Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:18, 14 December 2005

Content dispute

Freestylefrappe, I'm going to have to ask that you stop removing content from that article without consensus. It wasn't acceptable when Bitola did it, and it's not acceptable when you do it either. If you have a problem with legitimate, good faith edits, please discuss on the talk page -- don't just pretend that calling it "nonsense" makes it OK to remove. I'm going to reinstate the relevant content exactly once. I assume you will then revert it, but I hope that I can get you to engage in constructive dialogue on the article's talk page instead. Thanks, Glenn Willen (Talk) 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bitola...you're BS amuses me. freestylefrappe 00:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing article content

Hello,

I've been asked to take a look at this article by User:Glenn Willen. I've had quite a bit of difficulty following the dispute, largely because the communication seems to have happened almost entirely in the various edit summaries. I've reverted to what seemed to be the longest and most complete version of the article, so that we can discuss the material. I'd like to ask the following:

• That users removing copyvio material from the article post the source of the copyright violation on the talk page, so that we can verify the copyright violation.
• That users removing noncopyvio material from the article move the material to the Talk page, rather than deleting it outright. This prevents material from being lost between revisions, and allows us to have constructive discussions about the material.
• That users attempt to engage in discussion before reverting, and post their rationales to the talk page when reverting, rather than leaving comments in the edit summaries.

I hope that we can sort through these issues in a more productive manner. -- Creidieki 02:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I so sorry! :(. Thanks for your wisdom. freestylefrappe 02:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Attempted summary of the history I'm just trying to understand.

I've dug a little into the history. Bitola's original changes on Nov 23 here (with the edit summary of "Don't put things like narcotics and violence!!!") were clearly a copyright-violating dump of this page. His later changes, at least until Dec 12, also largely dumped text from that same page. Freestylefrappe's reversions seem to make sense up to here. The Dec 12 change by 62.162.225.230 (with summary "Bitola:Now there are no copyvios by my side") appears to add "History" and "Cultural Monuments" sections to the existing contents, leaving the others (including "Violence" and "Narcotics" alone.) For reasons unclear to me, Freestylefrappe then reverted these additions with the comment "rv. posting nonsense is not a substitute for copyvio.". I'm not sure why the new content was "nonsense", though I very much want to believe I am missing something. At that point, Glenn Willen and Creidieki started reverting the article back to the state before Freestylefrappe's revert. Freestylefrappe has the last edit right now, edit summary "rv self-explanatory." Freestylefrappe, it isn't. Please fill us in. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Terorism is not welcomed in the official Kumanovo's article

I don’t know why FreestyleFrappe is insisting so much on terrorism while describing Kumanovo. I visited Belfast or Beirut articles (they are pretty good examples of towns that suffered a large number of terrorist attacks) and believe me, there is nothing about the bombs and killings as FreestyleFrappe is saying about Kumanovo. Fortunately, Kumanovo experienced only a few bomb attacks, but mostly it is a quiet and ordinary town. If he wants to talk about terrorism, he should do it in another article. About narcotics, unfortunately, drugs are spread across Europe and the rest of the world; it is not some kind of isolated problem that happens only in Kumanovo. Also, I cannot understand why he is putting commercial on the page (Also notable is the private practice "Otodent", located in Goce Delcev suburb, which offers different medical services like ENT and dentistry. The founder and the director is Dr. Milenko Trendafilovski). I really don’t understand how a Misplaced Pages administrator can behave like he is doing. Someone should consider his administrator status.

Macedon5 (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Macedon5, I've left Bitola's part in the article, but I've also added Freestylefrappe's content back in. Please, let's have a discussion here before anyone else removes anything! I understand that you feel terrorism and drugs do not belong in the article. I also feel that it would be unfair of me to yell at Freestylefrappe for removing Bitola's text and not do anything when you remove his.

I don't think it will be possible to have a productive discussion about this until Bitola and Freestylefrappe's blocks expire and they can post on this talk page. Until then, is it possible that you can let the article stand as it is? Again, I understand that talk of terrorism in Kumanovo offends you, but if the facts are right then please let the article stay as it is. It won't hurt the article if, for a few days, it has some violence in it, while we talk about it and decide what to do. Do you see what I mean? User:Glenn Willen (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel little tired about all this confrontations here. I hope that FreestyleFrappe will accept that other people have different opinion about how the Kumanovo page should look like and will accept my good-faith adds to the page. I’m not going to remove his adds to the page and I hope he will leave my adds as well. The worst he can do is to start revenge actions after his blocking expiration. However, I respect other people opinion and I will accept the overwhelming decision about what should stay, and what shouldn’t in the article. Also, I would like to thank User:Glen Willen, User:Creidieki, User:Bunchofgrapes and User:karmafist. They all expressed good will in order to resolve this unpleasant situation.

User:Bitola (Talk) 19:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the new version will accomodate everyone's concerns. However, I never violated 3RR, and the only reason I was blocked is because I temporarily dared to vote against Wikifanatic's RFA. I am considering an RFC in regards to misconduct by Karmafist and Asbestos though Asbestos was probably just being lazy. Bunchofgrapes' comment makes it quite clear why I didnt break 3RR. freestylefrappe 21:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you would say my comment makes it clear that you didn't break 3RR. , , , and are four reversions within 12 hours; the material reverted, even if copiovio, is not simple vandalism. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? IF its a copyio then its vandalism. Perhaps I should engage in the same arbitrary blocking other admins have here. freestylefrappe 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Vandalism must be manifestly bad-faith. See Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. Slapping in some copied text from a web page is not manifestly bad-faith: some people don't know it isn't permitted. Even if you, from a past history, believe Bitola knew and understood copyright rules, that still does not make it "simple vandalism", removable without regard to 3RR. Simple vandalism is obvious on its face and does not require further research, neither into the origins of the text added during the edit nor into the motivations of the editor adding it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see. So you're rationale is that Bitola was unable to understand Misplaced Pages ediquette so I had no right to revert his edits. Thats got to be some of the stupidest logic I've ever heard. "Slapping in some copied text from a web page" is always done on bad faith. Have you even looked at Bitola's comments? Are you unaware I'm an admin? freestylefrappe 22:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)