| Revision as of 10:55, 20 December 2005 editDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,038 edits Mediation← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:08, 22 December 2005 edit undoDan100 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,038 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| A mediation request has been made by ], and I'm keen to get this sorted out. Can you explain to me the issues you feel you have been having with that user? If you could, please reply on my talk page. Thanks! ] (]) 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | A mediation request has been made by ], and I'm keen to get this sorted out. Can you explain to me the issues you feel you have been having with that user? If you could, please reply on my talk page. Thanks! ] (]) 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Mediation response== | |||
| First I'd like to thank you both for responding and providing good information for me to work from. I'm going to make a few broad suggestions. | |||
| *Try to add to articles, rather than removing existing material. With ] and ], try and add information without removing text already there. Don't worry if that makes some sections end up larger than others; that happens alot on Misplaced Pages. With time, the other bits will catch up! | |||
| *If something can be said in a ] manner and can be ], it can go in. There should be no arguments over "notability" or the like as that's just not a consideration under Misplaced Pages policy. Basically, if there is a published source for a piece of information, that piece of information should go in (along with a reference to the source). We're ]! | |||
| *]. Obviously both support and criticism for him should be written about, but try to be neutral with your language. contains good information but this part: | |||
| :''In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created by members of the right wing in the United States. Most of these websites have a existing idea that the work of Morgan Spurlock is bad and they have engaged in many of the same kind of activities that they criticize Spurlock for allegedly engaging in.'' | |||
| is poorly written. That's pretty much original research - better just to say ''In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created'' '''period'''. Then the links. | |||
| *Don't check each other's user contributions - that's just asking for trouble. Just keep your eyes on the articles you are concerned about. | |||
| *Try to stay completely unemotional. Just focus on the edits and their validity, and don't discuss anything else such other user's conduct etc. | |||
| *I'd suggest less reverting, as that never ever gets anyone anywhere. Have a look at ]. | |||
| Generally I think only good can come of this - all the articles involved have more information and can be enhanced. | |||
| Please direct your responses to this to my talk page :-) ] (]) 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:08, 22 December 2005
You have good way with words. I like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paeris (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. McNeight 00:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mediation
A mediation request has been made by User:Badlydrawnjeff, and I'm keen to get this sorted out. Can you explain to me the issues you feel you have been having with that user? If you could, please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Dan100 (Talk) 10:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mediation response
First I'd like to thank you both for responding and providing good information for me to work from. I'm going to make a few broad suggestions.
- Try to add to articles, rather than removing existing material. With Republican Party (United States) and Debbie Schlussel, try and add information without removing text already there. Don't worry if that makes some sections end up larger than others; that happens alot on Misplaced Pages. With time, the other bits will catch up!
- If something can be said in a verifiable manner and can be sourced, it can go in. There should be no arguments over "notability" or the like as that's just not a consideration under Misplaced Pages policy. Basically, if there is a published source for a piece of information, that piece of information should go in (along with a reference to the source). We're not short of space!
- Morgan Spurlock. Obviously both support and criticism for him should be written about, but try to be neutral with your language. This contains good information but this part:
- In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created by members of the right wing in the United States. Most of these websites have a existing idea that the work of Morgan Spurlock is bad and they have engaged in many of the same kind of activities that they criticize Spurlock for allegedly engaging in.
is poorly written. That's pretty much original research - better just to say In order to criticizes Morgan Spurlock's documentaries several websites have been created period. Then the links.
- Don't check each other's user contributions - that's just asking for trouble. Just keep your eyes on the articles you are concerned about.
- Try to stay completely unemotional. Just focus on the edits and their validity, and don't discuss anything else such other user's conduct etc.
- I'd suggest less reverting, as that never ever gets anyone anywhere. Have a look at WP:1RR.
Generally I think only good can come of this - all the articles involved have more information and can be enhanced.
Please direct your responses to this to my talk page :-) Dan100 (Talk) 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)