141.155.57.125 (talk) |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
: If original research is cited appropriately, then it's not original research. At any rate, yes, there is still plenty of original research in the article. SCA does not own the SCA article. I don't have an anything against your fellowship, and I would like to help you improve the article. At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by alerting your general membership to my obnoxious deletions, it does sound threatening to me. I edit under my real name and I take comments like the ones you made here very seriously. -- [[User:Craigtalbert|Craigtalbert]] ([[User talk:Craigtalbert|talk]]) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
: If original research is cited appropriately, then it's not original research. At any rate, yes, there is still plenty of original research in the article. SCA does not own the SCA article. I don't have an anything against your fellowship, and I would like to help you improve the article. At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by alerting your general membership to my obnoxious deletions, it does sound threatening to me. I edit under my real name and I take comments like the ones you made here very seriously. -- [[User:Craigtalbert|Craigtalbert]] ([[User talk:Craigtalbert|talk]]) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) |
||
== Response== |
|||
There is no original research in this article, just the views of members within SCA. Reverting this article to include information which alludes to members of SCA as having brain dysfunction borders upon libelous, and yes, we take this seriously. Very seriously. Please refrain from your deletions until you think about the larger consequences. Thank you. Jeffrey |
Revision as of 21:36, 19 November 2007
Welcome
November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sexual Compulsives Anonymous, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't start an edit war
I appreciate the work you're doing on the SCA article. You may not know that it was once deleted, because the information contained in the article was not supported by reliable sources and it contained a lot of original research, and didn't maintain a neutral point of view. It was one of many twelve-step articles I re-wrote so it wouldn't get axed again. If you can provide citations for the information you added, and and re-write it to keep and encyclopedic tone, then I won't revert the changes. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no original research now sited. Thank you for your interest in SCA but our membership is now contributing to this article and we do not need your help. A warning has been left on your talk page, and will be escalated as necessary. We appreciate all the hard work at deleting you have done. Appropriate citations to the SCA website have been added, and our general membership has been alerted to the obnoxious deletions that have been occuring.
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistboynyc (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- If original research is cited appropriately, then it's not original research. At any rate, yes, there is still plenty of original research in the article. SCA does not own the SCA article. I don't have an anything against your fellowship, and I would like to help you improve the article. At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by alerting your general membership to my obnoxious deletions, it does sound threatening to me. I edit under my real name and I take comments like the ones you made here very seriously. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Response
There is no original research in this article, just the views of members within SCA. Reverting this article to include information which alludes to members of SCA as having brain dysfunction borders upon libelous, and yes, we take this seriously. Very seriously. Please refrain from your deletions until you think about the larger consequences. Thank you. Jeffrey