I explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate WP:POINT. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --Mhking23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I also explained my reasoning for rolling back the description on the talk page. You are continuing to violate WP:POINT. If you persist, I will report this to the administrators. --Dongdongdog23:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have reverted to your version, but only to prevent my violation of WP:3RR (which you are currently in violation of). Please refrain from falling into edit wars. A violation of WP:3RR can result in a prohibition from editing on Wikipedia. Also, your actions make it hard to assume good faith. You obviously are not aware of the rules and guidelines on Wikipedia. This is not a soapbox, and no matter your belief in the supposed wrongdoing of the Chicago Sun-Times and Michael Sneed, in the larger scope of things, her report is immaterial, and is non-encyclopedic. You are so married to her denouncement and that of journalists in general that you would disrupt the environment here to make your point (hence your violation of WP:POINT). As I have said previously, should the AfD indicate that this issue is warranted, then I will happily leave it alone (however, the continued impositions of personal and biased points of view will still be enthusiastically removed). But as I said, I am operating within the guidelines of WP here and am not trying to bash anyone, least of all you. --Mhking23:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no violation on my side at all. From the history of the article, people can see what I did was to change the section title to "Controversy". And this all. And it's you that have kept rolling it back to "Erroneous Reporting of the Virginia Tech Massacre". From the history, people can also see the whole section has nothing to do with my personal belief at all as my edit was erased totally by your rolling back to an earlier version. Please note Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No matter how you believe the controversy should be eliminated totally from Wikipedia (hence your violation of WP:POINT). You persistence of censoring others's views will be brought to the arbitration board soon. --Dongdongdog23:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
By the way, even if the article, Inaccurate media reports of the Virginia Tech massacre were decided to be deleted by the administrators, it doesn't say that this article can't contain a section on the controversy. If there is a dispute on the deletion of the section, it will be determined collectively by the administrators, not singlehanded by you. --Dongdongdog00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Thanks for your comments on my talkpage.
First of all, let me thank you for engaging in a resolution process. Let me also clarify that, even though I am an administrator, my opinion on matters of content like this has no more inherent authority than any other editor's. In other words, my opinion is not binding. However, I have no axe to grind here, so I hope you will appreciate that my opinion is borne out of experience of the project, and not because I have any particular interest in the subject.
I appreciate that there is no sockpuppetry on the article, I was actually referring to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed. There are a lot of very new editors with no other edits other than to this debate. This is usually a sign of "vote stacking" or sockpuppetry. I have registered my opinion on that discussion, so I will not close the debate, but I have to tell you that if I did then I would discount pretty much all the "Keep" votes of these new users. This is because the debate is not about raw voting, its about the discussion and reasoning of the contributors. The new contributors have rarely used our policies in justifying their reasoning. So, despite the fact the number of votes are roughly equal as it stands, I fully expect that article will be deleted by the closing administrator (unless there is a dramatic change).
You are right that deletion of this article does not, in itself, mean it should not be added anywhere else. However, it does give some indication of the importance of the incident in encyclopaedic terms. The questions I find myself asking are the follows:
Does one single wrong story deserve an entire section devoted to it an article on a 60 year old newspaper?
Will this story have any real impact in 1 month, 1 year and 10 years from now?
What makes this one wrong story any more notable than lots of others (expect for the fact it happened last week)?
Personally, I don't see the incident as particularly encyclopaedic - newspapers get the story wrong all the time. The deletion of the main article certainly tells me that there is not grounds for an entire section on the incident. However, since there are other mentions of notable stories from the newspaper in the article, I made this into a single section and added the Sneed story there. That seems the sensible thing to do at the moment until we can get some sort of historical perspective on the issue and determine whether it has encyclopaedic value. Its important we remember that we are writing an encyclopaedia here, and its very difficult to decide the value of very recently occurring incidents, especially when you have a personal interest in it.
That is my take on the matter. You are welcome to dispute that if you choose, of course, but please continue to discuss the matter and avoid edit-warring. Thanks. Rockpocket20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
