User talk:JuliusEdward

Welcome!

Hello, JuliusEdward, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bjelleklang - talk 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford American

Hi! I removed your edits (as well as those from User:Magazineinparadise) after receiving a complaint through OTRS saying that the article was very biased and poorly sourced. After taking a look at it, it turned out that some of the edits from the mentioned user had removed a series of reliable sources, similar to what you did when you basically reverted my edits.

I have reverted your edits again, this diff should give an impression of why. Basically, you are re-adding unsourced accusations against a named individual and also violating the policy on having a neutral point-of-view. Feel free to improve the article further, but do not remove properly sourced material and replace it with non-neutral content accusing people of criminal acts without a single source. If you have any further questions on the matter, I'll be happy to help. Bjelleklang - talk 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sources it shouldn't be a big problem, but keep in mind that the article also needs to be written in a neutral language. And just in case you didn't already know, each page has a history where you can see each edit and compare it to the previous/next. So if you want to grab content I deleted, just click on the button labeled "View history" on the top right and select a revision. Bjelleklang - talk 19:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version I linked to above, which was the one you restored had two references. One was for the Oxford American website, the other was an blogpost on NYTimes. The former can't be used as a reliable source for the content you provided, while the latter doesn't mention the embezzlement incident or the underage drinking, and barely touches on the sexual harassment. Please take a look at the guideline on how to identify reliable sources and our BLP policy before you add any further content.

The part about founders and editors was removed along with the other edits. I didn't go into the article removing sentence by sentence, I reverted entire revisions.Bjelleklang - talk 19:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the sources yet, but so far it looks good. I made one small edit though, and removed the name of the secretary since we don't loose anything by omitting her name. Bjelleklang - talk 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a more thorough look now, and you might want to replace the reference to Michelle Richmond; she is only one person, and she can't be representative of outraged magazine contributors, especially when "outraged" is how you interpret it. If you want to use that phrase, you need an actual source saying that contributors were outraged. Bjelleklang - talk 21:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]