| Revision as of 14:52, 27 May 2017 editNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,494 editsm Reverted edits by The Diaz (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:13, 9 June 2017 edit undoAttentiontoDetails (talk | contribs)57 edits →You removed one of my editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=781482931 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=781482931 --> | ||
| Again, even though the tweet was poorly worded it means nothing. You are saying that my sources are not a reliable, colleges and university never use Misplaced Pages as a reliable resource. Sounds like that you are biased and want to erase what this man said, however whether he said he said it poorly or not, he is a public figure, and it's still history and it was said. If it is too controversial for your perhaps you need not to be here. Nance said it therefore it should be mentioned. Every time there is a negative mark on a liberal entity, people are quickly try to erase by justifying as not free speech, poorly said, unreliable resources, fake news, a right wing or left wing conspiracy, etc... What if CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS mentioned the tweet? Would you call them reliable? They are not reliable either, they are all biased based on their political views. I have seen many controversy removed with some explanation that is fruitless as the one you described the removal of my paragraph. If you have a problem with being unbiased and to resolve at our level perhaps we need to escalate this higher. I am trying to work with you here and add the stipulation so we all can agree with. | |||
| We should not alter history to inflate one side. You said "Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda." Does it make it right for everyone follow the shepherd that leads his sheep to a cliff? We all are biased but as mature adults we need to set aside our biased ideologies and come together as people and compromise. I am going to add a stipulation and if you want to add more to it go ahead-- we should find middle ground and we should not dismiss one person's comment because it makes Nance or his political party look bad. It was said and he is a public figure so he has to live with it like everyone one else. Once he comes back and says "What I meant was..." then we can add his explanation. | |||
| ] (]) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == You removed one of my edits == | == You removed one of my edits == | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 9 June 2017
Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello NorthBySouthBaranof,
Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 823 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!
But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.
Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, even though the tweet was poorly worded it means nothing. You are saying that my sources are not a reliable, colleges and university never use Misplaced Pages as a reliable resource. Sounds like that you are biased and want to erase what this man said, however whether he said he said it poorly or not, he is a public figure, and it's still history and it was said. If it is too controversial for your perhaps you need not to be here. Nance said it therefore it should be mentioned. Every time there is a negative mark on a liberal entity, people are quickly try to erase by justifying as not free speech, poorly said, unreliable resources, fake news, a right wing or left wing conspiracy, etc... What if CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ABC, CBS mentioned the tweet? Would you call them reliable? They are not reliable either, they are all biased based on their political views. I have seen many controversy removed with some explanation that is fruitless as the one you described the removal of my paragraph. If you have a problem with being unbiased and to resolve at our level perhaps we need to escalate this higher. I am trying to work with you here and add the stipulation so we all can agree with.
We should not alter history to inflate one side. You said "Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda." Does it make it right for everyone follow the shepherd that leads his sheep to a cliff? We all are biased but as mature adults we need to set aside our biased ideologies and come together as people and compromise. I am going to add a stipulation and if you want to add more to it go ahead-- we should find middle ground and we should not dismiss one person's comment because it makes Nance or his political party look bad. It was said and he is a public figure so he has to live with it like everyone one else. Once he comes back and says "What I meant was..." then we can add his explanation.
AttentiontoDetails (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You removed one of my edits
For a lack of validity in the publication I posted - yet other sources in the page are from personal blogs... Care to explain why? If I cite a government source will you allow it? Feel free to sanction me away - I've yet to break a single rule in the Misplaced Pages court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swreynolds92 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- User:Swreynolds92 Welcome to Misplaced Pages — you are new at editing, and you have leaped to insert yourself into a contentious, sensitive issue relating to a living person. Misplaced Pages is not a court; we are a collaborative Internet encyclopedia project. We have policies and standards for writing about living people and one of those is upholding high standards for sourcing of material. The Daily Mail does not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required for such sourcing. Moreover, the issue you are editing has been rehashed several times and there is a standing consensus for the wording in question. If you wish to modify it, you will need reliable sources and consensus on the article talk page. I invite you to discuss your proposed changes in more detail on that page, and I will also warn you that making unsupported or poorly-supported claims about living people can and will lead to sanctions under the biographies of living persons policy. We are required to treat living people with sensitivity, fairness and neutrality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Great to hear! When will Misplaced Pages start "requiring" to treat things with "neutrality." As far as I can see/read it's mostly a biased agenda. Am I missing something?
- If you have general questions about Misplaced Pages's policies, the place to ask about them would be the Village Pump for Policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)