| Revision as of 16:02, 2 July 2014 editRoySmith (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators92,089 edits note← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:42, 4 July 2014 edit undoUnscintillating (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,833 edits →stable version of article restored due to 2nd edit conflict in the context of unsourced additions citing WP:BURDEN: analysis of "at length" discussionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| :I ''already'' discussed this with you at length on your talk page. You have repeatedly violated ]. Even with blp info. You have ignored and failed to respond to all warnings. See and and referring to , and . And all edit summaries that accorded with them. And just continued to violate ]. --] (]) 04:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | :I ''already'' discussed this with you at length on your talk page. You have repeatedly violated ]. Even with blp info. You have ignored and failed to respond to all warnings. See and and referring to , and . And all edit summaries that accorded with them. And just continued to violate ]. --] (]) 04:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :*I think people realize that templates are not "at length" discussion. In fact, templating my talk page as you have done (five times now) is considered to be uncivil. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | :*I think people realize that templates are not "at length" discussion. In fact, templating my talk page as you have done (five times now) is considered to be uncivil. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :* is your definition of something "discussed at length". It is two templates without any discussion. There are additional templates on my talk page, but they postdate the statement, . I hope you will reconsider your idea of "at length" discussion. ] (]) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *I documented a similar situation recently in which you removed sourced information claiming WP:V as a justification. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | *I documented a similar situation recently in which you removed sourced information claiming WP:V as a justification. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| *Something that people want to know here is what it is that you think is uncited. One of your edits changed the tenant count from 70 to 60, which is new information, yet you did not add a source. Meanwhile the edit comment for that edit talks about removals for WP:V. People don't know what you are trying to do. And then when I come along and start to clean up the confusion, you go manic. You need to use Template:CN tags instead of just removing material that you don't like, and templating the worker bees, in the hopes of improving your chances of winning at AfD. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | *Something that people want to know here is what it is that you think is uncited. One of your edits changed the tenant count from 70 to 60, which is new information, yet you did not add a source. Meanwhile the edit comment for that edit talks about removals for WP:V. People don't know what you are trying to do. And then when I come along and start to clean up the confusion, you go manic. You need to use Template:CN tags instead of just removing material that you don't like, and templating the worker bees, in the hopes of improving your chances of winning at AfD. ] (]) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:42, 4 July 2014
 | This page was proposed for deletion by Epeefleche (talk · contribs) on 2 June 2014 with the comment: NN 252,502 square foot mall. It was contested by Steam5 (talk · contribs) on 2 June 2014 |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
stable version of article restored due to 2nd edit conflict in the context of unsourced additions citing WP:BURDEN
I've been trying to edit the article tonight, but another editor has been reacting to my edits without sufficient explanation. So I'm starting this talk page discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reply: If you do a Google search on , the fourth link from the top is . Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I already discussed this with you at length on your talk page. You have repeatedly violated wp:burden. Even with blp info. You have ignored and failed to respond to all warnings. See and and referring to this, and here. And all edit summaries that accorded with them. And just continued to violate wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think people realize that templates are not "at length" discussion. In fact, templating my talk page as you have done (five times now) is considered to be uncivil. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is your definition of something "discussed at length". It is two templates without any discussion. There are additional templates on my talk page, but they postdate the statement, "talk page is next". I hope you will reconsider your idea of "at length" discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I documented a similar situation recently in which you removed sourced information claiming WP:V as a justification. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Something that people want to know here is what it is that you think is uncited. One of your edits changed the tenant count from 70 to 60, which is new information, yet you did not add a source. Meanwhile the edit comment for that edit talks about removals for WP:V. People don't know what you are trying to do. And then when I come along and start to clean up the confusion, you go manic. You need to use Template:CN tags instead of just removing material that you don't like, and templating the worker bees, in the hopes of improving your chances of winning at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think we can agree (one can hope that we are able to agree about something), that the section "Stores and Services", and the last sentence of the lede that only lists tenants can be removed as per WP:TENANTS. Do you agree? Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- For the remaining sourcing concerns that you have, do you agree to add Template:CN tags? Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- The material that you restored, which was uncited, and which violated wp:burden and/or wp:TENANTS, should per wp:burden never have been re-added by you. Let alone repeatedly. In the face of repeated warnings that the additions violate wp:burden. You should self-revert, as your additions clearly repeatedly violated wp:burden. A sysop has already done half of your work for you, by deleting half the material in question. Also -- do not revert that delete, as you have repeatedly in the past. Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, I deleted that wearing my "just some guy who edits" hat, not my admin hat. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Stores and Services
I have removed the entire Stores and Services section, as it violates Misplaced Pages:TENANTS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Categories: