User talk:Smallnslow

Willie Manning
Your edits to Willie Manning are unhelpful. Please read the WP:NPOV and WP:RS policies to learn how articles are to reflect a neutral point of view and be built from reliable sources. You repeatedly remove the lede statement that Manning is a convicted murderer on death row. That is a fact. It does not reflect any point of view. Your editing implies that he is not a convicted murderer, that he somehow just happened to wind up on death row, the way a person winds up in a wrong parking lot. You are pushing a point of view. Specifically, do not remove verifiable facts from the article and replace links to reliable sources with links to POV sources. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your advice. I've read the pages. I noticed Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View – Words to Watch: Strive to eliminate expressions that… endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). Reliable sources don’t use words such as ‘a convicted murderer, or ‘murdered’, instead they say 'so and so was convicted of murder'. For instance, 'Associated Press, January 16 2011: Manning was also convicted and sentenced to death’; Washington Post, May 8, ‘Manning was convicted of Mississippi State University students’. In other words, reliable sources don't eliminate the possibility that there may be a wrongful conviction. Departing from this consensus of usage departs from neutrality, so, in fact, the language that you are using is not neutral. This issue is particularly important because of the position of this sentence at the beginning of the article - the chosen wording may influence the reader’s interpretation of the whole of the rest of the article. A quotation/ quotations from a well-established news source, such as from the two Associated Press articles that I used, would avoid the potential for a biased viewpoint to dominate the article. I also noticed two points in Wikipedia – identifying reliable sources. 1) News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. 2)Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The source that you've used for the Early Lifesection is from a less-established outlet so has a greater potential to be unreliable than if it were from a well-established outlet, like Associated Press. If it was a reliable news story it would demonstrate balance, but it doesn’t - it doesn’t include an alternative or mitigating view of Manning's early life. The article is therefore unreliable as a news story. I suggest you use a reliable source instead, or omit the text altogether. Smallnslow (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will greatly scale back the "early life" section that you have identified as troublesome. As of now, I am unaware of any other reliable sources for Manning's early life.  I reject the notion that the local newspapers in Starkville and Columbus are not reliable sources.  The Washington Post doesn't cover murders in Mississippi.  Furthermore, the phrase "is/was a convicted murderer" is a common one in the lede of articles about murderers on Wikipedia.  See Ira Einhorn, Wayne Williams, Christopher Porco, Erwin James, Eric Naposki, Stacey Castor, Daniel Petric, Maurice Boucher, Duane Earl Pope, William Kemmler, Clarence Hill (murderer), Billy Bailey, Brian Steckel, and many others.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which I'm responding to: < I reject the notion that the local newspapers in Starkville and Columbus are not reliable sources.> Wikipedia does not state that such outlets are not reliable, only that they’re generally considered less reliable: Wikipedia states “News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.” The implication is that such sources should be treated with caution and scrutinized carefully, rather than necessarily not be used. Wikipedia states “Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis”. In this case the article in question is unreliable as a news story because it makes no attempt at balance. Without appropriate balance it is, effectively, an opinion piece disguised as a news piece. Moreover, in depicting Manning negatively this story seems to support the view that he’s a murderer, which in Wikipedia’s terms is an ‘extraordinary claim’. Wikipedia states “Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.” < I will greatly scale back the "early life" section that you have identified as troublesome. As of now, I am unaware of any other reliable sources for Manning's early life.> It’s not enough to scale back your reference to this article. As an unreliable source used to support an extraordinary claim, all references to this article should be removed.  Wikipedia states ‘Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.’ So your point here is invalid. It’s the language in reliable sources that’s relevant. Reliable sources use language that doesn’t exclude the possibility that Manning was wrongfully convicted. In order to be neutral, your language should conform with the language in reliable sources. Your language by these standards isn’t neutral – it’s biased. The wording needs to be changed.Smallnslow (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policy states: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. I’ve removed everything related to a news outlet that appears to lack editorial control and judgment. This outlet published an extremely one-sided article that presented the subject negatively, at a time when well-established news outlets were focusing on a wider controversy about the subject. This constitutes tabloid journalism and should be removed. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. I’ve removed everything that’s based on court records. BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone. I’ve altered the wording in the lead to make it neutral. Smallnslow (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You aren't following the policies I referred you to. There are now several editors keeping an eye on your edits to this article.  Why don't you learn how to edit by working on something less controversial, like daisy? Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your last edit to this article removed pertinent information, but you said all you did was change a reference. Do not remove sourced information. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC) I’ve copied your most recent comment to the article Talk page. Please use the correct page in future when commenting about the article.Smallnslow (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Willie Jerome Manning has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Willie Jerome Manning was changed by Smallnslow (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954777 on 2014-02-24T23:29:49+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Smallnslow, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Willie Jerome Manning has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 14:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)