User talk:Vivaldi
 Archives |
|---|
I was happy to see that the article about Sollog was deleted. I spent many hours trying to convince people that using a weekly rag to trash a living person was in poor form for an encyclopedia. Sollog was a USENET crank, but he was hardly notable other than the meta discussion of himself here on a Wikipedia article about himself that he created himself and then later tried to remove when editors started using it to out him for criminal activities unrelated to his limited notoriety as a USENET crank.
I was also happy to see the article about Fred Phelps was heavily edited so that it wasn't entirely sourced to a supposedly unpublished book. I despise Fred Phelps as a person, but my hatred of the man should not influence the types of sources that are allowed to be used on Wikipedia, especially in articles about living persons. I tried in vain for many months to get people to understand that it is inappropriate to use unpublished works as sources of information about living persons.
I've also tried mostly in vain to get a few other articles about various evangelical churches and ministers free from poorly sourced and self-published works, mainly by preachers with opposing doctrinal views of Christianity. Reliable sources should ideally be independent third parties and not parties with active and fervent disagreement with the subject matter. Vivaldi (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
