User talk:Nicemc

Examples of Miniter's Innaccuracies and Credibility Issues have now been cited.

Welcome!

Hello, Nicemc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. I am being in touch after talking a look at your edits on the Richard Miniter page and the talkpage. It seems that you have strong opinions about the man and his views, to which, you are certainly entitled, and for all I know, you may be right. However, your comment on the talkpage:

I am the person responsible for writing, " Substantial Innaccuracies and credibility Issues in Miniter's Reporting ". This heading has been removed many times, but it's accuracy has yet to be challenged directly. And no matter how many times it is removed, I will keep replacing it. For a very simple reason: Miniter's reporting is Innacurate And/Or Biased On Many Key Points. And I invite anyone to research these points for themselves.

suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about Wikipedia.

The kind of Original research that you have been doing is not allowed in this encyclopedia: in a nutshell, "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view" and "Interpretations and syntheses must be attributable to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses". I suggest that you carefully read this Original research policy page to understand this fully. In this case, though you have provided citations, the citations are to Miniter or other original documents/sources, and none of them make the claims of inaccuracy or lack of credibility that you have been making in these paragraphs. Particularly in an article about a living person edits of this sort cannot be allowed to remain, and you must stop reinserting them.

On the other hand, if you can find books, mainstream news media, (in other words reliable sources) that make the claims of inaccuracies etc, then the criticisms become verifiable from these sources and can be inserted, as long as the books/articles etc are cited.

Please get in touch with me if you need more help or advice about this. For example, if you find any sources for the criticism I would be happy to look at them and give you my opinion about whether they meet the reliability bar or not. Good luck. --Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that per [1] the information is not allowed on the talkpage either. I have removed it.Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]