Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to SK Foods, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
{{
helpme}}
" on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
![]() | You used the {{
Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{
Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the
new contributors help desk, the
help desk, or join the
#wikipedia-en-help
IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click
here for instant access. |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SK_Foods. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
The Bushranger
One ping only
23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SK Foods, and I think there are a few things that need to be made clear to you about the way Wikipedia works.
Firstly, it seems clear that you believe that Mr Salyer has been the victim of some injustice, and that the record needs to be set straight - and I can't say whether you're right or wrong. But the thing is, Wikipedia cannot be used for that purpose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and can only reflect what has been written by reliable sources (click the link to learn about what they are). Wikipedia can not be used to make allegations against other people or organizations, unless you have reliable sources that explicitly support those actual allegations.
So, for example, you cannot claim that Mr Salyer was abused by person X unless you provide a reliable source that documents the actual abuse by person X against Mr Salyer - using a source that describes unrelated allegations about person X but doesn't even mention Mr Salyer, as you did, is not acceptable. As another example, if Mr Salyer's pleading guilty has a reliable source, then that can be included, but you cannot say he pleaded guilty only because he had been threatened with a lengthy sentence, if the source does not explicitly say that.
Those are just two examples, but your version of the article was full of similar allegations, some of them criminal, aimed at both named individuals and named organizations, but not supported by any reliable sources. And that is a serious violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy and forbidden.
You may believe that what you wrote is correct based on your own experience and/or investigation, but that constitutes Original Research, and is not allowed. You may also, perhaps, believe that what you wrote constituted fair deductions and conclusions from the documents you have seen, but that would be classed as Synthesis and again not allowed.
Anyway, people have questioned whether SK Foods is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion, and you are welcome to comment on the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SK Foods.
But please, you really must not add material of the kind you have been adding to the article, and you must not repeat the kind of allegations you have been making, against people or organizations. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's just a couple of examples to illustrate some of the problems. In the latest version, you made these additions, amongst others...
Do you begin to understand what I'm trying to explain here? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
OK Thank you so much for starting to help this page. I am starting to get it. Was not easy for me to differentiate facts that are in the actual file and whatever they put out through the news sources which, unfortunatetly is skewed to support their partnership's agenda and makes a factual encyclopedic entry difficult. Where this is thing is going is in the direction of Fast and Furious. It is just such a bad thing. But to me the WIKI effort still appears to push one side. I found this statement in the source you included - "Defense attorney Malcolm Segal said the allegations are without merit and we intend to litigate this to conclusion." The Government did actually drop the false info regarding the supposed consortium between Ingomar, Los Gatos and SK Foods formation in 2005 and dropped the actual charges. There must be a news source in the March 2012 range that discusses that the 5 7 12 13 charges all piled up were dropped down to one RICO and one Anti Trust. Something that reads unbiased is my goal. So I will definitly avoid glowing, I didn't mean to glow. Can I put up some edit ideas on this talk page and have you read them rather than put them on the actual SK Foods article until I become more proficient at this?
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to SK Foods, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
{{
helpme}}
" on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
![]() | You used the {{
Help me}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{
Help me}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the
new contributors help desk, the
help desk, or join the
#wikipedia-en-help
IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click
here for instant access. |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors, as you did on
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SK_Foods. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
The Bushranger
One ping only
23:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You've seen the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SK Foods, and I think there are a few things that need to be made clear to you about the way Wikipedia works.
Firstly, it seems clear that you believe that Mr Salyer has been the victim of some injustice, and that the record needs to be set straight - and I can't say whether you're right or wrong. But the thing is, Wikipedia cannot be used for that purpose - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and can only reflect what has been written by reliable sources (click the link to learn about what they are). Wikipedia can not be used to make allegations against other people or organizations, unless you have reliable sources that explicitly support those actual allegations.
So, for example, you cannot claim that Mr Salyer was abused by person X unless you provide a reliable source that documents the actual abuse by person X against Mr Salyer - using a source that describes unrelated allegations about person X but doesn't even mention Mr Salyer, as you did, is not acceptable. As another example, if Mr Salyer's pleading guilty has a reliable source, then that can be included, but you cannot say he pleaded guilty only because he had been threatened with a lengthy sentence, if the source does not explicitly say that.
Those are just two examples, but your version of the article was full of similar allegations, some of them criminal, aimed at both named individuals and named organizations, but not supported by any reliable sources. And that is a serious violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy and forbidden.
You may believe that what you wrote is correct based on your own experience and/or investigation, but that constitutes Original Research, and is not allowed. You may also, perhaps, believe that what you wrote constituted fair deductions and conclusions from the documents you have seen, but that would be classed as Synthesis and again not allowed.
Anyway, people have questioned whether SK Foods is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion, and you are welcome to comment on the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/SK Foods.
But please, you really must not add material of the kind you have been adding to the article, and you must not repeat the kind of allegations you have been making, against people or organizations. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, here's just a couple of examples to illustrate some of the problems. In the latest version, you made these additions, amongst others...
Do you begin to understand what I'm trying to explain here? -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
OK Thank you so much for starting to help this page. I am starting to get it. Was not easy for me to differentiate facts that are in the actual file and whatever they put out through the news sources which, unfortunatetly is skewed to support their partnership's agenda and makes a factual encyclopedic entry difficult. Where this is thing is going is in the direction of Fast and Furious. It is just such a bad thing. But to me the WIKI effort still appears to push one side. I found this statement in the source you included - "Defense attorney Malcolm Segal said the allegations are without merit and we intend to litigate this to conclusion." The Government did actually drop the false info regarding the supposed consortium between Ingomar, Los Gatos and SK Foods formation in 2005 and dropped the actual charges. There must be a news source in the March 2012 range that discusses that the 5 7 12 13 charges all piled up were dropped down to one RICO and one Anti Trust. Something that reads unbiased is my goal. So I will definitly avoid glowing, I didn't mean to glow. Can I put up some edit ideas on this talk page and have you read them rather than put them on the actual SK Foods article until I become more proficient at this?