User talk:Verdict78: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:32, 18 August 2013

Welcome to my talk page

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clive Rich may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Tech City|"Tech City"]] project to create a [[Silicon Valley]] environment in [[East London]] (link to article on number 10 website.<ref>{{cite web|title=50m to regenerate Old St.|url=http://www.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and Suburban Express

Changes to articles must be backed by reliable sources. You made changes to Suburban Express that talked about one of their business rivals, sourced to SE's own website. That is not a good idea, since their website is not a reliable source, for obvious reasons of conflict of interest and neutral point-of-view. I have reverted the changes. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the revert. I was attempting to improve this article and might have got a little carried away. I'll go through and ensure that the well referenced content remains. Verdict78 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really hated having to do that second revert, but your reference was to an opinion piece, which by nature is not going to have the same standards of impartiality that would be expected from actual reportage, since an editorial is by definition intended to persuade as much as to inform. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was quite surprised with the revert actually, but I do understand what you mean about editorials. My suggestion is to make a very brief statement regarding the rivalry and use the Daily Illini link as a reference. By doing this I feel the editorial could be used. I'll make the change, if you are unhappy with it then you know where to find me to discuss. Again thanks for your input, there's nothing worse than blindly editing a controversial article with no input from anyone else. Verdict78 (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

assume good faith

Please assume good faith when editing and interacting with other editors.

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ::I really hated having to do that second revert, but your reference was to an opinion piece, which by nature is not going to have the same standards of impartiality that would be expected from actual reportage, since an editorial is by definition intended to persuade as much as to inform. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 20:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 :Yes I was quite surprised with the revert actually, but I do understand what you mean about editorials. My suggestion is to make a very brief statement regarding the rivalry and use the Daily Illini link as a reference. By doing this I feel the editorial could be used. I'll make the change, if you are unhappy with it then you know where to find me to discuss. Again thanks for your input, there's nothing worse than blindly editing a controversial article with no input from anyone else. [[User:Verdict78|Verdict78]] ([[User talk:Verdict78#top|talk]]) 10:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
+== assume good faith ==
+Please assume good faith when editing and interacting with other editors.