User talk:Bendolt
To Demdem Stop vandalising this article with false content
- I'm sorry but my edits in no way constitute vandalism. May I remind you of the two main issues I have with the way you're editing this article and which I listed in the article's talk page: the unsourced claims and the misrepresentation of the content of the sources which had already been there.
- May I also point out that this is a biography of a living person with the usual criteria (NPOV, V, NOR, etc.) expected of Wikipedia articles applying even more strongly. In this case, WP:BLBSTYLE also requires that criticism and praise are not only adequately sourced to reliabe secondary sources (see also WP:BLBSOURCES) but that, even then, that it is presented "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone".
- I suggest we discuss and find some sort of compromise on this one article in which you seem to have taken strong and exclusive interest.
June 2013
[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Dalli may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If there are problems with the article, the content you're adding is not improving the situation, as you haven't cited sources for it. Reliable sources are needed for anything likely to be challenged, particularly if about living people - if the sources exist, please cite them. Peter James (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You recently wrote "This is to rectify the facts which are being distorted by DEMDEM and RITCHIE333 whom I ask not to keep vandalising this page". However, our policy on vandalism states that only edits that are a deliberate and malicious attempt to make the encyclopedia worse are vandalism. In your instance, the article has been put on "pending changes", meaning an independent reviewer needs to check them. In this case, I reviewed the edit, noticed it was potentially controversial information about a living person without any citation, and per or policy on that, had no choice but to remove the information. If you wish to re-add it, you must cite a very good quality reliable source that backs up the fact. Wikipedia is not a tabloid for telling tales about people, no matter how true you think they are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Whether they are cited or not, the large amounts of text you are adding do not appear to conform to BLP policies, especially ones about due and undue weight and coatrack articles. Would you like to comment on the concerns I raised on the article talk page about these issues? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Annotated
[edit]The additions made are amply annotated. --Bendolt (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)