| Revision as of 19:18, 13 March 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →Editing against consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:18, 13 March 2015 edit undoBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →Editing against consensus: Deleted harassment, it can be found in page history if it is needed for refferenceNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a ] argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —] (]) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | :You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a ] argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —] (]) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. ] (]) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. ] (]) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Editing against consensus == | |||
| I'm surprised by your recent edit on ]. You cannot have failed to be aware that this article was merged and redirected by an admin as the result of a fairly recent AfD. I cannot see any reason why the situation should have changed since then, but in any case you should not go against the result of an AfD without a clear consensus. | |||
| If you wish to overturn the AfD there are well established ways of doing so. | |||
| I have reverted the relevant edits. | |||
| Do please take greater care with your edits. Since your last block ended you have already begun to draw attention to yourself for possible disruption. Please take the time to check out article histories and recent discussions before making major edits. | |||
| ] (]) 10:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Only the Wikipedian bureaucrats like yourself find me a "disruption" but I assume good faith, you mean nothing but the best when you fork content and violate NPOV.] (]) 19:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:18, 13 March 2015
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Your 8,000 merger proposals
Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.
- You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)