Jump to content

Talk:St. George, Missouri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Police misconduct section

[edit]

Hi Athene,

I undid your deletion of my content due to wikipedia guidelines on what is/is not vandalism and when you should/should not revert another persion's edits.

I respect your right to disagree with my additions to the st george page, but my additions were supported by citations from verifyable sources. Vandalism is a strong term that can lead to being banned by wikipedia, so please reserve the term for true acts of vandalism, like the arbitrary deletion of content.

By all means, feel free to post an opposing view, especially one where you can cite contrary facts to the one I present.

St George is on the internet due to police misconduct whether you agree or disagree, so please do not decide to censor what people will see on the St george page by simply deleting content you do not like and are unable to provide rebuttals for.

vandalism as defined by wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism—it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

your deletion violates these wikipedia guidelines for Reverting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting

Do not

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Thanks, nunya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunyadambidness (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your edits because I disagreed with them. They are, however, problematic.
  • The article that you cite to call St. George a speed trap does not indicate at all what constitutes a speed trap. Who says it's a speed trap? Who decides what a speed trap is? If you want to note how many tickets were written by St. George police officers, perhaps it belongs in another section. However, there is no mention of "speed trap" in your citation, and being a "speed trap" doesn't really constitute police misconduct, either.
  • Second, your paragraph about falsifying charges links to the exact same incident that is described in the "Cop Gone Wild" section. The rest of that paragraph is unsubstantiated.
  • Third, I will leave your section about sexual harassment because it is at least substantiated. Everything else is either unsubstantiated or redundant.Athene cunicularia 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on St. George, Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on St. George, Missouri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._George,_Missouri&oldid=1205419784"