Talk:Michael Woroniecki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Associated Content

Re this edit:

This material was not properly

cited
, but there are far bigger issues.

This article is a biography of a living person, subject to

have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". The content was generated entirely by site users. The website had some editorial control over content, but did not in any way vet submission or fact check. This is not a reliable source. If you disagree, please take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard
for determination before restoring the material.

Woroniecki is a controversial figure. Unsourced and poorly sourced material will be removed on sight. Per

talk) 02:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello SummerPhD,
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I did go and read all the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines on the issue of reliable sources and I understand now where you are coming from. I agree that the material was not properly cited and needs fixing. I did some basic research and discovered that
Associated Content
was acquired by Yahoo in 2010 and launched in 2011 as Yahoo! Voices. Yahoo introduced new Submission Guidelines (for some reason, I can't get the link to work from that page here but you can search it in Yahoo for reference), retired 75,000 articles that were outdated and retired older content that did not meet the new guidelines. One of the new guidelines is to "Be accurate and cite your sources", requiring contributors to list and submit authoritative sources in a way that can be accessed easily by readers. It also accepts the firsthand, personal experience of the contributor as a reliable source, when the material or content published allows for such.
I searched on Yahoo!Voices for the article that was supposedly the source for those sentences and here it is: Woroniecki Family in Times Square. Since the article was written after AC was acquired by Yahoo and the new rules were put into place, it is a relatively reliable source, given that the material that it is supporting does not make any "extraordinary claims", is not "damaging" to the subject, is not "contentious", per
WP:RS
and keeps the article current and relevant. All the Wikipedia guidelines on sources allow for their common sense application, depending on the material they are purported to verify. Obviously, this type of source could not be used to support a statement such as "Woroniecki has a doctorate in Theology" or "Woroniecki was present during the Yates trial". But, according to all the Wiki rules I have read, it is sufficient, under "Currently", to place Woroniecki in New York in 2010 and a third party perspective of the gist of Woroniecki's current, then, message.
I did as you suggested and posted the source in question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Since then, I did the research on my own and managed to answer our question :-). Since Wikipedia encourages us to try and find sources for un-cited material that we believe is verifiable, per
WP:V
, as opposed to just removing it, it makes sense to me to restore that content, now having an appropriate cite. So, I will rewrite that part of the article to bring it into compliance and make sure it's sourced correctly. Thank you for helping sort it all out!
JesHelpin (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Content was -- and Yahoo Voices is -- not a reliable source, it is a
talk) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Per my discussion here and similar findings at
talk) 13:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I apologize if I seem dense, but why are you still saying that Yahoo! Voices is a "self-published" source? It is not. Articles must be submitted for review before they will be published. Articles that carried over were submitted to the same review and edited into compliance. Not just "anyone" could go on there and write about another person, either a promotion or a rant. It is specifically prohibited. As far as the author of the Voices article not being "notable", I don't believe that is a requirement to write that you saw someone at a certain place and time and what you heard them say. Yes, a certain degree of notability would be required for a legal, medical or psychological statement or opinion. But this content is not that. Again, according to Wiki,
WP:RS, context and content can determine whether or not a source is "reliable". JesHelpin (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I am saying, as the noticeboard found, that the site does NOT have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" and is essentially an
talk) 03:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Woroniecki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Woroniecki&oldid=1216703552"