| Revision as of 13:18, 30 October 2005 editThivierr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,779 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:19, 30 October 2005 edit undoThivierr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,779 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| Rob the change "reason why she left" was NOT my opinion I put the opinion based on local newspapers articles (they don't seem to be on the internet or I would give you link to them) Personally it doesn't matter to me, I just think the correct info. should be posted without a political agenda. Infact I like your idea of "future edits .... greater deal of scrutiny" I think all edits should need some kind of process to prove it is fact. I understand that this may be difficult to enforce. | Rob the change "reason why she left" was NOT my opinion I put the opinion based on local newspapers articles (they don't seem to be on the internet or I would give you link to them) Personally it doesn't matter to me, I just think the correct info. should be posted without a political agenda. Infact I like your idea of "future edits .... greater deal of scrutiny" I think all edits should need some kind of process to prove it is fact. I understand that this may be difficult to enforce. | ||
| :First, getting an account, would be good, as it provides a better way for people to communicate with you. As it stands, any page you use, is shared with others (who probably don't care for the conversation). Second, you can still cite a source if it's a newspaper. Check out various other articles which do this, and take a look at ] and ]. Essentially, information such as publication name, date, page author, etc.. must be provided (if there's no url). If it's a quote, you put in quotation marks. You must make clear its an opinion *not* state it as fact. You must also show other opinions, including the subject of the article's opinion (which is probably the replacement was qualified). Around here, if something's unverifiable, than it's as bad as being false. As for enforcement, verifiability is easy to enforce. We just delete and revert unverifiable claims, as I did with the ]. I don't have to prove a claim is false to remove it, just that it's unverifiable, which is much easier. --] 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | :First, getting an account, would be good, as it provides a better way for people to communicate with you. As it stands, any page you use, is shared with others (who probably don't care for the conversation). Second, you can still cite a source if it's a newspaper. Check out various other articles which do this, and take a look at ] and ]. Essentially, information such as publication name, date, page author, etc.. must be provided (especially if there's no url). If it's a quote, you put in quotation marks. You must make clear its an opinion *not* state it as fact. You must also show other opinions, including the subject of the article's opinion (which is probably the replacement was qualified). Around here, if something's unverifiable, than it's as bad as being false. As for enforcement, verifiability is easy to enforce. We just delete and revert unverifiable claims, as I did with the ]. I don't have to prove a claim is false to remove it, just that it's unverifiable, which is much easier. --] 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:19, 30 October 2005
Alan Shefman
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 04:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- (The anon nominator's reasoning is "False information posted, Not notable, attempt to use as advertising for his company, attempt to use as political tool". —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
Delete not notable, false info. posted, no other vaughan councillor posted, involved in crimminal activity, speading propaganda, racist against some ethnic groups (see http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/world01/canad-school.htm ), never served as national director of b'nai brith he was employed by b'nai brith in a minor role but was fired, fired from Ontario human rights commission, asked to leave and then he resigned as school trustee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
- Speedy Keep (without prejudice against a legit AFD) - Anons who blank pages should not be able to nominate. The above cited story seems to actually give the person a little bump of notability. I think this AFD should be de-listed. After removal, if somebody else wishes to nominate them (based on them being merely a local politician), than I would respect that. --rob 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Seems to be factually correct as far as I can see. Motivation for original Vfd seems to be due to an argument and not in good faith. , .--Alicejenny 11:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete if kept then update with fatual information. to Thivierr, I am new here, I originally understood by blanking the page was the process to delete it (my fault for this). This page was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith about the false information about the National Director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)
- Misplaced Pages is awfully forgiving of one-time mistakes. We generally don't call the first mistake vandalism. But you did it repeatedly, and you put a personal put-down as "fact" in the article itself. Then, you proceeded to remove a link to the page. Please realize repeated acts like this are not ok. Normally, local politicians like this don't get articles, but frankly, your convincing me this person seems to be notable, as he's gotten a lot of attention. --rob 12:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- The nominator is asked to please read User talk:64.231.242.98. --rob 12:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Thivierr/rob, As I mentioned I am new here the changes I made I understood was the proper process. Misplaced Pages and yourself can do what ever you feel is correct but this page wit the incorrect info. about the National Director of b'nai brith was brought to my attention from the B'nai Brith as I am a member of b'nai brith Canada. Your other comment about the other change to another article was base on facts in local newspapers she admitted to this. It in not my oppinion. I beleive this Shefman article is posted for nothing more than to pursue his own politcal agenda
- The other article you are referring to is Susan_Kadis. In your first edit you changed the text "She" to "He". These types of changes are completely unacceptable. Also, please realize, its fairly easy to monitor these changes, and undo all of them, and take action to prevent further ones. --rob 12:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Rob you were referring to the "reason why she left change" not the "he" "She" change. The "he" "she" change was a mistake, I corrected it. look in the history.
- Yep, it was a mistake. Yes, you did correct it. However, it taints your future edits in the eyes of others (me at least). Please, don't be surprised if subsequent edits are given a greater deal of scrutiny as a result. Also, in the "reason why she left", you put your *opinion" that her replacement was unqualified (with no citation of who said it). We go by a neutral point of view at wikipedia, not bias. You're not welcome to push a one-sided opinion in any article. When you stick the facts, and avoid your own personal opinion, you'll find your contributions welcomed. --rob 12:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Rob the change "reason why she left" was NOT my opinion I put the opinion based on local newspapers articles (they don't seem to be on the internet or I would give you link to them) Personally it doesn't matter to me, I just think the correct info. should be posted without a political agenda. Infact I like your idea of "future edits .... greater deal of scrutiny" I think all edits should need some kind of process to prove it is fact. I understand that this may be difficult to enforce.
- First, getting an account, would be good, as it provides a better way for people to communicate with you. As it stands, any page you use, is shared with others (who probably don't care for the conversation). Second, you can still cite a source if it's a newspaper. Check out various other articles which do this, and take a look at WP:CITE and WP:V. Essentially, information such as publication name, date, page author, etc.. must be provided (especially if there's no url). If it's a quote, you put in quotation marks. You must make clear its an opinion *not* state it as fact. You must also show other opinions, including the subject of the article's opinion (which is probably the replacement was qualified). Around here, if something's unverifiable, than it's as bad as being false. As for enforcement, verifiability is easy to enforce. We just delete and revert unverifiable claims, as I did with the Susan_Kadis. I don't have to prove a claim is false to remove it, just that it's unverifiable, which is much easier. --rob 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)