Welcome!
Hello, Sloanlier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Phil153 (
talk) 03:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Since you're new here, I want to let you know that you can't put potentially negative material into the biographies of living persons without a reliable source for it, even if you think or know the comments are true, as you did on Jack Weiss. Please read our biography of living person policy and please don't insert the material again.
The person who kept reverting your changes was merely following our policy and therefore was not edit warring. Thanks for understanding, and if you wish to add back material, please make sure it's very well sourced by reliable sources (such as high circulation newspapers) Phil153 ( talk) 03:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is also a rule that editors may not revert other more than 3 times in 24 hours. If you disagree with the article content, discuss at the talk page, or seek other forms of dispute resolution. Kevin ( talk) 04:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sloanlier,
Thanks for your message. We have very strict standards on biographies that we don't have elsewhere, partly to avoid libel and partly to make sure that people can't do harm by adding false accusations against others. Anything you add needs to be very well sourced within the article itself, which can be quite a bit of work. The best way to see how to source something is to find an article with citations (for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, click the edit button and see how it's done. WP:CITE gives some other instructions. Don't worry about article length. If you think there is positive spin in the biography that doesn't have references (as there often is in the biographies of politicians), you can add citation needed tags to them, or remove them yourself (but don't go crazy). I hope that helps you balance out the Jack Weiss article and make it better without getting reverted again :). Phil153 ( talk) 04:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going to help you clean the article up and add sources. I don't know if you're a campaigner for an opposing candidate or just an interested citizen but with the election tomorrow we should have a balanced article on the guy. Phil153 ( talk) 04:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm done working on the article, it's a lot more balanced now. If you want to add more information, you can cite news articles using this template:
<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2009-03-02 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref>
Just paste the url in the correct spot, add the title, etc, and place it at the end of the text you want to reference.
Hope all goes well with the election tomorrow :). Phil153 ( talk) 06:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jack Weiss has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvp4gvnkwge&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjwianlkqbm&feature=related). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! -- XLinkBot ( talk) 05:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Phil153 ( talk) 02:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Phil: You mind explaining why it is OK to remove my information regarding a Los Angeles District Attorney Press Release, which is downloadable from the Internet?
. . . and why a plethora of information without cites is allowed in the article?
Why do you keep editing this page? I am only making the page more neutral, and removing irrelevant side notes that spin the stories. And the LA city council website is not his personal website, it is an official city website. Explain to me why that is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfe3458 ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Jack Weiss. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Drmies (
talk) 22:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is Sloanlier:
My edits of today constitute returning language and sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines.
This language and prior contributions I have made have repeatedly been vandalized.
I'm not removing other people's language. I'm returning proper language and sources that others have removed in violation of Wikepedia's own guidelines.
I don't know what kind of discussion I can have with people who continually violate Wikipedia's guidelines.
Perhaps, if the apparent adherents of Jack Weiss will not follow Wikipedia's guidelines, the article should be removed.
Thank you,
Sloanlier
My bad. The material was presented as a quote, which normally would not be edited. After reading the entire reference in question, there is no such quote, as you apparently realized. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to revert your recent edits to Jack Weiss. First, the material is improperly formatted. Second and more importantly, the material reads more like an indictment than a neutral biography. Due to your extensive involvement in this and the Trutanich article, I'd guess that you are a partisan and if so it'd be best if you found other topics to contribute to, ones in which you are less involved. Will Beback talk 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sloanlier. After looking over your edits and past history pertaining the Jack Weiss' page, it seems you have some sort of bias against this person, and it'd best if you continued to edit other articles within wikipedia. Most of your edits are not neutral and not constructive. Thanks Jamal Farmer ( talk) 03:37, 1 October 2010 (EST)