| Revision as of 09:46, 24 May 2013 editMartin Hogbin (talk | contribs)20,189 edits →Rob Ford← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:44, 24 May 2013 edit undoMay122013 (talk | contribs)373 edits removing non-applicable warning as 3RR does not apply with excluding contentious negative rumours from a BLPNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| == Rob Ford == | == Rob Ford == | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> -] (]) 04:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for your response on the Rob Ford page. I think what is happening there is far too common in WP. Articles are seen by opponents and those with complaints and grudges (sometimes justified) as soapboxes to promote a negative image of the subject . The problem is that the media abounds with negative comments about everyone and every organisation except the very few who have not yet fallen from grace. This makes it easy to claim a reliable source for vast 'Criticism' sections. I am trying to raise the matter ] | :Thanks for your response on the Rob Ford page. I think what is happening there is far too common in WP. Articles are seen by opponents and those with complaints and grudges (sometimes justified) as soapboxes to promote a negative image of the subject . The problem is that the media abounds with negative comments about everyone and every organisation except the very few who have not yet fallen from grace. This makes it easy to claim a reliable source for vast 'Criticism' sections. I am trying to raise the matter ] | ||
Revision as of 12:44, 24 May 2013
Welcome
Hello, May122013, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Attribution language
I’m “100% certain” that you’re correct about the need for attribution. We can’t say “Swartz hanged himself”; nor can we say “Swartz reportedly hanged himself”. The language we’re discussing does meet the guideline: “A spokeswoman for New York’s Medical Examiner reported he had hanged himself.”
I’d now like to draw your attention to the Arrest and state charges section. See Talk. And do reread WP:ER (more than once) before editing. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
my Former User Name
I had the User:Mr.grantevans2 user name but have not edited in a long time and have forgotten my password for that user name. May122013 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Rob Ford
- Thanks for your response on the Rob Ford page. I think what is happening there is far too common in WP. Articles are seen by opponents and those with complaints and grudges (sometimes justified) as soapboxes to promote a negative image of the subject . The problem is that the media abounds with negative comments about everyone and every organisation except the very few who have not yet fallen from grace. This makes it easy to claim a reliable source for vast 'Criticism' sections. I am trying to raise the matter here