Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 14 September 2008

Welcome

Hello, Dstern1, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Banjeboi 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

and again

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. -- Banjeboi 02:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I must object to the revisionism. I have corrected errors and provided sources. Obviously, somebody has political motives for canceling my corrections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstern1 (talk • contribs)

Revisionism is more about rewriting history. I was removing slanderous content on a biography of a living person. We have stricter rules on what we can say on these biographies and about living people anywhere. You should also be aware that all Sarah Palin related content, as well as the other main candidates, I believe, are closely watched. If you have a WP:reliable source besides that blog, which does not seem to qualify as reliable, I'm open to including it in some way as it relates to the Feminists For Life article. We don't publish thing just because they are true but because they are both true and verifiable. That blog was hypothesizing that the child might not be hers. Not good enough for our purposes here. If it's true those media researching it will publish something useful which we can then look to adding. -- Banjeboi 03:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have resubmitted my corrections. I have provided reference from Republican Party literature. Please do not reverse my corrections.Dstern1 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you are working to more fully source these statements, this is generally a good thing. I've had to revert these changes, however, as they aren't supported by reliable sources and putting "supposedly" in reference to Palin giving birth to a child widely confirmed as her own is blatantly against our WP:BLP policy. We don't infer someone isn't the parent of their child without very good references.

In addition, she is sourced as being pro-contraception and the Republican party document doesn't state she isn't. These are both issues that may be discussed better on the Sarah Palin article as there are folks there who may be able to find the references to support what you think is accurate. -- Banjeboi 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

and again

You're again deleting sourced information and inserting that

"As a candidate for Vice-President, Palin is supporting rights for healthcare professionals to deny access to contraception." That may be true but is not supported by the source you provided - the 2008 Republican platform, which is not attributable to Palin specifically. It doesn't mention her at all so we cannot synthesize that because she is the Republican VP candidate she supports every item that that extensive document covers. The only mention of contraceptives I found was:

This quote supports that the Republican platform in 2008 supported parental rights of consent for treatments including contraceptives, and abortion. We don't know if Palin supports or opposes this and I'm not sure it's that significant for the Feminists For Life article. It might be useful to an article about contraceptive issues in US politics. -- Banjeboi 01:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I quote the GOP platform: "Protecting Rights of Conscience

The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling. No health care professional – doctor, nurse, or pharmacist – or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, or refer for a health care service against their conscience for any reason. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities."

The context is contraception. This is her CURRENT campaign plank. This is what she is currently supporting as a candidate for Vice-President.

Again, rather than allow outdated information to remain in the article, I have chosen specifically delete the information in dispute and I added a statement of her current endorsed position. After she ends her media black-out, more clarification is possible. For now, she has publicly endorsed the platform as written.Dstern1 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You need a better source for this. You need a reliable source that says this is her policy and she wants ______. The information that was in the article is not disputed, it's sourced. If we have a new source showing her position has changed we report both. -- Banjeboi 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the question to the Feminists for Life discussion page. It is not in dispute that she has endorsed the platform as written. It is also common knowledge that she has declined to clarify any differences she may have with the platform. Are you looking for an article saying as much?Dstern1 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC) See Dstern1 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article may help to show how she has declined to offer such clarifcation.Dstern1 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These articles don't show she supports the platform simply that she's not accessible to the media for two weeks. I responded to your question on the FFL talkpage but the answer is no different than what I've stated above, we need reliable sources for this information. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance on this issue

Hello, Dstern1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sarah Palin spillover to Feminists For Life. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GOP platform opposes contraception

Hello, can you show me where the GOP platform states its opposition to contraception, as you claim it does? I can only find the part where it says it favors parental consent for providing contraceptives to children. Mike R (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I read what you wrote above. Mike R (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policies

Hi, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. There are a few policies that you should definitely be aware of based on your edits so far:

1. The three-revert rule: If you make more than three reverts (undoing someone else) on a page in 24-hours that's pretty much an automatic block unless you're undoing vandalism. If you continue to edit war, like you have been doing at Feminists for Life, you may be blocked even if you don't technically break 3RR.
2. WP:BLP. When adding information about living persons, such as Sarah Palin, to any page you must be extra careful that any information you add is accurate and attributed to reliable sources. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. You cannot add unsourced or poorly sourced information such as insinuating that Trig isn't Sarah Palin's baby or that she is anti-contraception (when a multitude of sources plainly say otherwise).
3. No original research (specifically synthesis) - Linking to the Republican party platform and saying that she supports every word in it is original research, unless you can find a source that says that explicitly.

I know those are a lot of policy links, but I hate to see new editors get blocked or have giant red warnings on their talk pages because they weren't aware of policies they were violating. If you have any questions, feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Happy editing, Oren0 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dstern. I think the message from Oren0 may have been based on a misunderstanding. See the topic Sarah Palin spillover to Feminists For Life on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the source of this. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at Dstern's edits myself earlier, all of Oren0's warnings are indeed relevant to this editor. GRBerry 19:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread pointed me to this user but I've drawn my conclusions based on reviewing this editor's edits myself. He has no doubt violated BLP, he has no doubt skirted 3RR, and he is no doubt performing synthesis regarding the party platform. Oren0 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

When Sarah Palin accepted her parties nomination for Vice-President, she officially endorsed the entire platform as written. That is part of accepting the nomination at the convention. Frankly, I do jot presently have the time of inclination to research GOP rules to reference the specific rule though I am quite familiar with the rules of both major parties of my own knowledge. I contend that she has altered her position on contraception; I contend it is misinformation for the FFL to continue to state a position of this person which she has since changed. Rather than say she is now anti-contraception which I cannot presently source; my edit deleted the no longer valid position and gave a statement of her current official position per the Party platform. When she ends her silence, she may indeed express a nuanced position. For now, she has adopted the position as written.Dstern1 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between endorsing the platform and explicitly agreeing to everything in it. It's synthesis unless you can find a source that explicitly states that she supports any individual position on an issue. Furthermore, if you can't find a source indicating her support for something, then that support probably doesn't have enough weight to be included anyway. Oren0 (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Palin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kelly 14:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's water breaking

Hi Dstern1, can you tell me why it is so important or relevant to include the material about her water breaking and her travel plans before giving birth? The consensus before was to limit the family section to basic details and not have undue weight over this. You have reverted this 3 or 4 times in one day which should be avoided. I will revert this back and ask you not to readd this without talk page consensus. Thank you, --Tom 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have broken WP:3RR over this. Also, it further violates 3RR in combination with your other edits to the page in the past 24 hours. Please self-revert, and do not edit war further over this. If you persist I or someone else will probably file a 3RR report and you will likely be blocked for a while from further editing the encyclopedia. There is a consensus against its inclusions. Also, per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA do not call other editors "vandals". WP:VANDALISM does not apply to good faith edits, much less removal of material challenged as being inappropriate and lacking consensus. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did to Sarah Palin, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Ronnotel (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Sarah Palin's water breaking

Please do not reverse the edit.

It is relevant as it is an astonish fact as she reported it. I presented it on the discussion page before editing. I reviewed archives before editing. I saw no consensus for exclusion.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an astonishing fact according to who? On the talk page, it looks like a number of editors would leave it out. Anyways, I would suggest not reverting it again per 3RR, and take it to the talk page further. Also, please don't call it vandalism, its more of a content dispute wjich is much different. Cheers--Tom 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)