User talk:Jæs/Archives/2010/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jæs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Talk page redaction
Question: Why is everything we write being removed from the talk page? I don't think you understand that my point was that the poster doesn't really get it, because Palin's family shouldn't have anything to do with who she is as a person. And yes, there are many political commentators and television clips that document clear criticism of her family. I thought Wikipedia wasn't censored... I remember reading the policy somewhere. Estheroliver (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Let me be the second fellow editor to welcome you to Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is not censored, we do take the treatment of living persons very seriously, even on article talk pages. Alleging that someone's children are committing crimes, or that someone has been negligent in the care of their children are both very serious allegations. For such allegations to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, there is a stringent burden of proof: the allegations must be biographical and they must be reliably sourced. While reliably sourcing information normally only "applies" to the article itself, the policy on biographies of living people requires "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." I hope this helps clarify. jæs (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, I don't see why the anonymous user's comment was also not removed entirely. Her kids don't have anything to do with her, and this is a fact a lot of people would indeed push towards you if you told them about that. It clearly states the talk page is for discussing serious stuff concerning the article (additions, images, etc.). Why are her kids even relevant? True, I notice the article is missing a criticism section, but somebody better find good sourcing for that. Estheroliver (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel the rest of the other editor's comments are not constructive and violate WP:BLP, you can feel free to redact them. jæs (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, I don't see why the anonymous user's comment was also not removed entirely. Her kids don't have anything to do with her, and this is a fact a lot of people would indeed push towards you if you told them about that. It clearly states the talk page is for discussing serious stuff concerning the article (additions, images, etc.). Why are her kids even relevant? True, I notice the article is missing a criticism section, but somebody better find good sourcing for that. Estheroliver (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Aflac
You undid a change i made to the Aflac page about the number of agents. the number is 70K+ see here: http://www.aflac.com/aboutaflac/corporateoverview/default.aspx
thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezra802 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- I apologize for the misunderstanding. Your edit actually changed the figure to "70,00" — rather than "70,000" — which is a not uncommon form of vandalism. Thank you for clarifying and for updating the article! jæs (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)