User talk:Deepblue357

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Deepblue357, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Dae Kim, you may be blocked from editing. MaxVeers (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does X work?

{{helpme}} How does one prevent someone from repeatedly entering true, but disparaging information on a a celebrity page? Thank you. Deepblue357 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Daniel Dae Kim, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. JohnCD (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply continue to remove sourced information because you don't like it - that is WP:Edit warring. Read WP:BRD - you should discuss the change on the talk page and try toreach WP:Consensus with other editors; if you cannot, use the WP:Dispute resolution process. JohnCD (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

The point is that WP:Edit warring - repeated doing and undoing of some change - is not a sensible way to resolve issues, which would then be settled according to who was most stubborn. Therefore there is a Three-Revert Rule - more than three reverts in 24 hours can result in an instant block, with no debate about whether the reverts were good or not. Note that 3RR is not a license to revert up to three times, or to watch the clock for 24 hours and then start again - edit warring is bad in any case - but 3RR is a bright-line limit.

The proper way to proceed is described in WP:Bold, revert, discuss - if you see a change which you think would improve the encyclopedia, be WP:BOLD and make it. If it is then reverted, do not just repeat it: discuss it on the article talk page and try to reach a WP:Consensus with other editors. If you cannot agree with them, follow the WP:Dispute resolution process.

Read these links for more detail. In this particular case, WP:UNDUE is certainly a relevant policy, and the whole WP:Biographies of living persons policy applies. Make a proposal on the article talk page for how you think the issue should be handled, see what others say, and take it from there. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dae Kim's page

Max-

Received several reverses to edits made on Daniel Dae Kim's page.

Here's why I deleted the section. Yes, he did get a DUI, but your insistence that that one event be listed as its own section, on the same level as the entirety of his career, as well as personal life, I, for one, find objectionable. For you to repeatedly place that one event as the single most defining aspect of who he is seems unfair. Is the dui more important than his role on LOST, or the awards he has won (of which there are no mentions)? According to the way you'd have his bio page structured, it is. Before you threaten to have people blocked from editing I would humbly suggest you review your organizational priorities. Respectfully, Deepblue357 (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpted from the wikipedia NPOV page: Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepblue357 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I'm insisting on is that you don't blank sections without first discussing it on the talk page. Sound good? MaxVeers (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit that I hope will satisfy both of us. I thought the bit about the other Lost actors getting DUIs was interesting, but I'm okay to let it go. BTW, in the future, it's best to have these discussions on the talk page of the article, not the editors. MaxVeers (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deepblue357. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dae Kim

By all means go ahead and make the change - the only specific comment so far at BLP/N agrees, and you have done everything necessary by way of consultation. If any objection is raised, go back into the discuss-on-the-talk-page routine, but I don't expect there will be. You have no need to worry about being blocked for making a good-faith edit like this; the warning I gave above was to stop an edit-war, but you got the message and have learned how we do things - if only all the warnings I have to give had such good results! Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]