JanRobin
Welcome!
|
List of unusual deaths edit
The issue isn't that you haven't got sources reliable for claiming that the man died, it's that they aren't reliable for claiming that the death was unusual. Please don't continually insert the material: take it to the talk page and get a consensus among editors that your sources are reliable for determining whether a death is unusual or not. Your personal opinion that they are unusual doesn't count, nor does mine: only a categorization in a reliable source as being unusual matters.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Read the talk page. Read the archived discussions. Read the summary at the top of the talk page:"the clear policy based consensus is to keep this list only to those deaths for whom there are reliable sources (as noted by one person, these need to be high quality sources, not tabloid journals who regularly fling around these words for fun) that the death is in someway exceptional. All other entries (those for whom someone might say "Come on, this is obviously strange") should be removed."
- This article has long been a battleground, and the type of material that you are attempting to insert is the source of the trouble: stuff that individual editors say "boy, this is weird" and attempt to include it on that basis. Your opinion about what is weird doesn't matter. My opinion about what is weird does not matter. Only the opinion contained in multiple reliable sources about what is weird matters. Do not include that material again unless you can indicate multiple reliable sources that specifically describe the death as being unusual.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no objections to your major edit, and won't do a thing to interfere with it. Unfortunately, past experience shows that it's just going to cause more trouble. I've been slowly improving the article over time, and taking what steps I could to make certain that it at least wasn't getting worse by preventing the addition of new unsuitable material. Fixing it in one fast step generally just causes other editors to put the material back in.—Kww(talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
My "personal taste" is supported both by the RFC and the results of multiple AFDs on the article. Going slowly isn't hypocritical, just practical. The best improvement to this article would be to delete it in its entirely, but community consensus apparently favors the approach of dealing with it one problematic item at at a time.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Removing unsuitable material is a constructive pursuit.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of unusual deaths has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of unusual deaths was changed by JanRobin (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.875516 on 2014-02-15T17:44:54+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
A holding pen exists edit
regarding [1].
per agreement at the article, when items that have been in the list for substantial periods of time are removed because sourcing issues have been noted, they are placed in Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths/Sourcing_issues to allow those who care to see if they can address the sourcing issues.
You can help show that you are editing in good faith attempts to work towards consensus by joining in that convention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
- oops, you had already done so. thanks! need to update my watch list to include that page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)