User talk:RMHED/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

< User talk:RMHED Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:38, 9 September 2008 editPorkrind (talk \| contribs)454 edits →Robert David Steele ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:29, 10 September 2008 edit undoScribblingwoman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,639 edits →Polytechnics Canada: new sectionNext edit →
Line 113:		Line 113:

	* Opened this up on the talk page: ] ] (]) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)		* Opened this up on the talk page: ] ] (]) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

			== Polytechnics Canada ==

			Hello. Could you explain please why you removed the db-spam template from the article? There are no sources cited except the organization's own site; there are no references; there are scads of value-laden terms; and the originator of the article appears to be someone from organization who has no other edits. I hope I don't sound antagonistic; I am more puzzled. Thanks. — ]] 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:29, 10 September 2008

RfA tracker

This is a readout of the current RfAs.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Old PROD
This is a list of deletable PRODs.
Category:Expired proposed deletions

Getting Started
Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which succeeded with 71 support, 14 oppose, and 5 neutral. Thanks for your participation. I hope I serve you well!

--Smashville 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Now on AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Laurence Baxter. Please feel free to comment. Risker (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge special access scheme

Could you give reasons why you think that Cambridge special access scheme should not be deleted? You have not done so in the edit summary, the article's talk page, or my talk page, after removing my PROD from the article. A.C. Norman (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An earlier Prod by Betacommand was removed by an IP. Once a Prod has been removed by an editor it shouldn't be re-added. Just procedural that's all, AfD is the way to go now. RMHED (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert David Steele

In looking at my section which you deleted, I came to the conclusion that much of my language violated the NPV rule. I have reworked the section, now named "Misplaced Pages Activism" with an eye towards keeping it neutral. I did keep the factual elements with their accompanying references. I'm a bit confused about why they are "poorly sourced". I am providing links directly back to the pages containing his comments, actions, etc. Could you take a look at the section and tell me what comments are inadequately sourced? Also, should we move this discussion to the Robert David Steele talk page?OSC Flunkee (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't classed as a reliable source, you'd need some reliable secondary sources that cover his Misplaced Pages activism for inclusion to be valid. RMHED (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I get this straight, you're saying that citing the pages with his specific actions aren't reliable? They are primary sources! I would agree that in most cases one would not want to cite Misplaced Pages as an authoritative source within a Misplaced Pages article, but in this specific case, it is his actions on Misplaced Pages which are the subject of the text. So if I go off and create a blog on blog spot and make the same statements without links to the Misplaced Pages page then you'd accept those in this section as secondary sources? I'm failing to see how that is more authoritative. OSC Flunkee (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If his Misplaced Pages activities have not been covered by reliable secondary sources (not blogs), then they aren't notable. Have the news media covered them? If not then why should we, it's just wikipedia navel gazing. RMHED (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Opened this up on the talk page: Talk:Robert_David_Steele#Wikipedia_activism_section Porkrind (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnics Canada

Hello. Could you explain please why you removed the db-spam template from the article? There are no sources cited except the organization's own site; there are no references; there are scads of value-laden terms; and the originator of the article appears to be someone from organization who has no other edits. I hope I don't sound antagonistic; I am more puzzled. Thanks. — scribbling woman 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)