User talk:65.60.211.107

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Whois

[edit] Re: Your November 5, 14:02 and 13:59 November 6th edits of Reid Stowe

1. I removed the {{Autobiography}} template. I have contributed the bulk of the word count to this article, and I am simply not Reid Stowe. Other Wikipedians have seen me in the flesh, most recently at the NYC Meetup last August 12, and have no basis to associate me with fellows who like to float around in the Atlantic for extended periods of time. Looking at the contribution pages of other editors of this article, I see no pattern that could plausibly be construed as a Reid Stowe sock puppet. On the other hand, the use of this template requires you to confirm that the subject of the biographic article is editing on the quiet before placing the template on the page.
2. I removed the {{Disputed}} tag. This tag calls for you to create a "Disputed" section on the article talk page, where you can (and should) raise the specific matters in dispute. It is plausible for me to guess that the May collision is a matter of dispute, but it is really not a matter for me to guess but for you to state.
3. I removed the {{Notability}} template. Reportage on Reid Stowe spans ten years and the subject has been covered in papers such as the New York Times. Notability also includes notariety, and in that regard Reid Stowe has garnered the less than perfect admiration of the 1000 Days of Hell Website; it may be negative attention, but it is attention and argues the case for notability. Finally, in the realm of exploration, his notability appears to be on par with Barry Clifford, John Alan Glennon, Vendyl Jones, Roz Savage, and Murray A. Wiener, living people who are not exactly the talk of the town, but who have done one or two noteworthy things recently; It does seem odd to me that these people fall into the realm of notability while Reid Stowe does not.

I trust, since your editing experience appears to be largely confined to this Reid Stowe article, that your use of these tags stems from inexperience. It struck you as plausible to use these tags, so you went ahead and used them. In general, plausibility is not sufficient. You have to do the due diligence to verify that the condition to which the templates alludes is in evidence; the proof of verification rests with you, just as due diligence of verification rests on your shoulders for any other edit you make to an article. Please, do research before using these tags again. If in doubt, bring the discussion to the talk page. Thank you. Gosgood (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your 23:06, 10 December 2007 edit of Reid Stowe

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Reid Stowe, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. I trust, from your limited experience editing Wikipedia, that you are largely unaware of the policies which govern collaboration. All editors are untrustworthy, yet, on the main, are attempting to create an encyclopedia which the general reader can trust. Wikipedia attempts to pull this off with two rules that editors must follow, otherwise their edits do not survive. One is No original research; we do not assemble information and insert in into the encyclopedia merely on the basis that we think our work is correct. We are anonymous editors; no one can check our credentials; therefore we can't be trusted and by extension our contributions cannot be trusted. To be able to admit information at all to the encyclopedia requires the second policy: Verifiability. Since we cannot insert information based on our own authority, we must reference the information to a verifiable source that any general reader can find and independently check for confirmation. In other words, since neither you nor I have any credibility whatsoever, we must verify our contributions by means of reliable, third party published sources. The remaining core policy, Neutral Point of View limits our interest to the topic at hand to those belonging to fact checkers and data confirmers. We may have our passions, but they belong to us, whoever we are, and not to the articles to which we contribute verifiable data that is not a product of our original research. Within these constraints, your contributions are welcome. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]