User talk:Elrondaragorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Elrondaragorn, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Popplewick (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

[edit] The Silent Scream

Hey, thanks for creating the account! You're right, if they're removing well-sourced, neutral info without discussion that's wrong. I'm certainly not endorsing the existing material or others' behavior; I'm merely explaining what you need to do in order not to be reverted. You should ask on the talk page and on the users' talk pages what the problem was with the material. If they explain it, try to address the problems. If they don't respond, let me know, I'll look at it and see what I can do. Peace, delldot talk 17:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have you looked at the latest version of the article? I think the changes made may address some of your concerns. You can retrieve past versions of articles and differences between revisions by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the article and finding dates of the changes in question (or just by looking at each one using the "last" links).

You're right that non-neutral info is not allowed. If you think the article is not neutral, you'll have to discuss it with other users until you can find a compromise. Honestly, the article in its current state looks pretty neutral to me; it's merely stating facts. It's acceptable to report that so-and-so notable party argued such-and-such, as long as you have a reliable source. Your info should not be removed without discussion if it is reliably sourced (note that an advocacy website is not a reliable source; go for a news piece about the advocacy group's argument). If someone has done that, you should address it with them, either on the article's talk page or the user's, and go through dispute resolution if necessary. Peace, delldot talk 07:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what an individual editor knows, it matters what's been reported in reliable sources. The reason I called that a fact is that it's a fact that Planned Parenthood published such a rebuttal. A reliable source says that planned parenthood says that, so that's includable information. As I've said, all you need to do is find a reliable source that covers the information you want to add, and you can add it (assuming it's relevant and conforms with other policies, etc). Peace, delldot talk 07:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elrondaragorn, thanks for your hard work to understand the policies. Please read the reliable sources policy and let me know if you still have any questions. Advocacy groups on either side of the debate do not count as reliable sources; it must be a neutral published source. Peace, delldot talk 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request

I am posting here in response to your third opinion request. Please allow some time for discussion to occur on the article's talk page. An outside opinion is difficult to provide when the disagreement is not discussed. In general, I would recommend you tone down your posts a notch and take a breath. Making allusions to communist propaganda and the like is not going to help improve the article. Similar, blanking the article and inserting commentary into the article is not going to help the situation. One of the best things I could recommend is to find the most reliable sources available about the topic and simply provide a summary of what they state about the topic. For anything that may be contentious or contested, it is important that the article statements are referenced to highly reputable sources. A "balanced" article in the Wikipedia sense is only tangentially related to presenting all sides or making sure every view is heard. Rather, it is focused on providing an overview of what the reliable published literature has to say about the matter (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The best thing you can do to start is calmly and politely raise your issues on the talk page and find the best available sources to expand the article. If you're still encountering problems at that point, please feel free to ask again for an outside opinion or ask for advice from an experienced user. I hope this advice and explanation helps. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot! To see previous revisions, click on the history (or hist) link next to "article" at the upper left of where the article appears. You can view any previous version of the article there. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)