User talk:Kendub
Welcome!
Hello, Kendub, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Your edit to Graphic Artists Guild has been reverted twice, since blogs and other self-published sources are virtually never allowed as footnote references, for reasons you'll aee at the bluelinked policy in this sentence. Your information seems important, but it needs to have what Wikipedia calls a reliable source citation, which generally means mainstream news sources, books, and well-established web magazines or sites by established and recognized authorities. Blogs, unless they are the blogs of the person the article is about (which does not apply in this case, since this article is not about a person) are not allowed. I hope you don't find this off-putting, and will understand that any encyclopedia must have stringent standards for what information is added. With regards, -Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry you have chosen not discuss your edits, either on my talk page or at Talk:Graphic Artists Guild. As I mention above, blogs are virtually never allowed as references, as they are considered non-reliable source. Wikipedia works by collaboration and discussion. Rather than do this, you simply reverted my edit to restore the disallowed blogs, as well as undue weight regarding a legal decision that makes it appear as if you have been affected by it, which may constitute conflict of interest.
- In any event, I must ask you to discuss your planned edits at the article talk page. I and I'm sure other editors, once neutrally notified, would be happy to address your concerns. Surely, if an action or a court decision is notable, then there will be more mainstream sources than biased personal blogs.
- Please do not revert with the disallowed sources again. I would then need to contact an admin, who would take a dim view of your edit-warrning and your disinclination to discuss things. This could lead to your IP being blocked. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi I was not aware I was contacted. I ask that you reinstate the edit using the exact same web link that GAG used in announcing this lawsuit as reference to the lawsuit being dismissed.
Let me know what you need from me but I included the website link below with the new announcement
If you have any questions or need to contact me I will try and sign in to see what you still need. Thanks kendub New Link for Edit http://www.ami.org/2011/decision-vindicates-artists-validates-american-illustrators-collecting-society.html
Initial GAG used link in making announcement http://www.ami.org/2008/graphic-artists-guild-sues-artists-for-forming-asip.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendub (talk • contribs)
- I will do that — thanks for finding this. Note that since this is a press release and not an objective, outside journalistic report, we'll need to phrase the edit to indicate that, "the [GAG] said in a [date] press release that ..."
- I'd be glad to go do this in the next day or two, or feel free, obviously, to make an edit, which other editors are also, of course, free to edit further. The most important thing is that we follow the policy of Neutral Point of View.