User talk:MonicaAng: Difference between revisions
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Your [[Special:Contributions/MonicaAng|entire Wikipedia career]] has been devoted to removing negative information about Joan Crawford. Either there's been a vast conspiracy to insert sourced, false information about her (and you also somehow have access to every book written about Joan Crawford ever), or you've been removing true information that you'd prefer not to be on Wikipedia. Can you explain yourself? [[User:Rublov|Rublov]] ([[User talk:Rublov|talk]]) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
Your [[Special:Contributions/MonicaAng|entire Wikipedia career]] has been devoted to removing negative information about Joan Crawford. Either there's been a vast conspiracy to insert sourced, false information about her (and you also somehow have access to every book written about Joan Crawford ever), or you've been removing true information that you'd prefer not to be on Wikipedia. Can you explain yourself? [[User:Rublov|Rublov]] ([[User talk:Rublov|talk]]) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*I agree with {{U|Rublov}}. You may discuss on the talk page what you think is wrong--in detail, with a discussion of the sources. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
*I agree with {{U|Rublov}}. You may discuss on the talk page what you think is wrong--in detail, with a discussion of the sources. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
**No, I have been correcting accusations which are not even properly sourced. I do have several Crawford biographies, among many Hollywood bios, and much of the information I have corrected is due to sensationalist content being contained in these articles as fact when it is not fact, and in addition, not even properly sourced with a means to validate the information in the cited source. [[User:MonicaAng|MonicaAng]] ([[User talk:MonicaAng#top|talk]]) 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
***I understand you think you are right, and yet your opinion by itself is not enough ground. Nor is your argument about "Gay fans" very strong: you're saying "he's no expert on the gay community", but that, and "he's no professor", are not sufficient to remove the information which of course has a relevance to the article. If you want to claim that sourced information needs to be scrapped because the source isn't strong enough, you'll have to explain why the sources aren't strong enough. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:55, 8 November 2021
Welcome!
Hi MonicaAng! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Name Omitted (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
What is going on?
Your entire Wikipedia career has been devoted to removing negative information about Joan Crawford. Either there's been a vast conspiracy to insert sourced, false information about her (and you also somehow have access to every book written about Joan Crawford ever), or you've been removing true information that you'd prefer not to be on Wikipedia. Can you explain yourself? Rublov (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Rublov. You may discuss on the talk page what you think is wrong--in detail, with a discussion of the sources. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, I have been correcting accusations which are not even properly sourced. I do have several Crawford biographies, among many Hollywood bios, and much of the information I have corrected is due to sensationalist content being contained in these articles as fact when it is not fact, and in addition, not even properly sourced with a means to validate the information in the cited source. MonicaAng (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I understand you think you are right, and yet your opinion by itself is not enough ground. Nor is your argument about "Gay fans" very strong: you're saying "he's no expert on the gay community", but that, and "he's no professor", are not sufficient to remove the information which of course has a relevance to the article. If you want to claim that sourced information needs to be scrapped because the source isn't strong enough, you'll have to explain why the sources aren't strong enough. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, I have been correcting accusations which are not even properly sourced. I do have several Crawford biographies, among many Hollywood bios, and much of the information I have corrected is due to sensationalist content being contained in these articles as fact when it is not fact, and in addition, not even properly sourced with a means to validate the information in the cited source. MonicaAng (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)