User talk:Novan Leon
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome to Wikipedia! At Wikipedia, we're all about building consensus, and using critical thinking and rational judgment to decide what the best course of action is in any situation. Although we do have so-called "policies", with the exception of a very few that are necessary for legal reasons (copyright policy, policies relating to slandering living people, etc.), you should be aware that most of these are totally non-binding. Generally, they are simply descriptions of what has typically happened in the past, that at most are suggestions that we are not obligated to abide by. I would like to encourage you, in your dealings with others on Wikipedia, to resist the temptation to advocate a certain course of action because "the rules say so", and instead would urge you make arguments based on what serves the best interests of the encyclopedia in the given situation.
Anyway, I hope you enjoy yourself here, and I look forward to seeing what you have to contribute to our project. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my user talk page. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the welcome (automated or not). This was actually informative given several of the recent conflicts that I've run into with other members making edits. I'm glad to hear Wikipedia remains an open forum for change. Thank you. --Novan Leon (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, you might try opening a Request for comment about the conduct of these users, which would help gather some consensus on what's going on. If these editors are breaking the three-revert rule, you can report them at the 3RR noticeboard. If you don't feel either of those would be appropriate, you could post at the incidents noticeboard. Without more specifics, though, I'm afraid I can't help you too much. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Dealing with harmful edits
Hi. This is tricky, so I'll try to run through the list.
- 1) People adding stuff to an article about a living person, where that stuff is without good quality sources - you can just revert this on site. WP has strict policies about this kind of legal stuff. See WP:BLP. That's pretty comprehensive, it links to many other policies, most of which should be useful.
- 2) Copyright violations. This is another really serious one. See WP:COPY. Again, there are plenty of reading and links there.
- 3) Have a look at WP:FIVE, which most editors should be working to.
- 4) So, basically, you revert their edits, and try to talk to them on the talk page of the article. If that doesn't work you try to talk to them on their talk page. If that doesn't work you can thn turn to admins to try to sort stuff out. Have aa look at WP:RAA.
- I hope this is some use! Kind regards, Dan Beale-Cocks 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: Richard Sternberg
Looking at the article history, it would seem that one of the reasons people are reverting your edit is because of the reference - while it is good that you're providing one, it needs to be from a third-party site, not affiliated with Wikipedia or Mr. Sternberg. Also, WP:NPOV does not means that you have to "balance" an article with pro- and con- points of view: giving undue weight to a minority concern can alter the neutrality of an article significantly. For example, if 9 out of 10 dentists say that Crest toothpaste is the best brand, you may want to mention that dentist #10 doesn't say so, but there's no need to explain in too much detail why he feels that way, or mention which brand he considers to be the best (or why). Based solely on edit summaries, those seem to be the main reasons, however a discussion on the matter would certainly help out. Just remember, don't keep fighting over it during the discussion - let a consensus come out, then act accordingly. I probably won't get too much more involved in this, due to some past conflicts I've had with one of the editors involved that I would rather not risk accidentally inflaming again (for everyone's sake), but I can keep an eye on things if you like. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me guess your a ID (creationist), he is guilty as charge and proven (The printed article is the proof), He failed to meet Smithonian Academic standards (As Per his sign contract with them) he failed on purpose to do his job as editor correctly.22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process  by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)