User talk:TruthShield

Civility

 * Please try to be more civil to other editors. Your accusation of lack of respect and maturity on the talk page for Ricárdez, as well as implications of intentional destruction of research, is borderline uncivil. Keep in mind that the editor who tagged Ricárdez for speedy deletion is not trying to intentionally remove your work, but instead believes it fits under the category of articles that should be speedily deleted. Thank you, and if you have any questions feel free to reply here or on my talk page. -- GorillaWarfare  talk 06:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Measure for Accuracy
Civility is best exemplified by the respect of others opinions and work. The gutting and stripping of research, cited by some of the most distinguished universities in academia today, is neither civil nor responsible. It is only this that I regret. Only if accuracy were to be awarded with such a vigorous defense. Nonetheless, you are welcome to your opinion as am I :)

TruthShield's Goals
Expository, to strengthen and branch-out, build upon the work of others, these are a few of the many wonderful benefits of Wiki. Thrashing of articles, deletion without discussion, stating inaccuracies. Sadly, these are some of the minuses all to familiar to Wiki.

Our approach is to strengthen and highlight the accuracy of subjects, yet all the while maintain the collective work and dignity of others to this platform. 'Wiki' is an open-air environment. Edits are necessary and ought to be welcome. Contextually, this means research based on solid foundations, with precise and verifiable facts. Politicization or how a particular editor 'feels' about a particular subject or topic is not our objective. Appropriate presentation and accuracy, a tasty writing style. Is this desirable? People of conscious seem to think so.

"Tact missing respect and accuracy from the equation, this predictably amounts to little" TruthShield (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Edits to Ricardez
Well as you can see, the article was refused for speedy deletion, showing that people on Wikipedia are not trying to ruin the work. They are just trying to improve the article so it has better sources and is therefore more verifiable. You seem to want the same thing, so why not work towards improving the article by adding facts with verifiable sources (again, see the link to WP:CITE for help here). Much of the article was stripped down, as you accuse, but if you go through the article edit by edit, you can see that it is justified. As you can see, the edits that you view as a systematic stripping of the article are actually justified. Try editing the article to expand it, while adding verifiable sources, instead of being personally offended and becoming borderline uncivil. See WP:Sofixit. Thank you, I hope this helps! -- GorillaWarfare  talk 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first edit made by The Ogre can be seen here, and it essentially just removed all of the accent marks. There is no policy for or against using accent marks, but the edit is justified per Manual of Style.
 * In the next edit, found here, the user removed the infobox. This is also justified, as Ricardez is a surname and not a given name. The infobox (parameters explained here) is more appropriate.
 * The next edit, found here removed irrelevant links. Those links didn't direct to anything other than just the main page of a website -- a relevant link would, for example, direct to an article about the surname.
 * The next edit, found here is well-explained by The Ogre's edit summary, where he justifies the edit by explaining that he removed the see also section because the links were either duplicates or redlinks.
 * The edit after that, found here removed a large chunk of the article because it consisted entirely of red links. You can see WP:Redlink for more information regarding red links. Some of those perhaps could be unlinked, but many of them did not fit the notability policy. A more appropriate list of people would include links to articles on people with this name that already existed on Wikipedia.
 * The next edit, found here removed the section on Ricardo. This is justified because it is irrelevant to the article. A link to Ricardo is really all that would be necessary, perhaps in the see also section.
 * The following edits added a stub tag and a notability template, telling people to expand the article and to add sources.