Tomkirwan
Welcome edit
Hello, Tomkirwan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Content about living people edit
Hello, I'm TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
You must also make certain that you are not making an analysis that is not directly stated in the reliably published source.
Wikipedia is not here to be a platform for your crusade. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I dont think there is really anything salvageable about your edit. First, you would need a reliably published source that within the source itself specifically talks about Stevenson and any connection to vaccines. Then you would need to show that the comments about Stevenson and vaccines in that source represent both a significant quantity of the mainstream professional observers views of Stevenson in relation to vaccines and that including this content is not inappropriately weighing the article towards coverage of this event/aspect in relation to everything else that Stevenson is known for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- In addition, you would need to show that a position she may or may not have held in 2003 is still a current belief after the widespread news debunking Wakefield. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Your points are fully accepted by me particularly the reference to a personal crusade. Can I try to edit to the extent of amplifying the reference to the film in the article in cross referring it to the Prager article. The controversery was clearly very important to her in 2008 as shown in a Daily Telegraph article at that time. "Stevenson still seems shaken by the critical fall-out. Twice we close the subject, and twice she goes back to it, explaining her bewilderment and contempt for the personal vilification that followed".[1]
- in that reference, the key sentence for the MMR topic is "... the critics accused the filmmakers - and by inference her - of trying to influence parents against MMR and dressing up science as entertainment." Replicating that (without adding any other spin or opinion) in the article would be appropriate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)