User talk:Sloanlier

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)[reply]

Biographies and References

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reply to your message

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

March 2009

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)[reply]

3RR Warning

Warning

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)[reply]

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?

I think the removal is ridiculous (the US Attorney's Office providing a press release on the outcome of a case is the very definition of a reliable source - it's more reliable than a newspaper) - but another long term editor removed it and I'm not going to revert him. You shouldn't either since you're already at the point of being blocked if you revert another editor's work again. However much you dislike the guy, I don't think you should have removed the text about his work - it seems to be true from what I've read, I just haven't had the time to clean it up or add sources, which takes a while. It gives the article balance. Anyway, it's academic now since the election is nearly over. Phil153 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bits sourced to the DA's office press release, because that is a primary source, and does not offer an independent view of those events. Kevin (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a primary source is, and why we prefer secondary ones, but a DA's office reporting on cases is the very definition of reliable on the factual basis and outcome of those cases. The preference for secondary sources is for reliability and impartiality, not for any other reason, and I would trust a DA's press release about a case over a newspaper's reporting of it. I think the RS noticeboard would agree. It's unimportant anyway, the point is made elsewhere in the article, and there's no need to re add it. Phil153 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Weiss Page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

If I can step in here for a minute. The first comment that I have is about the material added about the untested rape kits. The source is from Human Rights Watch, which does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS), and the website does not even mention him. Second, if Jack Weiss is a city councilman he does not have control over what the LAPD does with their workforce. He is also not mentioned in that article. The broken My Fox LA link that is sourcing negative material, and since it is broken it can not be used. You can not add unverified material to a living person's biography. What you are doing by adding that material is:.

Adding unsourced, defamatory material about a living person in violation of the biographies of living people giudeline
Using synthesis and original research to form a guilt by association of the councilman, which is also in violation of the BLP guideline.

You clearly do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines as you state above, if you think the article should be removed there are other means of going about it, but simply adding unsourced negative material of a living person is not allowed in Wikipedia. Period. You need to read and become familiar with the following policies before continuing to edit biographies of living people: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V. If you continue to add negative material that is unsourced/original research/synthesis to a living person's biography you will be blocked. Please ask if you have any questions. --kelapstick (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've had time to look more closely at your contributions, which initially seemed decently sourced, I cannot but agree with the editor above. Half of what you added to the article is slander not supported by a reliable source, the other half is pulled by the hair from unrelated matter, and the third half is simply hearsay. In my opinion, and given the guidelines in WP:BLP, this simply won't do, and the IP was perfectly in their right to remove the information. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich phony quote

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)[reply]

Jack Weiss, again

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)[reply]

Jack Weiss, revisited

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)