User talk:Peskytruth

Hello, Peskytruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! semper fictilis 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

BC Legislature Raids

Can you fix your edits to BC Legislature Raids? Tielman's coverage may be great but there are many reasons why you can't just copy and paste lengthy quotations from his articles and slap them into an encyclopedia article. copyright for one. also he may be reliable on some points but he is an opinion columnist and not a neutral one at that. Canuckle 13:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure!

{{helpme}}

I am looking for help regarding my entry on the BC Legislature Raids. I have read the judges decision of June 4 and have confirmed that the quotes are from the decsion. I do not want this entry to be abused by sockpuppets.

I'm sorry, there is no possibiltiy to help you to prevent vandalism which has not happende yet. After several cases of vandalism have actually happened, the article might be protected. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. For the moment, you can only watch the article. --Thw1309 07:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. In reply to your question on my talk page. When you're brand new, it can be challenging to edit a controversial article. You may want to contribute to some less contentious articles to get the hang of the technical side and the policies. That may sound harsh (it sure did when I got told it) but it's good advice. Here's some of the reasons your contribution needs fixing up:

1. Please note I have quoted and pasted from Bill Tieleman's excellent coverage of the "trial of the century."** -- Wikipedia articles aren't the place for personal statements like this. If a WP:reliable source is used as a source of information, cite it. Instead of copying wholesale, summarize and cite or you'll be guilty of violating the writer's copyright. Also, it's usually preferable to rely on neutral news media reports rather than a column by a partisan commentator. That ensures a neutral point of view.
2. series of direct quotes from court document -- Yes doing so does help ensure that the facts are right. However, an encyclopedia is not a newspaper. Direct quotes are rare. This is a style issue. It's also a neutral point of view issue. Lengthy quotes of facts that are critical of one side or the other, raise concerns of people using wikipedia to make a point.
3. "missing from the entire disclosure proceedings, including Monday's session" -- what Monday? this is confusing.
4. ""Bennett delivered a scathing decision" , "It may be telling that Bennett expressly states" , "The questionable circumstances" -- Mixed in with the quotes from the judge are all these personal interpretations and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. And they slant everything one way.
5. "Source: Bill Tieleman's Blog URL" -- is improper citation. See WP:Citation templates for how to make the reference work properly.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to continue this conversation by dropping a note on my Talk page. Canuckle 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to the talk page of Football (soccer)

I have reverted your edit and thought I should explain to you why I did it. The talk page of an article is for discussion of how to improve that article. The talk page is not for general discussion of the topic and not as in this specific instance to discuss how footballs popularity can be improved in the United States (which is why I added the comment that wikipedia is not a message board). In addition, the title of that specific section should not have been changed. Thank you and I hope you realise why I reverted your edit. Have fun. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)