the victimization of the accuser in the press" as if it were a matter of encyclopedic fact, when it is a matter of opinion and subjective interpretation. Such a statement is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia-type reference. If the press said "X and Y," then (assuming it were relevant here) it should be stated as a matter of fact what they indeed said. Third: the sentence "The New York Post and Fox 5 New York WNYW (Kelly's employer) are both owned by News Corp" seems like too much of a detour in what is supposed to be a biographic article. It is a clear invitation for the reader to wonder about the involvement (or possible shared bad motives) of these news corporations. A biography of a living person is not really the place to conduct a mini-trial of two news corporations. IMO, that sentence should be removed and the statement about Buzzfeed condensed to one sentence. Keeping a single sentence reference at the end of the paragraph is a good compromise. After all, every person who makes a public accusation has a story to tell, and a biographic article of the person they accused is not ordinarily the place to insert statements bolstering or impeaching either the personal character or believability of the accusers, or the merits of their accusations. To do so will risk having articles devolve into pure "character trials," with a parade of sources lined up on either side, and spilling into the text of the article. I can fully understand and appreciate the desire of Nicetry8 to ameliorate some of the damage that was done to the accuser's personal character as a result of her encounter with the press. That is a noble goal. However, the article on Greg Kelly is not the most appropriate space to do this. For the above reasons, I support reverting the current version of the page back to IP 82.136.210.153's suggested version here: [1]. Xanthis ( talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) |