| Revision as of 00:34, 10 March 2011 editPassionless (talk | contribs)3,461 edits →Shameful← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 10 March 2011 edit undoPassionless (talk | contribs)3,461 edits →ShamefulNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| When I was writing the article ] I hoped it to be a heart-warming story that happened in the mist of violence, almost a fairy tale with a happy end. A paralyzed boy was saved. The campaign of saving other disabled children has started. The story got great coverage from FoxNews to CNN to PBS and others. I could not imagine the amount of hater that article will produce. I could not imagine that a user would somehow connected an adoption of a disabled kid , and when told it was not OK to do it, would tag the article with the help of few users including administrators. I could not imagine by the request of that very user. I feel tremendously ashamed before Major of US Army Scott Southworth and his paralyzed son for the conduct of wikipedia that allowed this thing to happen. If I only knew something like this will happen I would have never ever wrote the article about this great American hero.--] (]) 00:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | When I was writing the article ] I hoped it to be a heart-warming story that happened in the mist of violence, almost a fairy tale with a happy end. A paralyzed boy was saved. The campaign of saving other disabled children has started. The story got great coverage from FoxNews to CNN to PBS and others. I could not imagine the amount of hater that article will produce. I could not imagine that a user would somehow connected an adoption of a disabled kid , and when told it was not OK to do it, would tag the article with the help of few users including administrators. I could not imagine by the request of that very user. I feel tremendously ashamed before Major of US Army Scott Southworth and his paralyzed son for the conduct of wikipedia that allowed this thing to happen. If I only knew something like this will happen I would have never ever wrote the article about this great American hero.--] (]) 00:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Your strong bias is obvious, and that bleeds heavily into the article which is why the tags are required. Next time you decide to write an article try to write it as if you were not interested in the subject, this will really lower the level of bias in the article. ] ] 00:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | :Your strong bias is obvious, and that bleeds heavily into the article which is why the tags are required. Next time you decide to write an article try to write it as if you were not interested in the subject, this will really lower the level of bias in the article. Also this is not a forum, so your opinions that "a paralyzed boy was saved", "American hero", and such are not appreciated here. ] ] 00:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:35, 10 March 2011
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | A fact from Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies
I was not able to find any independent news coverage about that "institute". If such coverage cannot be presented, the section "criticism" will be removed as sourcing by advocacy, POV site.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Where do you get the idea that all sources must meet WP:N? Passionless -Talk 20:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, because comparing two cases that have absolutely nothing in common as that site does rises eyebrows. It is a POV pushing site. The section will be removed, and may I please ask you to discuss your new "criticism" sections before you'd add to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but your gonig to have to go the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before your claims that a site is not a RS matter. Passionless -Talk 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the normal route is bold, revert, discuss. You added something, tho editors agreed it should be removed and then you should discuss it. Please revert yourself.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also this source shouldn't be included per WP:UNDUE as it a fringe opinion.--Shrike (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry but your gonig to have to go the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before your claims that a site is not a RS matter. Passionless -Talk 20:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, because comparing two cases that have absolutely nothing in common as that site does rises eyebrows. It is a POV pushing site. The section will be removed, and may I please ask you to discuss your new "criticism" sections before you'd add to the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Criticism
What does child trafficking has to do with this specific case.Also references given doesn't mention Ala'a Eddeen.I think its a classic case of WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. Please remove the whole section.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I knew this would come up which is why my edit summary was "added criticism, second part is not SYNTH, as connected through INEAS article". WP:OR has nothing to do with this, what you wanted to complain about was WP:SYNTH, I still have a lot of work to do on this 'article', the two parts of criticism will flow better soon.
- Again these two articles has nothing to do with the subject in question even if some article say it does like you said it still WP:SYNTH.Anyhow please introduce any change that you propose to talk first per WP:BRD--Shrike (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and Shrike, please see WP:HOUND, if I find you following me again I will report you. Passionless -Talk 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should see it too.How did you get to this article?If has not followed other editor?--Shrike (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on its AfD over a week ago, even if I found it another way it does not matter, because I do not have the intent to annoy another editor by following them. Passionless -Talk 20:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- How does edit is annoying I merely asked legitimate question in talk--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I commented on its AfD over a week ago, even if I found it another way it does not matter, because I do not have the intent to annoy another editor by following them. Passionless -Talk 20:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- You should see it too.How did you get to this article?If has not followed other editor?--Shrike (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- I knew this would come up which is why my edit summary was "added criticism, second part is not SYNTH, as connected through INEAS article". WP:OR has nothing to do with this, what you wanted to complain about was WP:SYNTH, I still have a lot of work to do on this 'article', the two parts of criticism will flow better soon.
Tags
Mbz1, the tags are there as they serve the purpose of warning people there is an ongoing discussion about the article and that they should join the discussion. Leave the tags until the problems are resolved through discussion. Passionless -Talk 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, the articles that are displayed at the main page now should never be tagged. period.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is that backed by policy or is that your opinion? Passionless -Talk 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is an unwritten policy. Besides, as you well aware the site you added as a source is being discussed now at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. So far nobody said it is RS. Wait until discussion is over before tagging the article and/or adding that source again.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh unwritten policy, so it is your opinion you are trying to force on wikipedia. Please revert immediately. Passionless -Talk 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Enforcing a policy, especially one which you have just admitted does not actually exist, is not a listed exception to WP:EDITWAR. Thought that might be worth mentioning here since the two of you have been edit warring over the tags. Don't know or care which of you might be right or wrong, anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong so this needs to stop right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's why I asked Mbz1 to undue his last revert, the one in which she called me a vandal. Passionless -Talk 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please See here how admin removed the tag in the same situation.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like you and HJ Mitchell are in bed together so I do not see how that diff is relevant, and it may have been solved by the time the diff was made...no better yet, that tag made been wrongfully added by a stupid bot.Passionless -Talk 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- The main page is the face of wikipedia. What wikipedia readers will think about wikipedia, if there is the article with such tags at the main page? There's only 30-40 minutes more to go. Just wait until it is gone from the main page, and do anything you want to do. I care no more. I'll unwatch this article.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like you and HJ Mitchell are in bed together so I do not see how that diff is relevant, and it may have been solved by the time the diff was made...no better yet, that tag made been wrongfully added by a stupid bot.Passionless -Talk 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please See here how admin removed the tag in the same situation.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's why I asked Mbz1 to undue his last revert, the one in which she called me a vandal. Passionless -Talk 21:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Enforcing a policy, especially one which you have just admitted does not actually exist, is not a listed exception to WP:EDITWAR. Thought that might be worth mentioning here since the two of you have been edit warring over the tags. Don't know or care which of you might be right or wrong, anyone who edit wars is automatically in the wrong so this needs to stop right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh unwritten policy, so it is your opinion you are trying to force on wikipedia. Please revert immediately. Passionless -Talk 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is an unwritten policy. Besides, as you well aware the site you added as a source is being discussed now at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. So far nobody said it is RS. Wait until discussion is over before tagging the article and/or adding that source again.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Is that backed by policy or is that your opinion? Passionless -Talk 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The difference in that case was that that article doesn't look like it needs copyediting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- No, the article needed copy-edit. The tag was removed because the article was displayed at the main page.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It might not be an FA, but the prose looks fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- What an amazing inability to assume good faith! If I said the tags were removed because the article was displayed at the main page,
- I am unwatching the article. All yours. I only feel sorry for American Hero, who is treated on wikipedia as he is some kind of propaganda's tool. I should have never written the article about this for wikipedia!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would support you in another AfD for this article. Passionless -Talk 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It might not be an FA, but the prose looks fine to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to add tags like this while the article is on the main page. The time to do that was before it was on the main page. Otherwise, wait until it is no longer on the main page. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please try to keep arguements to policy rather than opinion. Passionless -Talk 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see a policy or a guideline for this point. The only thing that I'm aware of is WP:SK Criteria #5, but that applies to deletion requests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do, don't you. OK then, here are the rules for DYK Please see here (D6). It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged, by anyone, who exercises a common sense.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the full criteria of D6: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus doesn't count.)" - especially the bit in bold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really do not understand what you are talking about. A have more than 60 DYK. A hook with a tag will never ever get to the main page, never. If you do not believe me, please ask a knowledgeable DYK administrator, not the one, who added tags back. OK I said what I wanted to say, and I am not going to waste anymore time on responding the questions that do not need to be responded. As I said the article is all your and user:Passionless. I have neither energy, nor time, nor wish to prove you are wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see, I have brought up the issue at Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Hopefully the article will be removed asap for it failing to meet the rules of DYK. Passionless -Talk 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- It has now been pulled from DYK, so we no longer need to worry about all that. Passionless -Talk 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I see, I have brought up the issue at Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Hopefully the article will be removed asap for it failing to meet the rules of DYK. Passionless -Talk 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I really do not understand what you are talking about. A have more than 60 DYK. A hook with a tag will never ever get to the main page, never. If you do not believe me, please ask a knowledgeable DYK administrator, not the one, who added tags back. OK I said what I wanted to say, and I am not going to waste anymore time on responding the questions that do not need to be responded. As I said the article is all your and user:Passionless. I have neither energy, nor time, nor wish to prove you are wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Look at the full criteria of D6: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags. (Removing the tags without consensus doesn't count.)" - especially the bit in bold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- You do, don't you. OK then, here are the rules for DYK Please see here (D6). It states: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit warring or having dispute tags" So if the hook that have tags are rejected, of course the articles that are already at the Main page should not be tagged, by anyone, who exercises a common sense.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to see a policy or a guideline for this point. The only thing that I'm aware of is WP:SK Criteria #5, but that applies to deletion requests. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Meeting and adoption
This section realls needs to be re-written into prose as the last half is just a bunch of seperated short points and some of the less important information could also be deleted. I would do this myself but I really suck at re-writing, and anything I deleted would probably be re-added. I'll try a bit now... Passionless -Talk 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Shameful
When I was writing the article Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen I hoped it to be a heart-warming story that happened in the mist of violence, almost a fairy tale with a happy end. A paralyzed boy was saved. The campaign of saving other disabled children has started. The story got great coverage from FoxNews to CNN to PBS and others. I could not imagine the amount of hater that article will produce. I could not imagine that a user would somehow connected an adoption of a disabled kid to "sexual exploitation and servitude" of children, and when told it was not OK to do it, would tag the article with the help of few users including administrators. I could not imagine the article being removed from the main page by the request of that very user. I feel tremendously ashamed before Major of US Army Scott Southworth and his paralyzed son for the conduct of wikipedia that allowed this thing to happen. If I only knew something like this will happen I would have never ever wrote the article about this great American hero.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your strong bias is obvious, and that bleeds heavily into the article which is why the tags are required. Next time you decide to write an article try to write it as if you were not interested in the subject, this will really lower the level of bias in the article. Also this is not a forum, so your opinions that "a paralyzed boy was saved", "American hero", and such are not appreciated here. Passionless -Talk 00:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)