User talk:JaniceMT: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:22, 20 May 2009 editJaniceMT (talk \| contribs)65 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:23, 20 May 2009 edit undoJaniceMT (talk \| contribs)65 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:Your insistence on inserting the Canadian Children's Rights Council links to news stories when they are not necessary and in fact inappropriate is ] that has more to do with promoting their page than it does with improving wikipedia. The CCRC is a biased source that inappropriately pushes a single veiwpoint and suggests unwarranted interpretations on its readers. You know this, because I pointed it out yesterday regards ], yet you persist in shoving them onto the page. Is there a reason you think restrictions on convenience links would apply to one page but not the other? Including external links to news stories is not necessary and for a scholarly page, rather inappropriate. Including links that contain blatant advertising for a highly partisan group is even less appropriate. Sources do not need to be linked, and should not be linked when it results in an inappropriate external page showing up on wikipedia. You are also reverting to a version which removes verified information published in reliable sources, with no good reason and clearly against consensus, and you have engaged on an article's talk page about any of the issues raised. You are making claims that ] suggest are clearly ]. You are pushing for the summary of a study that is '''not yet published''', when the summary is provided by '''the same site that was held up as inappropriately biased in several venues''', while removing the link to a functioning '''respected news source'''. You are describing the summary as "" when it is very obviously not. You are shoving, repeatedly, without reason, a series of highly problematic links onto the page and claiming the support of policies you don't understand. So stop. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		:Your insistence on inserting the Canadian Children's Rights Council links to news stories when they are not necessary and in fact inappropriate is ] that has more to do with promoting their page than it does with improving wikipedia. The CCRC is a biased source that inappropriately pushes a single veiwpoint and suggests unwarranted interpretations on its readers. You know this, because I pointed it out yesterday regards ], yet you persist in shoving them onto the page. Is there a reason you think restrictions on convenience links would apply to one page but not the other? Including external links to news stories is not necessary and for a scholarly page, rather inappropriate. Including links that contain blatant advertising for a highly partisan group is even less appropriate. Sources do not need to be linked, and should not be linked when it results in an inappropriate external page showing up on wikipedia. You are also reverting to a version which removes verified information published in reliable sources, with no good reason and clearly against consensus, and you have engaged on an article's talk page about any of the issues raised. You are making claims that ] suggest are clearly ]. You are pushing for the summary of a study that is '''not yet published''', when the summary is provided by '''the same site that was held up as inappropriately biased in several venues''', while removing the link to a functioning '''respected news source'''. You are describing the summary as "" when it is very obviously not. You are shoving, repeatedly, without reason, a series of highly problematic links onto the page and claiming the support of policies you don't understand. So stop. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
	::You are deleting links to citations stating "" - the study was never linked, and we do not need to link it. It is up to '''you''' to demonstrate that the citation does not support the point. You have completely failed to ] or in any way treat other editors with anything but contempt. I am getting increasingly irritated at your failure to take any advice or even review your actions, and by your blatant push of a single interpretation of events and removal of sources that contradict that interpretation. But I don't think you'll listen to anything I say anyway, so I'll just wait until you are blocked then undo the damage. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)		::You are deleting links to citations stating "" - the study was never linked, and we do not need to link it. It is up to '''you''' to demonstrate that the citation does not support the point. You have completely failed to ] or in any way treat other editors with anything but contempt. I am getting increasingly irritated at your failure to take any advice or even review your actions, and by your blatant push of a single interpretation of events and removal of sources that contradict that interpretation. But I don't think you'll listen to anything I say anyway, so I'll just wait until you are blocked then undo the damage. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

	== Are you kidding? ==

	How does edit help the page? There is a google books link to , are you going to replace the citation? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:23, 20 May 2009

Hello, JaniceMT! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting Started
Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Stop

You are not an expert and even if you were, your opinion is not sufficient to change the page
You are removing verified information from reliable sources with no consensus and no reasoning
You are adding inappropriate convenience links which you know are problematic and several editors have pointed out should not be used
You are not using the talk page and simply edit warring]

Stop what you are doing, you will almost certainly be blocked just for what you have done to date; by stopping now you will show good faith and civility for experienced, long-term contributors. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence on inserting the Canadian Children's Rights Council links to news stories when they are not necessary and in fact inappropriate is spamming of an external website that has more to do with promoting their page than it does with improving wikipedia. The CCRC is a biased source that inappropriately pushes a single veiwpoint and suggests unwarranted interpretations on its readers. You know this, because I pointed it out yesterday regards parental alienation, yet you persist in shoving them onto the page. Is there a reason you think restrictions on convenience links would apply to one page but not the other? Including external links to news stories is not necessary and for a scholarly page, rather inappropriate. Including links that contain blatant advertising for a highly partisan group is even less appropriate. Sources do not need to be linked, and should not be linked when it results in an inappropriate external page showing up on wikipedia. You are also reverting to a version which removes verified information published in reliable sources, with no good reason and clearly against consensus, and you have never engaged on an article's talk page about any of the issues raised. You are making claims that the sources suggest are clearly undue weight. You are pushing for the summary of a study that is not yet published, when the summary is provided by the same site that was held up as inappropriately biased in several venues, while removing the link to a functioning respected news source. You are describing the summary as "a study" when it is very obviously not. You are shoving, repeatedly, without reason, a series of highly problematic links onto the page and claiming the support of policies you don't understand. So stop. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You are deleting links to citations stating "link to citation not working any more" - the study was never linked, and we do not need to link it. It is up to you to demonstrate that the citation does not support the point. You have completely failed to assume good faith or in any way treat other editors with anything but contempt. I am getting increasingly irritated at your failure to take any advice or even review your actions, and by your blatant push of a single interpretation of events and removal of sources that contradict that interpretation. But I don't think you'll listen to anything I say anyway, so I'll just wait until you are blocked then undo the damage. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)