| Revision as of 22:45, 17 January 2015 editGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators93,886 edits →Read this before you edit the GamerGate article again please: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:46, 17 January 2015 edit undoGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators93,886 edits Reverted to revision 642959586 by Singdavion (talk): Never mind, I see you've already been notified. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| Again, please read ] ''in full''. Misplaced Pages is ]. Adding your disparaging, personal opinions about living persons is unacceptable. Linking to a source that we will ''never'' use per ] and using it to add disparaging opinions about living persons is also unacceptable. Please stop before this leads to a block. ] (]) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | Again, please read ] ''in full''. Misplaced Pages is ]. Adding your disparaging, personal opinions about living persons is unacceptable. Linking to a source that we will ''never'' use per ] and using it to add disparaging opinions about living persons is also unacceptable. Please stop before this leads to a block. ] (]) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Read this before you edit the GamerGate article again please == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A ] has authorised the use of ] for pages related to the ].<br>The details of these sanctions are described ]. | |||
| ] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged ]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. | |||
| | Commons-emblem-notice.svg | |||
| | icon size = 50px}} ] <small>(])</small> 22:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:46, 17 January 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Singdavion, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.
Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page (Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.
There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.
Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Misplaced Pages. But also like Misplaced Pages, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).
Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.
My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.
Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! --TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
BLP
Before saying anything further, I would stop and read WP:BLP in full. You've moved from linking to WP:BLP violating content off-wiki to making disparaging comments about living persons on-wiki. This can and does lead to a block. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, please read WP:BLP in full. Misplaced Pages is not a forum to discuss the subject. Adding your disparaging, personal opinions about living persons is unacceptable. Linking to a source that we will never use per WP:BLPPRIMARY and using it to add disparaging opinions about living persons is also unacceptable. Please stop before this leads to a block. Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)