TRC1968
|
Superman curse
edit
Please refrain from adding your personal viewpoints, opinions or argumentation, as well as inappropriate remarks or comments to articles, as you did with this edit to Superman curse. The former violates Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, No Original Research and Source Citation, and the latter constitute vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding argumentation of personal viewpoints to the Superman curse article, as you did with these edits. Any arguments or reasoning offered for a particular point of view, must be those directly attributed to cited sources.
In addition, here are some other tips to aid you in editing:
- Terms should not be wikilinked more than once in the article body, as indicated by WP:OVERLINK.
- Section headings should not contain wikilinks, as indicated by WP:SECTIONHEAD.
- When wikilinking a term, the link should point to the name of the article of the linked term. A piped link should only be used when the name of the article is different from the text that appears in the article you are editing, and in that case, the target article's name should be on the left side of the pipe divider. Since article names do not have underscores in them, creating a piped link with both the undescored name on the left and the article name on the right side of the pipe divider, as you did with Buck Wolf, is redundant and unnecessary.
- You cannot cite other Wikipedia articles as sources, as you did with the passage on human life expectancies, because that is circular sourcing. Sources cited must be secondary sources that are independent of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and should ideally cite secondary sources (though it may cite primary ones in some cases). It cannot be cited as a primary source itself.
- Articles do not belong in the userspace. If you feel that Lee Quigley is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article, and you can find reliable, secondary sources to start one on him, then feel free to do so. We are not creating an ersatz article on him in an editor's userspace, as you did with User:WhatGuy/Lee_Quigley, nor linking to that page in the text of articles.
- If User:WhatGuy is one of your user accounts, please make sure that any use of multiple accounts that you employ comply with Wikpedia's policy on Sockpuppetry.
If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Regarding the question you asked me in the recent message on my talk page, "Why was the edit removed that simply stated the actor's age at his death?", it was removed for the reason given in the edit summary. Please read it, along with the edit summaries that accompany other edits that remove your additions.
- While we're on the subject, please do not add unsourced material to articles, and do not add material if your intent is to argue against the ideas described in the article. Neither of the two sources at cited at the end of the Kirk Alyn passage mentions his exact age at death, nor is his exact date of birth currently cited in his own Wikipedia article, so he could've been 88 or 89.
- Also, please make sure you sign your talk page posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, which also automatically time stamps them. Nightscream (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Dude, you seriously need to relax.
- I looked through the two sources cited in his passage, and didn't see his exact dates of birth and death. Only now in triple-checking it do I see them at the bottom of that obituary in The Independent, and have added that to both articles. Maybe instead of attacking me ad hominem, you could've just pointed out to me where the dates were that I missed; I'm not perfect after all. But attacking other editors that with whom you are unacquainted with unsubstantiated accusations about their character is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies, especially when you concede that it was your earlier edits that were disruptive, which might've primed me to be on the lookout for continued behavior of that sort. Please see WP:Assume Good Faith. And for that matter, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)