m Automatically signing comment made by Dinkydexy |
Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. using TW |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
Why do you keep undoing my edits, and what gives you the idea that you have the moral authority to call other people's edits 'vandalism'? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dinkydexy|Dinkydexy]] ([[User talk:Dinkydexy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dinkydexy|contribs]]) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Why do you keep undoing my edits, and what gives you the idea that you have the moral authority to call other people's edits 'vandalism'? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dinkydexy|Dinkydexy]] ([[User talk:Dinkydexy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dinkydexy|contribs]]) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== September 2007 == |
|||
{{{icon|[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|30px|]] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]  according to the reverts you have made on [[:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann]]. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ''Here are five substantially similar reversions within less than twenty-four hours: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=156743463&oldid=156742358][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=156756760&oldid=156756720][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=156757554&oldid=156757241][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=156759020&oldid=156758673][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann&diff=156759884&oldid=156759549] |
|||
Reversions four and five are potential violations of [[WP:3RR]]. More than three reversions in a twenty-four hour period is only permissible in the cases of simple vandalism. The edits in this case are not simple vandalism, but a content dispute |
|||
As you are comparatively new editor and may not be familiar with [[WP:3RR]], I will refrain from submitting a report to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]]. However, you must stop acting as if you have been appointed [[WP:OWN|gatekeeper]] of this article.'' --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Rrburke|talk]])</small></sup> 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:40, 9 September 2007
Name calling
User:Sparrowman980 is not a vandal. Please refrain from name-calling just because you disagree with him. I know from experiance that such name-calling will not get you anywhere. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Madeleine McCann
Hello. Why did you revert my edit? It is a defining relative clause & shouldn't have commas. Rothorpe 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I thought it might have been that. Rothorpe 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi, I'm out now until about 7 pm so I should be grateful if you could watch the detail, please> TerriersFan 10:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi... Virtually all the information that's come out over the last few days has been from McCann family friends or spokespeople, as the police are withholding comment, so unless you're planning to remove all of that as well, I'll ask you not to revert my contributions based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The source in this case is Philomena McCann, Gerry McCann's sister, who told reporters:
- "They are suggesting that Kate has in some way accidentally killed Madeleine, then kept her body, then got rid of it."
This is not speculation, it's a newspaper report quoting a source closely-connected to the case, who presumably got her information from the principals. The report that she said that is not speculation, it's fact. That fact is highly relevant to the case, and it appears in a respected newspaper with a reputation for scrupulous fact-checking. It satisifies Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources: there is no basis for removing it, nor have you cited a credible one.
Moreover, your reversion renders the section unintelligible, and so damages the article: the fact that police have focused attention on supposed blood evidence in a car not rented until 25 days after the girl's disappearance makes little sense unless coupled with the police theory that the evidence got there when the couple supposedly moved the body. --Rrburke(talk) 16:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's entirely untrue: people cannot "say anything they like": they can only include material attributable to a reliable, verifiable, published source. You appear confused about the threshold for inclusion: it's "verifiability, not truth." The material doesn't have to be "true," and editors do not have to wait until "the truth is known [before] it can be added." The fact of it having been reported in reliable source meets this threshold for inclusion, and calling the actual substance of the quote "speculation" is no basis for excluding it, provided it satisfies Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources -- which this amply does. If it were a basis for exclusion, no quote from anybody could be included unless the truth of what they say could be conclusively proven. Wikipedia doesn't work like that.
- "What place does presumption have in an encyclopedia?"
- It has the same place it has in a reliable newspaper with a high reputation for fact-checking. But if you'd prefer, I can quote Ms McCann directly.
- As well, it appears you may be attempting to police the article. You may wish to take a moment to review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --Rrburke(talk) 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are confused if you think verifiable in this context mean anything except that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." That's all it means. It doesn't mean that the facts have to be firmly proven, only that the fact they've been published in a reliable source.
- I will. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have to prove "that what's reported in the newspaper is true"; no contributor does. I have to prove that it's true that they reported it. The standard is "verifiability, not truth": and that's not verifiability that the facts are proven, but verifiability that the material was published in a reliable source.
- "What is verifiable is that the Aunt said this to the newspaper."
- And this is precisely what Wikipedia:Verifiability requires. --Rrburke(talk) 19:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- But what the Aunt says is not. And because it is third hand it fails verifibility. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't mean to go on repeating myself, but I don't know how to put this any more clearly: "verifiable," as it's used on Wikipedia, doesn't refer to being able to verify the facts; it refers only to being able to verify the prior publication of the material being added. Readers must be able to verify that the material has previously been published, not that the facts are accurate. In this instance, it means readers must be able to go to the source and verify that Ms McCann actually said what she's quoted as saying. It absolutely does not mean that the truth of what Ms McCann says has to be verified before it can be included. It has never meant that, as a quick look at Wikipedia:Verifiability will confirm. When editors on Wikipedia say that something fails verifiability, they mean, in contrast to the way you used the phrase above, only that a verifiable source for the prior publication of the material in question is absent. It has nothing to do with whether the fact are accurate -- and never has. --Rrburke(talk) 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- But what the Aunt says is not. And because it is third hand it fails verifibility. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Disappearence of Madeleine McCann
Why do you keep undoing my edits, and what gives you the idea that you have the moral authority to call other people's edits 'vandalism'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkydexy (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
September 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Here are five substantially similar reversions within less than twenty-four hours: [1][2][3][4][5]
Reversions four and five are potential violations of WP:3RR. More than three reversions in a twenty-four hour period is only permissible in the cases of simple vandalism. The edits in this case are not simple vandalism, but a content dispute
As you are comparatively new editor and may not be familiar with WP:3RR, I will refrain from submitting a report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. However, you must stop acting as if you have been appointed gatekeeper of this article. --Rrburke(talk) 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)