Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page
Open Directory Project worked, and it has been
reverted or removed. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to
this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the
sandbox instead. Although your addition is demonstrably false, the fact that you sourced it to commentary about an anonymous blogger is adequate for removal. This is a clear
WP:BLP violation, as the editors who you allege violated ODP policies are alive. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 08:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Arthur, prove it, demonstrate it, you hold evidence in high regard, then show it, so what is your evidence that the editors I mentioned are still alive being that I didn't reference any specific editors? Do you kow what the word evidence means? Hint: It doesn't mean whatever you say is demonstrably false, if it is, demonstrate it, don't just claim it. On top of that Arthur, why didn't you just remove the reference to the blogger, and ask for me to cite my source, rather than assuming? You've demonstrated then a non-neutral point of view. You may want to cut that out before it becomes apparent that you are biased against Christians and creationists or in favor of DMOZ. Whiplashes ( talk)
|
Dear Whiplashes:
Welcome to Wikipedia. The links above are to pages that explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Of course, no one is expected to read everything at once, and some of the links are more for reference, to use when you have a question about some specific aspect of editing Wikipedia.
Although you had no way of knowing it, the section that you added to the Open Directory Project article violated several of Wikipedia's policies. First, it did not cite reliable sources that support the information in the text. Second, it was not written from a neutral point of view, but rather was written from the point of view of a particular ideology. Third, from the specific details in what you wrote (including dates, incidents, and specific communications), it appears that you have a personal involvement in the specific facts you described; if I am wrong about this, please tell me. If that is the case, then you need to consult Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. Fourth, the discussion of Open Directory Project's alleged bias violated Wikipedia's policy against original research. Fifth, the content was not encyclopedic, but instead read like a personal essay complaining about the subject of the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publishing anyone's personal opinions. For these reasons, I deleted the section that you added.
I hope that you will stay and learn more about how Wikipedia operates, so that you will be able to make genuine contributions the encyclopedia, since edits that do not conform to Wikipedia's policies will be reverted, which is a waste of your time and effort. Again, Welcome! Finell (Talk) 10:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)
- The footnotes that you added do not qualify as reliable sources; please review that policy page. Also, the second footnote is a dead link. The material that you are trying to add violates Wikipedia's policies. While you are welcome to make constructive edits, if you continue to try to insert the same material, without reliable sources for all the statements, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia because of your failure to adhere to policies. I'm trying to help you; please follow my advice. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 12:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)