Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: If you think those sourced need to be there put them in, stop reverting. And certainly stop putting in the completely irrelevant note about him being pro-choice. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. ] 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
: If you think those sourced need to be there put them in, stop reverting. And certainly stop putting in the completely irrelevant note about him being pro-choice. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. ] 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If pro-choice is irrelevant "Republican" is irrelevant too. Should we take them both out?
Revision as of 03:39, 4 October 2006
Attention:
This IP address, 67.72.98.84, is registered to http://www.att.net/ and may be shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.
If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by irrelevant comments appearing here, you can avoid them by creating an account for yourself.
However, you might still be unable to edit Misplaced Pages if the IP you are using is blocked due to a MediaWiki "feature". In such a case you could request to be unblocked.
In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact http://www.att.net/ to report network abuse.
Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Misplaced Pages to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 67.72.98.84). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Misplaced Pages. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.
Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing.
The Misplaced Pages Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, ask me on ] – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Misplaced Pages.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Misplaced Pages. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. RexNL21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Rock (entertainer) may not be sufficiently well-known to merit articles of their own. The Misplaced Pages community welcomes newcomers, and encourages them to become Wikipedians. On Misplaced Pages, all users are entitled to a user page in which they can describe themselves, and this article's content may be incorporated into that page. However, to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia proper, a subject must be notable. We encourage you to write or improve articles on notable subjects. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Vengeful Cynic04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Evolution (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot04:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, for the sake of understanding, why do you think Evolution never happened? And why do you vandalise articles to make your point? Are you trying to convince yourself? Would you feel it was justified when someone vandalises articles on religion calling them myths? CM
You've twice removed the characterizations of the IMs as sexually explicit. I don't think that characterization is libel. Libel has to be untrue, and the emails are clearly sexually explicit. You've said they are "POV," but on the contrary I think it is an accurate NPOV description. I think NOT having them is POV because it would muffle the seriousness of his actions. Please discuss your concerns on the talk page for that article so the Misplaced Pages community can reach some consensus.--Bibliophylax18:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
All characterizations are POV. Yours was potentially libelous POV. If you really want to tie these descriptors in, find someone noteworthy that claimed this also and then quote them. For example, if you say "Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman..." that's a fact. Bill Clinton did say that. If you leave out the quote and simply say "Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman," that's POV. Understand? --67.72.98.8418:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please read WP:NPOV to get a better understanding of what is POV and NPOV. Further, note that the it is sourced later in the article. Please stop removing it. Thank you. JoshuaZ03:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing libelous or POV about stating that an instant message in which Foley talks about masturbation is "sexually suggestive." In fact, that's a very mild way of putting it. This is clearly not a BLP issue because this is a fact not in dispute. You are encouraged to not disrupt the page by further reversions, as you have reached your three revert rule limit. More changes may subject you to being blocked. FCYTravis03:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. The claim the emails are "sexually suggestive" is your opinion. It is not fact. It is a potentially libelous opinion. Don't forget this wikipedia rule:
Template:Blp/BLPtext
The first source calls it "overtly sexual" and the third calls some of them "sexually explicit". This is well sourced. JoshuaZ03:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Then post it as a quote of someone else's opinion. For example, if you say "Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman..." that's a fact even if Bill Clinton was lying. Bill Clinton did say that. If you leave out the quote and simply say "Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman," that's POV. Understand?
Why do you keep inserting the word "pro-choice" in the first sentence. What has that got to do with anything? Derex03:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Three-revert rule
Please familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's Three_revert_rule before you are blocked for violating it. Since it is not libelious to describe sourced messages about penis size and the like as sexually suggestive, I don't buy that you're working under an exception to the rule.
Familiarize yourself with this Misplaced Pages policy and don't you dare ever delete anything from my discussion page again. That's an automatic ban.
Template:Blp/BLPtext
Media articles that term Foley's messages "sexually suggestive": (693)
Media articles that term Foley's messages "sexually explicit": (1,701)
No. Quote these sources in the article. Not here. Nomatter how many sources you list here, the article will still be POV - potentially libelous POV without direct quoting and sourcing.
If you think those sourced need to be there put them in, stop reverting. And certainly stop putting in the completely irrelevant note about him being pro-choice. If you revert again, you will be reported for 3RR. JoshuaZ03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If pro-choice is irrelevant "Republican" is irrelevant too. Should we take them both out?
Attention:
