 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ASU band
Hey thanks for the compliments. Fairly new to editing pages on here. How do I access your suggestions? Also I have questions as well.
-- Forkemdevils ( talk) 18:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
ResolvedYou deleted several verifiable sections of material from subsection Early background in science. Would you please elaborate upon your reasoning. The material was easily verified by the citations which were provided:
- McCullough, Virginia (17 February 2008). "Who is puppet master, Michael Riconosciuto?". Newsmakingnews. Retrieved on 8 September 2008.
- McCullough, Virginia (18 February 2008). "Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?". News making news. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.
- Martin, Harry (16 April 1993). "Another murder connected to the Inslaw case?/" p.18. The Napa Sentinel. Retrieved on 29 September 2008.
- Martz, Larry (11 January 1981). "The Mystery of the Diasappearing Actress Deepens". San Francisco Sunday Examiner. Retrieved on 20 September 2008.
Please provide a reply within the next 24 hours to avoid WP:REVERT and WP:EW. Please reply here [below this message], in order to maintain the continuity of our disagreement. Thank you. Hag2 ( talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good revert, Rocksanddirt. It appears to be entirely in keeping with
WP:BLP. Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph. One hopes
User:Hag2 above will not
WP:REVERT or
WP:EW, but instead will use the
"WP:talkpage" of the article to work with others to come to
WP:CONSENSUS.
Risker (
talk)
11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment,Risker. You wrote: "Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph." I believe differently. Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position . To what do you rely upon for your comment? With regard to the "negative paragraph", the items contained within those two paragraphs reference specific, accurate facts. I will be moving this subsection within 24 hours (via "cut and paste", onto the
Talk:Michael Riconosciuto page which the originator of the deletion,
Rocksanddirt, may have overlooked in the beginning, and where it would be of greater benefit to all parties concerned in order "to work with others to come to
WP:CONSENSUS". Thank you,
Hag2 (
talk)
13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to newsmakingnews.com's editorial policy, any information that demonstrates that it stands behind its reports, or other similar information. When I go to the site, there is not even a "contact us" button on the main page. Thanks for offering to move this discussion to the talk page, it would be fine by me to do it now, but perhaps Rocksanddirt might want to weigh in.
Risker (
talk)
13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Risker, Thank you for suggesting that I locate News'... editorial policy. I am very busy right now, but I will attempt to locate. Please look sometime tomorrow. Thank you. Hag2 ( talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would be so kind as to link to newsmakingnews.com's editorial policy, any information that demonstrates that it stands behind its reports, or other similar information. When I go to the site, there is not even a "contact us" button on the main page. Thanks for offering to move this discussion to the talk page, it would be fine by me to do it now, but perhaps Rocksanddirt might want to weigh in.
Risker (
talk)
13:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment,Risker. You wrote: "Newsmakingnews.com does not appear to be a reliable source, certainly not reliable enough to use as the primary reference in a very negative paragraph." I believe differently. Although Newsmaking News is certainly not The New York Times, nor The Washington Post, it does provide a degree of reliability: i.e. it maintains a position and stands legally with a prepared legal staff behind that position . To what do you rely upon for your comment? With regard to the "negative paragraph", the items contained within those two paragraphs reference specific, accurate facts. I will be moving this subsection within 24 hours (via "cut and paste", onto the
Talk:Michael Riconosciuto page which the originator of the deletion,
Rocksanddirt, may have overlooked in the beginning, and where it would be of greater benefit to all parties concerned in order "to work with others to come to
WP:CONSENSUS". Thank you,
Hag2 (
talk)
13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
FAC
As discussed earlier, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz. I speak Spanish by the way, have profound recollections of the Armero tragedy and those affected, and will review for 1b comprehensive if no other Spanish-speakers engage, but I'd rather not have to. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
2000 Sugar Bowl FAC
Thanks for the comment! I've added another subsection to the article, and if you could spare the time to take a look at it, I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks! JKBrooks85 ( talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
RCC FAC
Wow - thanks for your support and timely comments! Much appreciated! NancyHeise talk 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Rocksanddirt! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)