| Revision as of 21:28, 28 February 2007 view sourceJoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 edits banned← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:33, 28 February 2007 view source JoshuaZ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,657 editsm Reverted edits by JoshuaZ (talk) to last version by GordonWattsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing) | |||
| While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe: | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="padding:5px; width:auto" | |||
| | ] | |||
| On both and here , I point out that many feel that Misplaced Pages is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants). | |||
| | '''This user is ] from editing Misplaced Pages.''' Please review the ] before commenting or unblocking.<br /><small>(see: • ] • • )</small> | |||
| |}{{{category|]}}} | |||
| OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here. | |||
| I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider ] itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--] 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- New news: please see my talk page for a Request for ArbCom intervention.--] 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Revision as of 21:33, 28 February 2007
In a recent dispute, I was voted down 6.0 to 2.5 (long explanation about the half a vote thing)
While I don't like losing the vote (the voting is used to mathematically determine the consensus, since no other logical means exists), nonetheless, I am mature and accept the outcome, but I got in the last word -right or wrong -on the matter (at least, it is the last word, as of this writing). Observe:
On both the page where the dispute broke out and here on the main talk page, I point out that many feel that Misplaced Pages is NOT a reliable source and cite these argumentative editors as part of the reason. I could be wrong, but often times editors disagreeing with me will make generalized assumption (like Geocities or AOL or blog links are not reliable) -and not look at actual policy. Not all editors just babble; some of them make good points, and I concede I am wrong on a few points (such as my erroneous suggestion that Terri's Fight did not have special status when in fact policy does make exceptions to links from the actual participants).
OK, what I really don't like about this wiki is how many people often don't adhere to actual guidelines but sort of make up excuses for their edits; People making a case should use the actual policy as it is written to make your case; opinions don't count here.
I get in the last word on Schiavo link dispute: Many people don't consider Misplaced Pages itself reliable -so what was that again about those links not being reliable,...--GordonWatts 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
New news: please see my talk page for a Request for ArbCom intervention.--GordonWatts 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)