Harry the Dirty Dog (talk | contribs) |
|||
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--> |
||
==[[WP:3RR]] on [[Disappearance of Madeleine McCann]]== |
|||
The edits in question were not derogatory, not potentially libellous, not unsourced or poorly-sourced, so the suspension of [[WP:3RR]] in certain cases involving [[WP:BLP]] does not apply. The edits referred to the couple as suspects, which is substantiated by citations in the article. It so happens I do not agree with the edits in question, and would also have reverted them as tendentious and striking an unencyclopedic tone. However, I would not have reverted them five times in violation of [[WP:3RR]]. |
|||
The only portions that possibly required reversion no matter how many times they were added are in passage beginning "Many observers have commented on her strange behaviour... etc" But even in the case of this passage substantiable, as many observers have indeed so commented. That does not mean that it should have been added; it should not ahve been. It ''does'' mean that it wasn't vandalism, only that it was unsuitable content. The rest is of the material you reverted is merely the subject a simple content dispute, and it is extremely bad form to make accusations of vandalism in such cases. |
|||
I note that the article has been protected since your violation of [[WP:3RR]], so the submission of report to the administrative noticeboard has been mooted. However, if after the article is unprotected you resume your previous pattern of acting as gatekeeper for the article, I will begin by seeking an [[WP:RfC]], and if that does not resolve the matter, proceed to more formal mean of dispute resolution. However, if you make wholesale reversions multiple times to other editrs' work and characterize other editors' content disputes with you as "vandalism," I will proceed to [[WP:AN/I]] or [[WP:3RR]] as necessary. |
|||
That is not harassment under any definition. It is ensuring legitimate changes to the article are not obstructed by an inexperienced editor with whose poor grasp of policy leads s/he cites in justification of that obstruction. --[[User:Rrburke|Rrburke]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Rrburke|talk]])</small></sup> 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:19, 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)
The edits in question were not derogatory, not potentially libellous, not unsourced or poorly-sourced, so the suspension of WP:3RR in certain cases involving WP:BLP does not apply. The edits referred to the couple as suspects, which is substantiated by citations in the article. It so happens I do not agree with the edits in question, and would also have reverted them as tendentious and striking an unencyclopedic tone. However, I would not have reverted them five times in violation of WP:3RR.
The only portions that possibly required reversion no matter how many times they were added are in passage beginning "Many observers have commented on her strange behaviour... etc" But even in the case of this passage substantiable, as many observers have indeed so commented. That does not mean that it should have been added; it should not ahve been. It does mean that it wasn't vandalism, only that it was unsuitable content. The rest is of the material you reverted is merely the subject a simple content dispute, and it is extremely bad form to make accusations of vandalism in such cases.
I note that the article has been protected since your violation of WP:3RR, so the submission of report to the administrative noticeboard has been mooted. However, if after the article is unprotected you resume your previous pattern of acting as gatekeeper for the article, I will begin by seeking an WP:RfC, and if that does not resolve the matter, proceed to more formal mean of dispute resolution. However, if you make wholesale reversions multiple times to other editrs' work and characterize other editors' content disputes with you as "vandalism," I will proceed to WP:AN/I or WP:3RR as necessary.
That is not harassment under any definition. It is ensuring legitimate changes to the article are not obstructed by an inexperienced editor with whose poor grasp of policy leads s/he cites in justification of that obstruction. --Rrburke(talk) 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)