Emily Bronte
|
External links edit
Could you please follow our policy on External links and stop reverting other editors contributions. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware I was violating an external links policy. There is no need to be rude. --Emily Bronte (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary I was polite. I asked nicely with the use of the word please. How could I have made a simple request in a less rude manner? As an inexperienced editor after the fifth revert it would of been prudent for you to question your actions and look into the rules yourself. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. So no external links in the text of an article itself? That's fine. Thanks. --Emily Bronte (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have also reverted your revert-fest on the article as you have removed anything Wicked may not like and left nothing but a but of fluff out of their own marketing material. Wicked still have an awful record of running unroadworthy unregistered vehicles and it is not unfair to report the cases which have been formally reported. Cheers and happy new year. Djapa Owen (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Djapa, using the words 'primitive' and 'crude' in the first paragraph is making a judgement and potentially original material rather than research.
Referencing a Daily Telegraph article rather than primary material from government reports is not good research.
The entire article should not become a diatribe against Wicked Campers either. Let's get some objectivity here.
Thank you.-- Emily Bronte (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- You could argue that primitive is a biased term in this context, but crude is quite accurate. A few of the slogans are "politically incorrect", but far more are sexual references and as such have no real political context. They are simply crude references about having slept with your girlfriend and the like. That is why I believe crude is much more accurate than a vague piece of newspeak like "politically incorrect".
- I find it strange that you criticise the Daily Telegraph reference when you have just inserted a reference to the Wicked website and another to one of their ads on Wicked's Youtube channel. Do you consider those to be impartial or encyclopaedic? (Not that a tabloid is exactly encyclopaedic) The referenced material is interesting, so perhaps you might want to find a reference a little further from the source? The personal blog reference may also upset some.
- Objectivity is of course the aim, and your last visit did much more to bring objectivity than jumping in and removing all edits which were not positive about the company. The article is improving incrementally so lets keep working together on that. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha. I can work with that. Keeping crude but removing primitive is a good compromise. Valid point about the personal blog but as far as I can see its a blog that they've chosen to make public, not restricted with a password, and since they are raising money for charity maybe on balance they would like traffic to it? I honestly don't know. Your call. Yeah a tabloid is not encyclopedic--I tried to find outside sources for the other campaigns but no luck yet. I am happy to change those if I do find better references.
Thanks. Emily Bronte (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)