| Revision as of 17:16, 22 March 2007 editSamiharris (talk | contribs)1,443 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:54, 22 March 2007 edit undoPiperdown (talk | contribs)1,821 edits →Your comments in "[]"Next edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| :I do not understand how you could possibly read "sacrcasm" into remarks intended to be conciliatory. You appear to be trying to gain an advantage by putting other editors on the defensive. Please assume faith in other users as required by WP:AGF.--] 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | :I do not understand how you could possibly read "sacrcasm" into remarks intended to be conciliatory. You appear to be trying to gain an advantage by putting other editors on the defensive. Please assume faith in other users as required by WP:AGF.--] 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| "You appear to be trying to gain an advantage" is a personal attack itself under your own criteria. let me cut to the chase Sam. Here's what 2 editors including yourself did: | |||
| 1) Removed a sourced edit from the SEC that directly applied to the topic. Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it. | |||
| 2) This was despite half of the article was a direct quote from the same SEC site, which you didn't seem to want to apply the same criteria for some reason. | |||
| 3) After taking into consideration that your comment about my edit was correct in that it shouldn't be a copy and paste from the site, I added it back it in a summarized form and was not inappropriately long for the section. It was also a recent change that updated the SEC's Reg SHO comments, so went into the Recent Developments section. | |||
| 4) you then again completely removed the edit, claiming it was Original Research, despite the link provided as source, and your own ealier acknowledgement that the oringal edit was a direct quote from the SEC site. | |||
| 5) Another editor, citing that it was dubious that it was a recent development despite its 10/10/06 date on the SEC site, completely removed it again, claiming it was information that was already availble on the SEC site. No duh. There is a lot of information on the SEC site that is already on their pages, but not represented here at all. | |||
| 6) The entire section on the "NASAA" section is WP:OR from a site that does not meet WP:RS. Yet you don't have a problem with that. This OR source use is dominated by the "debunking" side of the issue, but the other 40 pages in the document and the experts cited in it on the other side of the issue are nowwhere to be found in this article. Either summarize the source in a balanced manner or leave the whole part out anyway as it violates WP:RS WP:OR | |||
| 7) On edit into this thing, you warn me about 3 reverts rule just for my reinserting a well sourced section that you deleted (reverted) without just cause. Well sourced material that could be edited to meet WP criteria should be edited, not removed because it might not be consistent in POV with the rest of the history of your edits. | |||
| That's enough, I will continue to edit this article as well sourced facts become notable, be they "pro" or "con". I hope other editors will do the same without making false claims about other editors' use of sources to game a block for by reverts. I won't play any victim games with editors who completely blank well sourced edits while hypocritically not blanking out other text that meets the exact same criteria cited for removal. | |||
| ] 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:54, 22 March 2007
Welcome
Twiggy articleHi piperdown, I'm actually not sure what happened with the Twiggy article. I was actually just trying to change the categories to clean up the categorizations for the America's next top model category. Maybe I accidentally edited an older version and it reverted to that? Sorry for the problem, it won't happen again. Calliopejen 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comments in "Talk:naked short selling"Concerning your comments in naked short-selling: I was trying to be courteous and polite, and offered praise sincerely for what I considered to be an editing job well done. There was no intent to be "patronizing" and I must ask you to tone down the heat level and avoid making comments attacking other editors. Please keep in mind the requirements of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Samiharris 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
"You appear to be trying to gain an advantage" is a personal attack itself under your own criteria. let me cut to the chase Sam. Here's what 2 editors including yourself did: 1) Removed a sourced edit from the SEC that directly applied to the topic. Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it. 2) This was despite half of the article was a direct quote from the same SEC site, which you didn't seem to want to apply the same criteria for some reason. 3) After taking into consideration that your comment about my edit was correct in that it shouldn't be a copy and paste from the site, I added it back it in a summarized form and was not inappropriately long for the section. It was also a recent change that updated the SEC's Reg SHO comments, so went into the Recent Developments section. 4) you then again completely removed the edit, claiming it was Original Research, despite the link provided as source, and your own ealier acknowledgement that the oringal edit was a direct quote from the SEC site. 5) Another editor, citing that it was dubious that it was a recent development despite its 10/10/06 date on the SEC site, completely removed it again, claiming it was information that was already availble on the SEC site. No duh. There is a lot of information on the SEC site that is already on their pages, but not represented here at all. 6) The entire section on the "NASAA" section is WP:OR from a site that does not meet WP:RS. Yet you don't have a problem with that. This OR source use is dominated by the "debunking" side of the issue, but the other 40 pages in the document and the experts cited in it on the other side of the issue are nowwhere to be found in this article. Either summarize the source in a balanced manner or leave the whole part out anyway as it violates WP:RS WP:OR 7) On edit into this thing, you warn me about 3 reverts rule just for my reinserting a well sourced section that you deleted (reverted) without just cause. Well sourced material that could be edited to meet WP criteria should be edited, not removed because it might not be consistent in POV with the rest of the history of your edits. That's enough, I will continue to edit this article as well sourced facts become notable, be they "pro" or "con". I hope other editors will do the same without making false claims about other editors' use of sources to game a block for by reverts. I won't play any victim games with editors who completely blank well sourced edits while hypocritically not blanking out other text that meets the exact same criteria cited for removal. Piperdown 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC) |
