| Revision as of 17:15, 6 November 2008 editToddst1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors137,716 edits Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material on Intelius. using TW← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:24, 7 November 2008 edit undoSomeguy1221 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators41,264 edits →November 2008: final warningNext edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| ] Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's ] by adding your personal analysis or ] into articles{{#if:Intelius|, as you did to ]}}, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-nor3 --> ] <small>(])</small> 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | ] Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's ] by adding your personal analysis or ] into articles{{#if:Intelius|, as you did to ]}}, you will be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-nor3 --> ] <small>(])</small> 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ''"citing as an authoritative source another Misplaced Pages entry where you, in fact, contributed to the content without external references"'' - I actually don't know what this is in reference to, as I was only citing the offical policies of Misplaced Pages. But I believe that those policies have been made abundantly clear to you by this point. A ] is one that has a '''reputation for fact checking and accuracy'''. Customers, either as individuals or in a group, are not a reliable source. Consumer complaints that haven't been reported or echoed by actual reliable sources represent an ] point of view. If you really really disagree on this point, you are free to pursue ]. But I'm still going to make one final warning: If you continue to inject unreferenced or poorly referenced negative material into the article ], you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:24, 7 November 2008
|
Your edit to Intelius has been reverted as failing to comply with the neutral point of view policy. Customer testimony is not a reliable source for information on Misplaced Pages, and anything sourced only to it will be removed. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You may want to actually read Misplaced Pages:Reliable source. Customer testimony is not a reliable source, as it is only a stone's throw from original research. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Such a reputation does not exist with random individuals. Until their complaints have been echoed by actual reliable sources, your edits will continue to be reverted as blatant violations of the neutral point of view. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi There SpanishBabe, This self-proclaimed 'anti-vandalism' czar is just another one of many on here who terrorize through various obfuscated policies, there were maybe a few style related issues with your additions, but, they were factual and verifiable. Not sure if anything can be done about people like SomeGuy1221, but I just wanted to let you know that rational people agree with you, and that it sucks when community appointed people cannot tell the difference between a normative statement and an objective statement.--76.167.247.33 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelius. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Intelius, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
"citing as an authoritative source another Misplaced Pages entry where you, in fact, contributed to the content without external references" - I actually don't know what this is in reference to, as I was only citing the offical policies of Misplaced Pages. But I believe that those policies have been made abundantly clear to you by this point. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Customers, either as individuals or in a group, are not a reliable source. Consumer complaints that haven't been reported or echoed by actual reliable sources represent an insignificant point of view. If you really really disagree on this point, you are free to pursue dispute resolution. But I'm still going to make one final warning: If you continue to inject unreferenced or poorly referenced negative material into the article Intelius, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)