User:RicoCorinth/bookmarks

Adding an NPOV dispute page
"If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."

Full Protection. Fundamental policy and guideline violations (e.g., WP:V) and misinterpretations of them (e.g., WP:Undue weight); edit-warring; repeated reversions; mutual disrespect all around; unpersuasive justifications from editors that just want to do whatever they want, and realize that any unpersuasive argument advances their cause -- or no discussion in the case of summarily removed maintenance tags; material citing peer-reviewed books published by university presses is being removed, with unsourced opinion as the justification; mostly unsourced content being added -- and can't be stopped, because of all of the reversions; tags are just being deleted without explanation.

The article has been recently tagged. There had been no prior discussion of the bias the editor alleged, but the editor won't substantially describe what the editor considers unacceptable about the article — and address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings alleged to be problematic. The editor alleges WP:Undue weight, but doesn't know or won't recognize the limitations on WP:Undue weight.

So editors are scrambling to try to figure out what the editor wants, editing things and bumping heads.

There are ownership issues; edits that are more than what they appear to be (e.g., little deletions couched in the middle of massive edits); edits that are declared to be one thing, but are another (e.g., a move that is really a deletion);... Things are getting hot, the law of the jungle is taking over, and the article's suffering.

Please help before anarchy causes any more damage, and I-do-because-I-can becomes legitimized.

Thanks,

68.5.40.61 04:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AMA request
Association of Members Advocates Request

Argyriou removes perfectly valid content without providing any rationale
Argyriou removes perfectly valid content without providing any rationale at all

Only make links that are relevant to the context
Only make links that are relevant to the context

It's better to have no information, than to have information with no sources
insist on sources

"Is that true? Is it not true?  As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know.  If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

Where I found text to use to justify deleting a post on the HOA talk page
Talk_page_templates

To find a template to use to site a court case
Citing sources

Reply
Reliable sources

No original research

Editing policy

External links

Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

Wikipedia Links
Possibly_unfree_images

Image_copyright_tags

Requests for comment