User talk:Silverneedle: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mark Teltscher with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Teltscher with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Atomician (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this happening. I have made it clear in the discussion section why I have removed the section. You say that my content removal is not constructive. Explain how putting unproven allegations on an encyclopedia is constructive?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Teltscher. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed that it is me who is being told that I am in the edit war - what about you? What about this comment :

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

Or do you not care about such matters? Silverneedle (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material in question appears to be properly sourced and cited, and I see no reason to discount the information simply because it portrays the article subject in a negative light. Indeed, to remove such material would be to render the article non-neutral. If you can demonstrate by reference to reliable, verifiable, neutral sources that the material is incorrect, please do so. You are also notified that a discussion of this matter has begun at WP:ANEW. Regards, Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing to do with it portraying the subject "in a negative light" but because it is a based on ALLEGATIONS.While it is true that the section I removed is prefaced by admitting it is allegations, it is still allegations. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Does that not exist on Wikipedia? Is it trial by Wikipedia editor?

Allegations can still be considered notable, and if they're included in such a way that indicates they are only allegations at the time of their inclusion, the article's neutrality is preserved. Including allegations in an article does not indicate supporting those allegations; it simply indicates they exist, and why. As to proving or disproving a given allegation, that's a matter for a court of law. But a lack of a court decision doesn't give anyone peremptory leave to strip cited and sourced material from an article simply because they don't agree with the topic. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, it is not a question of simply not agreeing with the information - it is a question - as I have stated of having reliable information. It seems to me that in your book that if someone is alleged to have committed rape - but there is no court trial and no court decision because there was not sufficient evidence to prove any allegation, possibly because the allegation was totally fictitious, it is perfectly acceptable to put on Wikipedia that XYZ, who may be a living person, is an alleged rapist! I.e A person is not tried in a court of law but his record is stained for ever with a fictitious allegation by the Wikipedia editors. Is this how this web site operates? I can add that it is three years on from these allegations and there is still no proof of any accuracy. Silverneedle (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above should make it clear that Wikipedia operates on reliable, verifiable sources. My comments above should also have made it clear that you removed sourced and cited material. If you have other sources that refute the material, feel free to add them, with proper citations. That's as simple and clear as I can make the explanation. If you need it made clearer and simpler, someone else will have to try. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep highlighting the word "reliable" - as if the sources that are in the Wikipedia entry are reliable.

I read the following elsewhere:

"Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I see unsigned articles on a questionable poker site, a blog entry written by someone with the obviously fictitious name of "Adam Noone", another reference that links to the said blog entry. Perhaps I can write a blog and say the whole thing is totally cock-a-hoop and link to that. This seems to be the standard that is set. Anyone can make an allegation on a blog and it ends up on Wikipedia, and no one is allowed to delete it because you are accused of being a vandal to reliable information!! Silverneedle (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "reliable" is highlighted because it's a link. You might find following that link enlightening. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it and that is from where I copied the extract from that I quoted in my last message. Had you read it, you would have realised that that was where I extracted my quote from. The page is Wikipedi's own page on reliability. Silverneedle (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I await your comments on how reliable the sources used are. Silverneedle (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]