User talk:Nazaria 73

February 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ronnie Radke, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,but I have not idea of what are you talking about,I've ever cited every source(you May easily look at the History of my contributions).I've Just recently added details about how a public person, mentioned there but not having her own Wiki page, identified herself on IG(not Need other reliable source),thinking this helps to remove eventually haters and trolls misunderstanding on what she really does today.

Please point out the citation that allows readers to verify that Chrissy Henderson is now an ex-model (versus an aspiring one, as the article indicated before your most recent edits) and that she is a "scientific forensics and philantropist" (and also exactly what that means -- is she a philanthropist? A forensic scientist?). If there aree none, citations are required at the time this content is added. General Ization ^Talk 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am Sorry for my mistakes about English language.Thanks fir correcting me.But about the reliable resource as you know Instagram and social network in general Can't Be considerered one of them.Nevertheless If it is Well known by social networks that a person changed her job even if She has not external link the previous Information needs to Be changed.So What is your proposal?

If there are no reliable sources that can be used to make this content verifiable, the content may not be added to the article. Even though the article is not about Chrissy Henderson, our policies concerning Biography of living persons apply. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your (deleted) edits, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If Henderson is to be mentioned at all, we will only be able to relate information that is verifiable. It is verifiable that she was at one time an aspiring model. General Ization ^Talk 01:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,I see.My bad.I acted (and reacted) emotionally.Thanks for correcting me and for your explainations.All the Best.

July 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Perhaps if you had not used slanted language, I would have left the material up. If your ego is injured to this degree by my deleting of five or so lines of your error-laden work, I suggest you find another website to edit. As you can see if you return to the "View history" tab of the page, it is clear that I am not the only one troubled by your biased diction. Cheers, Spockofdagobah. —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you called slanted language is merely your opinion,instead I have just reported the content of an article properly cited in the references. Wikipedia is not a Court no trial,so no Need to Be slanted. You are a Little confused on What it Means adding informations.Please Just Be more respectful of the others ' work!I'll fight for my right to get my work respected, unless you don't show the content I have added is fake I'll revert to keep my version at infinity. All the best

>>If I need to repeat what I originally stated for you:

Deleted a slanted and informally worded segment of text which detailed the charity work done by Radke. Segment was seemingly placed into initial portion of page in order to counter the presentation of Radke's criminal record.

My quarrel was from the beginning, quite clearly I believe, with the positioning of the text below the summary of Radke's criminal record, as well as of the informal language used. The positioning of your addition below the summary seemed as if you were attempting to counter any negativity bestowed upon Radke in the mind of the reader due to said summary, regardless of whatever your original intentions may have been. If that is what you were intending to do, "your work" is a textbook example of bias, is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and deserves no respect. Either way, I do not believe "your work", nor the summary of his criminal record, should be included in the introductory part of the article, as it does not affect who Radke is/what he is known for. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spockofdagobah (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would Be very glad if you would suggest where to put that Information. Wikipedia is to aim to provide more Correct Information as possible to the public,not for personal purpose,I believe,so I have just added an Information. Period. I've Just added It in the only Section seemed suitable,as It is usually done in Wikipedia. I agree the party about criminal records should go in the legal issues but I Never deleted it cause respected the previous worker as It is not fake news anyway and accepted by administrators. I have sostantially reported What written in the cited references,similar language,but It seems you even not read them, so It is Just your not impartial opinion that It is worded,but this no give you the right to deleted my work. Be respectful and provide your own useful new contributions on Wikipedia instead Simply wasting the others' hard work. All the Best.

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Ronnie Radke. Drmies is acting solely as an editor here, and raised a valid editorial concern. You are free to disagree politely when someone objects to your content or other action you take on wikipedia--that's what talkpages are for. But Drmies is right, articles should focus on their actual topic, not go into deep detail on a subtopic or related topic that has its own article. DMacks (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this Clear: 1. I am a volountary user who spent time and energies to update contents and correct fakenews laying on that page for years. If editors think It is not the right Section to put news about the band(on my opinion very difficult separate Radke Life from band accomplishments as It is is his project where he expresses a lot of himself in managing it and a lot of his Life in lyrics),but probably you are right,But in this case add a link and transfer informations there,not Just delete them. The editor did not,simply deleted contents and this is not fair and many informations got Lost,as I am not paid for that doing extra work is expensive for me.

Second,I Just kept the structure that for ages you administrators have tolerated on that page. So in good Faith I ve only going on in line with that by adding informations and correcting fake news. Not changing previous correct informations,not My duty,Just stata in line with that structure. If you want to give now-and you'd be right-a different structure It is really ok But YOU must do a different hard work(like add links and transfer informations)Not ask volountary users to do that,while You Just delete information added from cooperators,that's totally desrespectful for the hard work of voluntaries. Honestly if this is Your way to work and manage Wikipedia and treat cooperators,alongside the fact that You usually affor every possibile haters and vandals to add fake and delete my work, for me this is def my last contribution but I 'll take care to Warn every Reader to Pay much attention When they use Wikipedia to retrieve informations. All the Best and thank You for your attention.

P.S. If You would have take care if check the history of contributions You would have seen that I have added in That Section ONLY informations concerning the period since 2016-present,so absolutely as I have said I ve Just added informations in line with the previous structure. As I have told above I totally dusagree with that lascivious and desrespectful way You treat honest contributors(Notice that probably I have been the only One in this page in using my real name,nor the administrators did,this testify my good Faith I think) and also vs readers Who often in real time read fake news and haters' comments till You don't correct them,maybe Too late, so no more interest for me in wasting time for helping in keeping Wikipedia to work again,with this or other pages. Best.

I'm going to ignore your lashing out here, but will again remind you that failure to WP:AGF and to recognize that we are all volunteer editors is not helping you. No, it's not my job to do something for you. Just because something was tolerated does not mean it must be forever tolerated. There is a lot of bad material (as you know, from your comment about "fake news", whatever you think that actually means)--see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "Removing off-topic content" is a fairly standard activity here. It helps readers find what they do want, by reading the article specifically about their topic of interest. See Wikipedia:Coatrack articles#The Flea. Go find a better place if you wish that content to be "on topic". See, I'm assuming good faith in your contribution and it's possible value somewhere, merely pointing out that this isn't the place. DMacks (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, but will emphasize directly: admins have no special editorial power. They are just editors, just like you, when it comes to working on article content. There is no separation of "regular editors who write" vs "admins who approve or control" as there is in the normal publishing world. In fact, admins are generally forbidden to do admin actions to gain any advantage in editorial/content disputes. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have assumed the responsibility to administrate it,that should not mean Just deleting the others' contributions done in good Faith(as they are not fake news or vandalism) without doing the rest of the hard complete work or warning the contributors before deleting. Choose a different approach to manage Wikipedia..This way only decourage honest contributors and cheat readers..As You said You don't have tolerate the same thing Forever,including the way to administrate a website.. This is unfair and desrespectful and not doing a good informative job. Also,last but not least It is a little strange that in totally "good Faith"" that editor Just deleted the part where I added some contributions,while left totally unchanged the similar structure,reporting discs and songs released related to the previous period... Please in other discussions,You said what You have to say,so now please now leave me in peace as I Can't delete my name from here,but I just aim to leave Wikipedia forever and spend my time in more useful ways and sites than reply to you. Bye.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enough. I have archived this discussion, as you cannot simultaneously demand that others stop responding to your comments yet continue to add to your comments. If you have decided, regrettably, to cease editing here, good luck to you in the future. If you have any interest in continuing, you would do well to let others share with you their concerns and advice, and to take them seriously. General Ization ^Talk 16:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for that. Just to Be Clear: I'v not demanded simultaneously to stop and still adding comments,Just as I am not a native speaker so was correcting typos before ending It and closing discussions and as I am using only my mobile phone I had to Save and restart not to lose my work..You Could also have waited a little while before reply....Anyway Thank You for closing discussion Forever. Goodbye!