| Revision as of 05:30, 4 February 2013 editIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,216 edits →Chess.com: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:35, 4 February 2013 edit undoIhardlythinkso (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers75,216 edits →Editing policies: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| Adding it is nothing more that ]. You might happen to think that passing "information" that no sources at all is fine, but this is an encyclopedia, not scribbles on a bathroom wall. You are the one seeking to inculcate negative editing habits in our new users, obviously. ] (]) 04:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) | Adding it is nothing more that ]. You might happen to think that passing "information" that no sources at all is fine, but this is an encyclopedia, not scribbles on a bathroom wall. You are the one seeking to inculcate negative editing habits in our new users, obviously. ] (]) 04:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Back up. What are you saying is ], specifically? Verifiability and references are used in articles, to support claims or assertions made. What specific assertion or claim is being made, do you say, by including chess.com in this List? (Also, are you really applying the ] criteria for this list uniformly to the other members in the list? Maybe you have, I dunno. The IP asked a fair question about that, or don't you think so?) ] (]) 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:35, 4 February 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing on the page List of Internet chess servers. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages forever.
Chess.com
No problem, I'll be happy to explain the distinction to you. Right now I'm watching the Super Bowl so give me a few hours but I promise I will return. Are you a member of chess.com by any chance? OGBranniff (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- This question of the IP user is also inappropriate. (What if he is or isn't? It's irrelevant, and also none of your business.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it inappropriate? I was just attempting to humanize the guy. OGBranniff (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Editing policies
Hello! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The encyclopedia has a few basic requirements for adding content:
1. The material must be verifiable. That means that anything you add has to be reported in a reliable source independent of its subject. Misplaced Pages is not for "original research." Therefore, you may have personal knowledge that a certain website exists, but unless you can cite an independent source for this claim, it cannot be added to Misplaced Pages. The verifiable policy for sources is an absolute must on Misplaced Pages. For more information, see WP:V and WP:RS.
2. The subject of the addition must be "notable." For web content, this generally means that the subject be covered in a substantial, non-trivial way by independent, reliable sources. (Think peer-edited books, newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times, even reputable computer magazines like "Wired.") For more information on this requirement, see WP:WEB.
3. The problem with adding chess.com to the list is that the addition of the material violates the Misplaced Pages policies for "Verifiable Sources," "Notability for web content," and "Reliable Sources." WP:V WP:WEB and WP:RS. Another issue is that "chess.com" gets no leeway to further violate these policies since the consensus of the Misplaced Pages editorial membership is that "chess.com" has not demonstrated notability on a scale sufficient to warrant mention here. see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Chess.com(As opposed to Internet Chess Club or Chesscube, both of which have been extensively covered in reliable, peer-edited sources.)
Thank you and if you have any questions feel free to contact me anytime.
OGBranniff (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- OGBranniff, the criteria of notability for an article, is not the same, different from, the criteria for article content. (So to equate the two, is not correct.) Also, you should pull back from accusing the IP user of vandalism ... it was in no way interpretable as other than a good-faith edit -- vandalism is something altogether different. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, even article content is subject to WP:V and Reliable Sources. Unless an independent reliable source can be produced that states that "chess.com" is an internet chess server then it cannot be added to the list. OGBranniff (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have a black & white view of this ("cannot" is not right), and, were misleading the IP user. You don't have an accurate understanding of WP:V IMO, and are using it like a club. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding it is nothing more that WP:OR. You might happen to think that passing "information" that no sources at all is fine, but this is an encyclopedia, not scribbles on a bathroom wall. You are the one seeking to inculcate negative editing habits in our new users, obviously. OGBranniff (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Back up. What are you saying is WP:OR, specifically? Verifiability and references are used in articles, to support claims or assertions made. What specific assertion or claim is being made, do you say, by including chess.com in this List? (Also, are you really applying the WP:V criteria for this list uniformly to the other members in the list? Maybe you have, I dunno. The IP asked a fair question about that, or don't you think so?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)