Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrDarcy (talk | contribs) at 06:06, 12 December 2006 (→Ron Jeremy: policy questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leave a message.

Ron Jeremy

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ron Jeremy. Please be careful not to remove content from Misplaced Pages without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tabercil 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Misplaced Pages articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Tabercil 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Tabercil 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Tabercil 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the info that could be seen as defamatory and contrary to the WP:BLP policy. Please exercise some sort of control when dealing with these sort of things. Blanking an article in this way is the equivalent of using a nuke to kill a spider... If there are further issues, please only remove the specific information you have a problem with. Thanks, Localzuk 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that your argument that removing libel from an article is exempt from the 3rr is correct - but in this case would be wrong. What you were doing is blanking an article, not removing libel from an article - this is a content dispute and as such would feel the full force of WP:3RR. Also note that blocks would be given out regardless of 3RR to prevent disruption, which edit warring is. -Localzuk 23:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, reverting wholesale blanking does not equate to 'adding' information. It equates to undoing the ill-advised and/or over the top actions of another user, in this case yourself. As I said, exercise tact, if you think an individual item is wrong, remove it - don't blank pages.-Localzuk 23:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's one example of a bad removal. The idea is to remove information that is libelous or defamatory towards the subject, but being the target of a stalker hardly qualifies. I have restored the information with a citation (the third google hit was a BBC story). Allow me to join with a few other editors in asking you to be more judicious in your removals. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that could be considered a bad removal since you took the trouble to find a source before re-adding it. Sorry, I don't think you have the necessary understanding of BLP and WP:V to advise me on the subject. Frise 05:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the lack of understanding of BLP is yours, although I doubt we're going to get anywhere given the attitude you displayed in that last post. The issue at hand is controversial content, which should be removed on sight, and it appears now that you're doing so quite a bit, which is good work. But removing non-controversial content and citing BLP (which you do in every such edit summary) is an improper use of the policy, which specifies such remedies for "controversial" or "contentious" content (from the verifiability policy: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons immediately and do not move it to the talk page"). Much of what you're removing isn't controversial, contentious, or obviously incorrect, but is simply unsourced. Stick to the controversial or contentious content and you'll be safely within the policy you're citing, with just about every experienced editor (including me) applauding your efforts. (And FWIW, I took the trouble to find sources before re-adding material because I try to source every bit of content I add. It's just good practice.) | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that I can be repeatedly accused of vandalism, WP:POINT, and sockpuppetry, and yet you single out this edit and tell me that I have an attitude. Since you seem to be in a mood to review edits, perhaps you should take some time to warn Tabercil and Localzuk for reverting the Ron Jeremy article to a previously vandalized state four and two times, respectively. Or do they get a pass because they agree with you? Frise 05:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I have not said anything to those editors is not an endorsement of what they've done - in fact, I can't speak to what they've done at all, as I've been focused on trying to restore legitimate content you've deleted while improperly citing BLP. Indeed, this is all beside the point. You're misusing BLP and Verifiability to remove all unsourced content, rather than removing controversial content while tagging innocuous but unsourced content. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, second graf, for more pointers in that direction, in addition to the two pieces I cited in my last comment. Why are you citing policies that don't support your actions? Why are you ignoring parts of those policies that mandate a more conservative approach to non-controversial material? (Note: restored this discussion as well as warnings. Please archive old messages, but don't delete them.) | Mr. Darcy talk 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing

Frise, thanks for removing this unsourced statement. I'd say it was correct on the basis of BLP alone, but if you add the editor's history of inserting unsourced attacks like that into articles, it makes perfect sense to remove it. Good job.--Kchase T 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated, thank you. Frise 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)