User:David in DC: Difference between revisions
David in DC (talk | contribs) Nope, doesn't work that way |
Removing New_York_Pokemon_D_and_P_Launch_Party_3.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Jameslwoodward because: per [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pikac |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:UBX/Rotary Dial}}{{User:SheffieldSteel/Trout}}{{User Wikipedian For|year=2007|month=2|day=7}} |
{{User:UBX/Rotary Dial}}{{User:SheffieldSteel/Trout}}{{User Wikipedian For|year=2007|month=2|day=7}} |
||
[[Image:New York Pokemon D and P Launch Party 3.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Stop! Do we need another article on [[Wikipedia:Pokémon test|Pokémon]]?]] |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 6: | ||
:::::::::::::{{Quotation|''"Comfort the afflicted<br>Afflict the comfortable<br>Uphold the upright<br>Ridicule the ridiculous"''' -- Personal motto of [[User:David in DC|David in DC]]'''''}} |
|||
::::::{{Quotation|''"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."''' --[[Brendan Gill]]'''''}} |
::::::{{Quotation|''"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious."''' --[[Brendan Gill]]'''''}} |
||
{{quote box|bgcolor=#eee9d9|salign=right |
|||
|I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. |
|||
|source = –<cite>Jimmy Wales </cite>}} |
|||
{{quotation|1=Oh, let me explain, then. I hear from many people who are BLP enforcers that they feel unsupported and there are constant concerns about whether they will be fully backed if they do what is necessary. In general, I think those fears are overblown, but the point I am making today is that I am standing firm on this issue. BLP enforcement is important. Speedy deletion, blocking people violating the policy, protecting pages, sprotecting pages, what needs doing can be done confidently. First, protect the reputations of people who may be in a position of being victimized by someone by using our resources. And sort out the details later, there is no rush. If there's a horrible murderer out there somewhere and if for a week Wikipedia doesn't have an article at all, until finally some reliable sources are fine, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is BLP violations. I think everyone agrees with that, but not everyone yet fully understands that those who disagree are quite simply wrong and will have no power when a decision comes in judgment of whatever may have happened in a difficult situation.|2=Jimbo Wales (talk)|3=<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=347545788 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)]</span>}} |
{{quotation|1=Oh, let me explain, then. I hear from many people who are BLP enforcers that they feel unsupported and there are constant concerns about whether they will be fully backed if they do what is necessary. In general, I think those fears are overblown, but the point I am making today is that I am standing firm on this issue. BLP enforcement is important. Speedy deletion, blocking people violating the policy, protecting pages, sprotecting pages, what needs doing can be done confidently. First, protect the reputations of people who may be in a position of being victimized by someone by using our resources. And sort out the details later, there is no rush. If there's a horrible murderer out there somewhere and if for a week Wikipedia doesn't have an article at all, until finally some reliable sources are fine, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is BLP violations. I think everyone agrees with that, but not everyone yet fully understands that those who disagree are quite simply wrong and will have no power when a decision comes in judgment of whatever may have happened in a difficult situation.|2=Jimbo Wales (talk)|3=<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=347545788 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)]</span>}} |
||
Latest revision as of 12:04, 25 February 2017
 | This user remembers using a rotary dial telephone. |
 | In an emergency, this user may be slapped with a trout. |
 |
"Comfort the afflicted
Afflict the comfortable
Uphold the upright
Ridicule the ridiculous" -- Personal motto of David in DC
"Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious." --Brendan Gill
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
–Jimmy Wales
Oh, let me explain, then. I hear from many people who are BLP enforcers that they feel unsupported and there are constant concerns about whether they will be fully backed if they do what is necessary. In general, I think those fears are overblown, but the point I am making today is that I am standing firm on this issue. BLP enforcement is important. Speedy deletion, blocking people violating the policy, protecting pages, sprotecting pages, what needs doing can be done confidently. First, protect the reputations of people who may be in a position of being victimized by someone by using our resources. And sort out the details later, there is no rush. If there's a horrible murderer out there somewhere and if for a week Wikipedia doesn't have an article at all, until finally some reliable sources are fine, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is BLP violations. I think everyone agrees with that, but not everyone yet fully understands that those who disagree are quite simply wrong and will have no power when a decision comes in judgment of whatever may have happened in a difficult situation.
— Jimbo Wales (talk), 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)