| Revision as of 07:29, 23 July 2007 editFrozenPurpleCube (talk | contribs)9,603 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:20, 23 July 2007 edit undoVioletriga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users37,361 edits complete misrepresentationNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. ] created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. ] created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? ] 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? ] 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Firstly what you are saying about me above is a complete misrepresentation and a borderline personal attack - I ask that you change it. The articles details something that was massive across the news, not just tabloids. It was a massive missing-person operation and is a significant event. ] ] 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:20, 23 July 2007
Solitaire Meissmer disappearance
- Solitaire Meissmer disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A not particularly remarkable case with two bad references: a memorial site and the family's website. User:Violetriga created this before being admonished by ArbCom for succumbing to tabloid journalism, which is what this article is. Guy (Help!) 07:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Hmm, I'm more than a bit disturbed by this nomination. It would have been much more appropriate to make it without referring to the individual editor's conduct. If you believe there's a problem with regards to an Arbitration decision, it would be far more appropriate to notify them instead of making it here. In any case gets a number of results including several reputable papers. And the guardian reference existed before your nomination, so I wonder how you missed it? Mister.Manticore 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Firstly what you are saying about me above is a complete misrepresentation and a borderline personal attack - I ask that you change it. The articles details something that was massive across the news, not just tabloids. It was a massive missing-person operation and is a significant event. violet/riga (t) 08:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)