| Revision as of 13:14, 8 June 2009 editFrei Hans (talk | contribs)743 edits →June 2009← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:31, 8 June 2009 edit undoVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits →June 2009: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ::: It is still tagged for deletion, any removal of the tag is an error. ] <small>]</small> 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ::: It is still tagged for deletion, any removal of the tag is an error. ] <small>]</small> 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I just revisited the article and see that a user has removed a lot of referenced content. Originally the article had 19 footnotes from 19 sources. Now it has two. The user deleted all of the referenced material and then wrote on the articles for deletion page that he had removed "unreferenced" material. I am not convinced these edits are intended to help or improve the article. I consider this vandalism, and on reading the discussion tabs on your own user page suspect that you have engaged in "editorial wars" before. I have never experienced this on Misplaced Pages before and suspect it is because of the the content. While the article is verifiable and the refernces were all published by reputable sources, it seems that users with less neutrality than myself are unable to accept that Misplaced Pages should be updated with new advances in technology. ] (]) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ::::I just revisited the article and see that a user has removed a lot of referenced content. Originally the article had 19 footnotes from 19 sources. Now it has two. The user deleted all of the referenced material and then wrote on the articles for deletion page that he had removed "unreferenced" material. I am not convinced these edits are intended to help or improve the article. I consider this vandalism, and on reading the discussion tabs on your own user page suspect that you have engaged in "editorial wars" before. I have never experienced this on Misplaced Pages before and suspect it is because of the the content. While the article is verifiable and the refernces were all published by reputable sources, it seems that users with less neutrality than myself are unable to accept that Misplaced Pages should be updated with new advances in technology. ] (]) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I was recently blocked for edit warring, so I am aware of the issue. The reason I was blocked was because I tried to preserve the unreferenced information in a ] by adding tags and removing some of the controversial edits, whereas per the BLP rules I should have just removed all of it. I learnt my lesson (and there were extenuating factors but I'm not afraid of admitting I made a mistake). This case is different, and I'm not protected by ]. However, you should have a look at ] to see why the edits you describe are not vandalism. Also, you are engaged in synthesis (]) and original research (]). You are not simply reporting what reliable sources state (and many of your sources were not ], such as Slashdot), but are drawing inferences, making conclusions, and writing a thesis with a decided editorial slant (against ]). You are also describing biofeedback toys as "telepathy", which is just odd. The page will likely be deleted, but the stub that is now left is a lot better than the article you introduced. I'm sorry that you obviously spent so much time on something that isn't right for wikipedia. I'd chalk this up to a learning experience, and perhaps you can find a forum, blog, or other wiki (Google knol, perhaps) that would take your essay. ] <small>]</small> 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:31, 8 June 2009
Welcome!
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Frei Hans! I am Call me Bubba and have been editing Misplaced Pages for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Misplaced Pages! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Call me Bubba (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
File:Unwired head.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Unwired head.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, was surprised to find this as I specifically set out to create an original image to illustrate the article. I found that attribution of a modified element in the image had been called into question - although I did attribute the creator in uploading the image (as I would expect if someone had modified elements from my own work). I have contacted the original creator of that element and am waiting for a reply so that we can resolve any issues that might involve licensing. I'm putting the image on hold until I have heard back from them. Frei Hans (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Telepathy and war
I have nominated Telepathy and war, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbal chat 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Telepathy and war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello 'Verbal chat'. I would like to assure you that I am engaged in no such thing as an edit war, and am working to improve an article in its formative stages. I reverted the article to compare recent changes from users who, by a mind less generous than mine, might be seen to be engaging in editorial combat on a new article (coincidentally addressing advances in military technology). Again, please rest secure in the knowledge that I am only working to improve the article. I note that the article is no longer tagged for deletion, and am pleased with this resolution. I hope that new edits by others are made in sincerity and in the true spirit of Wikipedian neutrality, and with intent to improve the article and steer clear of vandalism and attempts to sabotage other genuine efforts. Frei Hans (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is still tagged for deletion, any removal of the tag is an error. Verbal chat 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just revisited the article and see that a user has removed a lot of referenced content. Originally the article had 19 footnotes from 19 sources. Now it has two. The user deleted all of the referenced material and then wrote on the articles for deletion page that he had removed "unreferenced" material. I am not convinced these edits are intended to help or improve the article. I consider this vandalism, and on reading the discussion tabs on your own user page suspect that you have engaged in "editorial wars" before. I have never experienced this on Misplaced Pages before and suspect it is because of the the content. While the article is verifiable and the refernces were all published by reputable sources, it seems that users with less neutrality than myself are unable to accept that Misplaced Pages should be updated with new advances in technology. Frei Hans (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was recently blocked for edit warring, so I am aware of the issue. The reason I was blocked was because I tried to preserve the unreferenced information in a WP:BLP by adding tags and removing some of the controversial edits, whereas per the BLP rules I should have just removed all of it. I learnt my lesson (and there were extenuating factors but I'm not afraid of admitting I made a mistake). This case is different, and I'm not protected by WP:BLP. However, you should have a look at WP:NOTVAND to see why the edits you describe are not vandalism. Also, you are engaged in synthesis (WP:SYN) and original research (WP:OR). You are not simply reporting what reliable sources state (and many of your sources were not WP:RS, such as Slashdot), but are drawing inferences, making conclusions, and writing a thesis with a decided editorial slant (against WP:NPOV). You are also describing biofeedback toys as "telepathy", which is just odd. The page will likely be deleted, but the stub that is now left is a lot better than the article you introduced. I'm sorry that you obviously spent so much time on something that isn't right for wikipedia. I'd chalk this up to a learning experience, and perhaps you can find a forum, blog, or other wiki (Google knol, perhaps) that would take your essay. Verbal chat 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I just revisited the article and see that a user has removed a lot of referenced content. Originally the article had 19 footnotes from 19 sources. Now it has two. The user deleted all of the referenced material and then wrote on the articles for deletion page that he had removed "unreferenced" material. I am not convinced these edits are intended to help or improve the article. I consider this vandalism, and on reading the discussion tabs on your own user page suspect that you have engaged in "editorial wars" before. I have never experienced this on Misplaced Pages before and suspect it is because of the the content. While the article is verifiable and the refernces were all published by reputable sources, it seems that users with less neutrality than myself are unable to accept that Misplaced Pages should be updated with new advances in technology. Frei Hans (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is still tagged for deletion, any removal of the tag is an error. Verbal chat 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello 'Verbal chat'. I would like to assure you that I am engaged in no such thing as an edit war, and am working to improve an article in its formative stages. I reverted the article to compare recent changes from users who, by a mind less generous than mine, might be seen to be engaging in editorial combat on a new article (coincidentally addressing advances in military technology). Again, please rest secure in the knowledge that I am only working to improve the article. I note that the article is no longer tagged for deletion, and am pleased with this resolution. I hope that new edits by others are made in sincerity and in the true spirit of Wikipedian neutrality, and with intent to improve the article and steer clear of vandalism and attempts to sabotage other genuine efforts. Frei Hans (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)