| Revision as of 01:39, 11 October 2006 editMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:50, 11 October 2006 edit undoMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| I have reverted this edit on ]. It is very important for you to understand ], also known as ], which mandates careful following of the main Misplaced Pages policies ] and ] especially with respect to articles on living people, like Eric Lerner. What you added is unsourced negative information that does not exist in sources: no one has written enough about Lerner to make claims like that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | I have reverted this edit on ]. It is very important for you to understand ], also known as ], which mandates careful following of the main Misplaced Pages policies ] and ] especially with respect to articles on living people, like Eric Lerner. What you added is unsourced negative information that does not exist in sources: no one has written enough about Lerner to make claims like that. ]]<sup>]</sup> 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm surprised you bring up that paragraph because it specifically condemns the edit of yours that I reverted. Go look at that quote from Jimbo again. What he is saying there is that theories someone espouses shouldn't necessarily make it into the encyclopedia. The separation between ones that should and ones that shouldn't is whether or not they've been published. Right? Well, Lerner's theories are real and have received significant coverage. However, ''your'' theory that Lerner's work has been ignored by the mainstream community remains something that you conclude, based on no sources any one has presented. It may be true, but if you can't source it, your theory is just like the physics crankery Jimbo is talking about. It has no place on the encyclopedia without sourcing. And while we're at it, I advise you to reexamine your attitude about Lerner. You may think he's a "physics crank" but (1) he's well-published and his theories are notable, and (2) regardless of anything else, he is a public figure and deserves fair and careful treatment. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:50, 11 October 2006
| This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JBKramer/Archive/Dec06. Sections without timestamps are not archived |
Your edits to Sexually transmitted disease
Your change to the page Sexually transmitted disease was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) .
Smart's photo
I fail to understand the definition of "A photo that merely shows what a person looks like" means? Should then a photo of Smart show him naked additionally? Its a very vague clause. The point I am making is that it is from Smart's own site, and neither Smart nor supreme_cmdr who is arguably smart himself or at the least a associate of him has objected to the picture being included on the bio. So it can be considered fair use. Please correct me if i am wrong as i am a new user.Kerr avon 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Misleading edit summaries
Do not use misleading edit summaries. JBKramer 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please check the history and provide summaries and diffs as to what you feel are misleading. Thank you. -- Avi 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. -- Avi 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Civility
Please remeber that civility is just as important a policy here. I am afraid the following examples are not so civil: The word "irony" is OR, the tone was shit, and it is a phrasing that is POV - you imply negatives. I suggest you go edit an article not about a blog slapfest., Edit summary of same "go be useful", Edit summary of article (remove WP:OR, tag content for people in blogslapfests posting about their stupid fucking blogs). Thank you. -- Avi 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are quite welcome. Now go be useful. JBKramer 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this now. There is no need for this level of incivility, which can very quickly become disruptive. Just use the edit summary to neutrally and narrowly describe your edit. Tom Harrison 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hoaxes
Please can you help me out! I am quite new here and I think someone has been using my account for evil! I am not a vandal! I have made some good edits, and I am currently spending my spare time re-writing the Sachenspiegel article. I think these people are tarnishing my name, and you are adding to that! Please help! CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you
Thank-you very much for your support and help regarding these hoaxes that are in my name. I know now I can count on a rational and civil wiki-friend in the future. Thanks again, CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Civility
I would appreciate it very much if you did not make false claims about me. If you do so again, I will have no recourse but to report you. Uzumaki 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is my second request. Please stop making false claims about me and being incivil. Uzumaki 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with whoever Freestylefrappe is. Now LEAVE ME ALONE. I have filed for advocacy against you and resent your and your cronies continued incivil attacks against me. Uzumaki 20:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:LIVING
I have reverted this edit on Eric Lerner. It is very important for you to understand WP:LIVING, also known as WP:BLP, which mandates careful following of the main Misplaced Pages policies verifiability and neutrality especially with respect to articles on living people, like Eric Lerner. What you added is unsourced negative information that does not exist in sources: no one has written enough about Lerner to make claims like that. Mangojuice 01:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you bring up that paragraph because it specifically condemns the edit of yours that I reverted. Go look at that quote from Jimbo again. What he is saying there is that theories someone espouses shouldn't necessarily make it into the encyclopedia. The separation between ones that should and ones that shouldn't is whether or not they've been published. Right? Well, Lerner's theories are real and have received significant coverage. However, your theory that Lerner's work has been ignored by the mainstream community remains something that you conclude, based on no sources any one has presented. It may be true, but if you can't source it, your theory is just like the physics crankery Jimbo is talking about. It has no place on the encyclopedia without sourcing. And while we're at it, I advise you to reexamine your attitude about Lerner. You may think he's a "physics crank" but (1) he's well-published and his theories are notable, and (2) regardless of anything else, he is a public figure and deserves fair and careful treatment. Mangojuice 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)