User talk:Burntsauce: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:45, 6 June 2007

This is a troll-free zone.

This editor has full permission to remove, without replying, any comments he feels are likely to inflame dispute. If you have a problem with this editor, you are invited to bring that concern to the attention of the administrators noticeboard or a member of the arbitration community, but please bear in mind that we have a zero-tolerance approach to harassment.

"

People who are fighting the good fight here are sometimes threatened

with a trip to ArbCom. They need our support, though. — Jimmy Wales

”

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/066949.html

"

I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of
random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be
tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed,
aggressively, unless it can be sourced. — Jimmy Wales

”

Source: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

"

If we don't have enough information to write a decent biography

we need either a redirect or a short note explaining how the person was
involved in the larger incident. — Fred Bauder

”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=133164991

"

There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story. — FCYTravis

”

Enough of this bullshit

I am tired of explaining, ad nauseum, to a specific group of people why WP:BLP is important. If you disagree with explicit emails drafted by Jimmy Wales, please take it up with him on your own. Burntsauce 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DX

No problem, but the edits looked like vandalism. RabidWolf 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you assisting in anyway to expand this article? No.....Put your efforts into this instead of reverting edits. Yes there should be reference...etc but you need to start from somewhere. --Mikecraig 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 <p align="right"><font size="-2">Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=133164991</font></p>
+{{cquote|There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story.   — FCYTravis}}
-I recommend you keep an eye on Chris Candido, Rodney Begnaud, and Rick Cornell as your edits are being reverted.
 ==Enough of this bullshit==
@@ Line 30: / Line 29: @@
 No problem, but the edits looked like vandalism. [[User:RabidWolf|RabidWolf]] 21:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 :Are you assisting in anyway to expand this article? No.....Put your efforts into this instead of reverting edits. Yes there should be reference...etc but you need to start from somewhere. --[[User:Mikecraig|Mikecraig]] 21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
-== Edit summaries for major edits ==
-Burntsauce, a number of editors have asked you to make more frequent use of [[Wikipedia:edit summary|edit summaries]] in your work on Wikipedia.  This is particularly important when you make a major edit that dramatically changes an article (to add or remove a large amount of information) or when you propose an action – like deletion – that is difficult for a non-admin editor to undo.
-Edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inland_Knights&diff=prev&oldid=136138168 this one] which add a [[WP:PROD]] tag ''must'' be accompanied by an edit summary so that editors who have the article watchlisted will know that it has been nominated for deletion.  Not using an edit summary in such cases can result in a lot of unnecessary ill will (not to mention plain-vanilla confusion).
-If you are having difficulty remembering to enter an edit summary, you can change your Wikipedia settings to automatically prompt you for one.  Go to [[Special:Preferences]] (or click on ''my preferences'') and click on the ''Editing'' tab.  Select the ''Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary'' checkbox and click ''Save''.  Wikipedia will then prompt you to enter an edit summary should you forget to add one before saving your edits.
-Please take care in the future to make use of edit summaries for major edits—you may be blocked from editing if you don't.  Don't hesitate to contact me if you require further clarification or guidance.
-==Rodney Begnaud==
-Your edit to it was reverted again