User talk:Wowweb

Welcome!

Hello, Wowweb, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! The Dwarf_King 12:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Dave Lee Travis. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lee Travis -- reply

Wowweb wrote:
"Wikipedia says people opinions should be respected. It is the opinion of many that DLT was arogant to resign on air and that his show was outdated for the era."

The threshold for inclusion of material in a Wikipedia article is not "the opinion of many" but attributable, verifiable material published by a reliable source. Additionally, you included the false claim that Travis was given a non-existent award you called "arogant [sic] entertainer of the year." Deliberately introducing falsehoods into Wikipedia is considered vandalism and may result in your being blocked from editing. Please also review Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Rrburke^(talk) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowweb wrote:
"Matthew Bannister was going to sack him so he got in first. This is FACT, so why not let it be included. I have worked in the industry for years and probably know more about Radio one from 1988 - 1996 than you do."

How much either of us knows about Radio One is rather beside the point. The sole issue is whether the information you seek to include is verifiable and attributable to a reliable, published source. If you can cite such a source for the information you wish to include, by all means feel free to re-add it with the proper citation. If you can't, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Moreover, if any material you wish to include derives from first-hand knowledge, including this material will violate Wikipedia's policy against using using original research.

Please take a moment to review the following policies and guidelines so as to lessen the likelihood that other editors will delete your contributions: Wikipedia: Attribution; Wikipedia: Verifiability; Wikipedia: Reliable Sources; Wikipedia:No Original Research. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "wrongly removed" anything. Your additions were removed because you did not cite a reliable published source for them. They were not verifiable and not attributed and so subject to deletion. Whether they were accurate or inaccurate is beside the point.

As for "following you around," I reviewed your contribution history after you vandalized the article Dave Lee Travis [1], and then reverted a number of additions you made because you had not cited any sources for them.

I'm pleased you want to contribute constructively, and I'm sure your experience will be valuable in improving the articles you edit. However, I fear I haven't yet persuaded you of the need to cite reliable published sources for any contributions you make. You mention, for example, that you have worked with Dave Lee Travis, but information you obtain from first-hand knowledge cannot be included in Wikipedia. This type of material is known here as original research and Wikipedia has a strict rule against including it. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

Finally, please sign your contributions to talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will add you username and the date and time of your post, so that other users will know who they're conversing with. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Stewart

You're right to be circumspect about potentially self-serving claims made in an autobiography. However, the fact that someone wrote something in an autobiography can be included without taking a position on whether what the writer claims is true or false: in other words, "Mr. X asserts in his autobiography that..." doesn't endorse what Mr. X says as true: it merely notes that he said it and leaves the reader to judge.

Of course, if there is a reliable published source that tends to refute Mr. X's claim, it's perfectly acceptable to include that: "Mr. X asserts in his autobiography that he was once offered £1,000,000 to move to ITV, but Ms Y in her recent article in the Guardian quotes ITV executives who deny any such offer was made."

The standard for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". Have a look at the Simplified Ruleset --Rrburke^(talk) 13:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]