User talk:Panther Pink

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I added four news reports to the Sister Roma article and removed the tags at the top of the page asking for sources and neutral language. User Bali Ultimate deleted it all. Could someone else check the sources (Youtube link is to Bay Sunday's own account) and see if those tags are needed at all? I added them back only because Bali Ultimate was removing all the work.

Hi. I have taken a quick look at the article. This is an article about a living person, and Wikipedia must ensure that all material and sources fit under WP:BLP (that is Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people). I always recommend that all editors read that information before editing any BLP. In this case, it seems there like is a disagreement about some content and some sources. The best thing to do in such a case is to discuss it on the article's talk page, which you can access by clicking here. Whenever there is ongoing disagreement about whether or not material should be included, it should be discussed on the talk pages. YouTube is not normally used as a source, but in this case it shows verification of a direct quote from the subject of the article herself, so I don't see a problem with it. If you have any more questions, just ask. Hope this helps -- Taroaldo (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information is controversial or questionable. The other editor just wants the tags on the top of the page which is weird as they don't seem appropriate. I saw Sister Roma on TV and decided her article should be accurate so I used several news reports on her.

In response to your feedback[edit]

Just follow the advice above and you should be fine.

Lectonar (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read the news reports and just don't like her.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

These editors obviously didn't read the news reports or interviews with Sister Roma, it's clear they just don't like her and are deleting all the information about her. Is this site really about just destroying articles if you don't like the person? I added dry and neutral statements all from her interviews. All they are doing is deleting them. Can anyone help or do the bullies run this place? Frustrating!

What you need to do is discuss it on the talk page and not edit war over it. What is included in Wikipedia is often established through consensus. Calling editors bullies just for disagreeing with you is inappropriate. I don't see how anyone is bullying you and the editors have provided reasoning and justification for their edits, as required. This is a content issue, so the only solution it to politely engage on the talk page and try to come to an agreement. OohBunnies! (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What possible reason is there to delete the only news stories and interviews anyone is adding? The only reason given is that they disagree that she should even have an article.

I've looked into it a little and at least one of the sources you're using isn't at all up to scratch. It's not, contrary to your inflammatory comment on the talk page, a matter of editors disliking the subject of the article, or what they stand for, but a matter of BLP policy. Also, you could please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, ~~~~ <-- those things? Thanks. OohBunnies! (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were deleting everything even though the Narc interview was only on a few items, that were already in the article. Panther Pink (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues ... Panther Pink (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is against you. I suggest honouring it and ceasing the edit war, or you're just going to get into trouble. OohBunnies! (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally some of the deletions have ebbed, but the silly arguments continue. Luckily I like [1] applies.

I give up. It's fairly obvious that whatever one chooses to call it homophobia is well accepted and applauded here. Why bother fighting with nitwits when the truth will show how wrong and biased Wikipedia articles are including only sanitized versions of what is acceptable and only news sources that support that extreme view. Enjoy your editing, hope the truth doesn't slap you too hard! Panther Pink (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]