User talk:Russmom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] James Frey

Wikipedia is often successful at producing good articles because their are standards that editors try to adhere to. The community standards promote consistency, consensus, accuracy, comity, etc. Why don't you incorporate the facts about the scandal rather than deleting them?

I think that would be consistent with the standards that were developed and are available at Help:Reverting. The do's and dont's contain several ideas that back up my perspective. For example, "If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it." "Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view." "Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. " "Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

I have tried to repect. After my initial revert, in subsequent edits I have included the additions of the "pro-Frey" editors such as where he lives, where he went to school, and the ratings of the books on Amazon.com. The materials that you deleted were added in good faith. They are substantiated. They are notable. These massive removal shouldn't be done with justification for the exclusion of specific materials. That has not happened at all. The fabrications (both proven and alleged/suspected) are a big part of Frey's fame, so I think the rationale for keeping them is very strong.

If you want to change how it's worded to achieve the best, most accurate article, than that's a good thing. Improvement is good. But I strongly disagree with removal of important, substantiated information that has been compiled by many editors. That's a whole different ball of wax. --JamesAM 18:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Russmom, please don't continue with the blanket revert removing lots of my information added by others and myself. I've mentioned this more than once. Following policies like Help: Reverting, I think you should look at the individual additions that have been made and see which ones look like they need improvement. I don't feel it fosters the cooperative spirit of Wikipedia to indiscriminately dump the efforts of other. A lot of effort has been made to compile information and make sure it's sourced. I don't feel that you've looked at the edits before reverting, because you've restored grammatical errors (such as capitalizing the seasons) and removed the NPOV tag. I feel Wikipedia is most successful when people pay heed to policies that have worked. --JamesAM 01:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Russmom, 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!

[edit] 1x106 little pieces

Hi,

Regards this edit, I reverted to an earlier version that had the term 'partially' outside of the brackets. By placing the word 'memoir' inside the ref tag, you added it to the footnote at the bottom of the page rather than at the top (see?) FYI, putting stuff between the <ref></ref> tags removes it from the main screen and puts it at the bottom of the page as a footnote. WLU 19:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to A Million Little Pieces‎ appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)