This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JaniceMT (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 20 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:22, 20 May 2009 by JaniceMT (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
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)
Are you kidding?
How does this edit help the page? There is a google books link to page 263, are you going to replace the citation? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 20:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)