Macnulty009
|
April 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Peter Sutcliffe has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=gb&hl=en-gb&v=hksayjg9gmu). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- The above is only part of the story. It's rare that we allow links to YouTube, mainly for copyright reasons. However, if your edit had not been reverted by a 'bot', someone else would almost certainly have reverted it because you have added your own personal opinions to the article, eg "derives considerable plausibility", "even more telling", etc. We call that original research, please read WP:OR. I hope this helps. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
thank you for the above information I can assure you that the youtube link of the interview with Ron Warren did not breach any copyright as the owner of that video clip has made it clear that it is available to be reproduced without limit.
I do not know of any other reason to delete the paragraph which I added, and in fact I see it as a vitally important addition to complete the entry regarding that topic so that your readers will be fully informed. In fact it is surprising that that information has so far been omitted from Wikipedia-. So I am asking for that addition to be reinstated please.--Macnulty009 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that you're using a personal video on YouTube as a source, which generally isn't a reliable source. If you can back up that paragraph with a reliable web or print source, then maybe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Ok thanks. I'll probably resubmit approximately the same text without the youtube link and without the 'original research.'
- Heya and welcome to wikipedia! What I would recommend is to rephrase it and post it to Talk:Peter Sutcliffe, where other editors can comment on it, before posting it to the article itself. When making major changes to an article, it is often good to establish an agreement with other editors before committing. Don't get me wrong, by all means be bold, but sometimes being too bold can get things taken away... :-) I'd be happy to have a look at the new version of the content here, on my talk, or at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe and provide my comments. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see you're already working with another editor on the content, which looks really good. Great stuff and never mind the above... :-D Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Peter Sutcliffe edit
Hi. I'm not sure what webpage you're linking to for the addition you made to the article that says it is from News of the World. When I open the link you provided, it opens to a completely blank page that only says "Public link to this document: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqhsz6n_2fsqf77dj". There is no document there. That is why I reverted the addition. You don't need to sign a page on Wikipedia unless you are posting to a talk page. I'm not sure what document the page is trying to access, but it isn't there for me. Also note that there is no need to use the <br> markup on the main body of the article. If you want a space break, just hit the enter button as you would if you were typing a page on the typewriter. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Regarding that News of the World article, I will retrieve it from the official "The Sun" / "News of the World" archive, and re-present it in the Wikipedia entry. --Macnulty009 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sir or Madam, thank you for clarifying things. Regarding the last reference in the entry on the subject of "The Two Rippers Theory" / "Peter Sutcliffe" ... I respectfully suggest, Sir or Madam, that I have supplied all the verification humanly possible regarding Sutcliffe's proposed book which he was planning in 2005. I think it would be illegal for me to provide a link to that article in the News of the World archive, because it is an archive for which readers have to pay a fee to gain access, so I have explained that as best I can to Wikipedia readers. So I suggest the "verification required" addition has been satisfied adequately, as some newspaper archives require a fee for access, and Wikipedia readers are informed that they can confirm that reference by accessing the News of the World archive and paying the small fee required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Ripper#The_.22Two_Rippers.22_theory --Macnulty009 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)