|
Hey, thanks for creating the account! You're right, if they're removing well-sourced, neutral info without discussion that's wrong. I'm certainly not endorsing the existing material or others' behavior; I'm merely explaining what you need to do in order not to be reverted. You should ask on the talk page and on the users' talk pages what the problem was with the material. If they explain it, try to address the problems. If they don't respond, let me know, I'll look at it and see what I can do. Peace, delldot talk 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, have you looked at the latest version of the article? I think the changes made may address some of your concerns. You can retrieve past versions of articles and differences between revisions by clicking on the " history" tab at the top of the article and finding dates of the changes in question (or just by looking at each one using the "last" links).
- You're right that non-neutral info is not allowed. If you think the article is not neutral, you'll have to discuss it with other users until you can find a compromise. Honestly, the article in its current state looks pretty neutral to me; it's merely stating facts. It's acceptable to report that so-and-so notable party argued such-and-such, as long as you have a reliable source. Your info should not be removed without discussion if it is reliably sourced (note that an advocacy website is not a reliable source; go for a news piece about the advocacy group's argument). If someone has done that, you should address it with them, either on the article's talk page or the user's, and go through dispute resolution if necessary. Peace, delldot talk 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what an individual editor knows, it matters what's been reported in reliable sources. The reason I called that a fact is that it's a fact that Planned Parenthood published such a rebuttal. A reliable source says that planned parenthood says that, so that's includable information. As I've said, all you need to do is find a reliable source that covers the information you want to add, and you can add it (assuming it's relevant and conforms with other policies, etc). Peace, delldot talk 07:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Elrondaragorn, thanks for your hard work to understand the policies. Please read the reliable sources policy and let me know if you still have any questions. Advocacy groups on either side of the debate do not count as reliable sources; it must be a neutral published source. Peace, delldot talk 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am posting here in response to your third opinion request. Please allow some time for discussion to occur on the article's talk page. An outside opinion is difficult to provide when the disagreement is not discussed. In general, I would recommend you tone down your posts a notch and take a breath. Making allusions to communist propaganda and the like is not going to help improve the article. Similar, blanking the article and inserting commentary into the article is not going to help the situation. One of the best things I could recommend is to find the most reliable sources available about the topic and simply provide a summary of what they state about the topic. For anything that may be contentious or contested, it is important that the article statements are referenced to highly reputable sources. A "balanced" article in the Wikipedia sense is only tangentially related to presenting all sides or making sure every view is heard. Rather, it is focused on providing an overview of what the reliable published literature has to say about the matter (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The best thing you can do to start is calmly and politely raise your issues on the talk page and find the best available sources to expand the article. If you're still encountering problems at that point, please feel free to ask again for an outside opinion or ask for advice from an experienced user. I hope this advice and explanation helps. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I almost forgot! To see previous revisions, click on the history (or hist) link next to "article" at the upper left of where the article appears. You can view any previous version of the article there. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Down syndrome, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Empty Buffer (
talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for
your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Down syndrome appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Empty Buffer (
talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I took a shot at answering your question over at the Editor assistance board -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (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 may also click on the signature button
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. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove images from articles because you consider them "offensive" without first getting a consensus to do so on the article's talk page. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NGC 3377, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=NGC-3377.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 20:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
as soon as the bot told me I couldn't do this I deleted it. Why is this still an issue a month after I deleted it myself?. I don't do wikipedia well, I'm a rookie and when I ask for advice on how to do it better these inquiries for the most part go unanswered
elrondaragorn ( talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't an issue any more. You removed the copyrighted material, so there's no reason for anyone to do anything. Hut 8.5 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Hi Elrondaragorn! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
|
Hey, thanks for creating the account! You're right, if they're removing well-sourced, neutral info without discussion that's wrong. I'm certainly not endorsing the existing material or others' behavior; I'm merely explaining what you need to do in order not to be reverted. You should ask on the talk page and on the users' talk pages what the problem was with the material. If they explain it, try to address the problems. If they don't respond, let me know, I'll look at it and see what I can do. Peace, delldot talk 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, have you looked at the latest version of the article? I think the changes made may address some of your concerns. You can retrieve past versions of articles and differences between revisions by clicking on the " history" tab at the top of the article and finding dates of the changes in question (or just by looking at each one using the "last" links).
- You're right that non-neutral info is not allowed. If you think the article is not neutral, you'll have to discuss it with other users until you can find a compromise. Honestly, the article in its current state looks pretty neutral to me; it's merely stating facts. It's acceptable to report that so-and-so notable party argued such-and-such, as long as you have a reliable source. Your info should not be removed without discussion if it is reliably sourced (note that an advocacy website is not a reliable source; go for a news piece about the advocacy group's argument). If someone has done that, you should address it with them, either on the article's talk page or the user's, and go through dispute resolution if necessary. Peace, delldot talk 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what an individual editor knows, it matters what's been reported in reliable sources. The reason I called that a fact is that it's a fact that Planned Parenthood published such a rebuttal. A reliable source says that planned parenthood says that, so that's includable information. As I've said, all you need to do is find a reliable source that covers the information you want to add, and you can add it (assuming it's relevant and conforms with other policies, etc). Peace, delldot talk 07:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Elrondaragorn, thanks for your hard work to understand the policies. Please read the reliable sources policy and let me know if you still have any questions. Advocacy groups on either side of the debate do not count as reliable sources; it must be a neutral published source. Peace, delldot talk 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am posting here in response to your third opinion request. Please allow some time for discussion to occur on the article's talk page. An outside opinion is difficult to provide when the disagreement is not discussed. In general, I would recommend you tone down your posts a notch and take a breath. Making allusions to communist propaganda and the like is not going to help improve the article. Similar, blanking the article and inserting commentary into the article is not going to help the situation. One of the best things I could recommend is to find the most reliable sources available about the topic and simply provide a summary of what they state about the topic. For anything that may be contentious or contested, it is important that the article statements are referenced to highly reputable sources. A "balanced" article in the Wikipedia sense is only tangentially related to presenting all sides or making sure every view is heard. Rather, it is focused on providing an overview of what the reliable published literature has to say about the matter (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The best thing you can do to start is calmly and politely raise your issues on the talk page and find the best available sources to expand the article. If you're still encountering problems at that point, please feel free to ask again for an outside opinion or ask for advice from an experienced user. I hope this advice and explanation helps. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I almost forgot! To see previous revisions, click on the history (or hist) link next to "article" at the upper left of where the article appears. You can view any previous version of the article there. Cheers! Vassyana ( talk) 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
Down syndrome, please cite a
reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at
Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Empty Buffer (
talk) 14:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for
your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Down syndrome appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
Empty Buffer (
talk) 14:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I took a shot at answering your question over at the Editor assistance board -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 16:00, 26 July 2010 (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 may also click on the signature button
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. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk) 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove images from articles because you consider them "offensive" without first getting a consensus to do so on the article's talk page. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of NGC 3377, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://blackholes.stardate.org/directory/factsheet.php?p=NGC-3377.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot ( talk) 20:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
as soon as the bot told me I couldn't do this I deleted it. Why is this still an issue a month after I deleted it myself?. I don't do wikipedia well, I'm a rookie and when I ask for advice on how to do it better these inquiries for the most part go unanswered
elrondaragorn ( talk) 15:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't an issue any more. You removed the copyrighted material, so there's no reason for anyone to do anything. Hut 8.5 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
Hi Elrondaragorn! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|