| Revision as of 00:27, 19 April 2010 editCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →Question← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:34, 19 April 2010 edit undoCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →AN/INext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| If you want to make a statement, or add anything to the discussion before you are unblocked I am sure someone will copy it over.--] (]) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | If you want to make a statement, or add anything to the discussion before you are unblocked I am sure someone will copy it over.--] (]) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Since you've continued editing without returning to AN/I is it safe to assume you'll be offering no further defense of your actions, nor explaining how it is that you've been here over 3 years with an account that is less than a year old?--] (]) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Archives == | == Archives == | ||
Revision as of 07:34, 19 April 2010
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Tannhauser Gate
Please note that attempt is being made to redirect / delete Tannhauser Gate without reopening the AfD which closed with a consensus to keep...... --Michael C. Price 21:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for L'Atalante basin
|
On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Atalante basin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
teal wicks
page deletion. Hello. Im curious that you deleted Teal Wicks entire page, without mentioning or just deleting whatever the specific copyright violation is. This page has been up for some time and has a number of active contributors
What specifically needs to be deleted in order for this not to be violating copyrights(I saw another editor cited the top photo, and I would imagine the wicked photo in costume is another that needs deletion.
Is there anything else?
And when those are deleted, what is the easiest way to restore the article?
thank you
Sincerely
soulman61
You can also email me at mmstevko@earthlink.net
- I didn't delete it. Abductive (reasoning) 06:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
dear abductive, thanks for restoring.
What is the fast/easy way to restore an article improperly deleted like this one was?
- It wasn't really deleted, the text was just changed. All Misplaced Pages articles have a "history" which anyone can access by clicking on the View History tab at the top. Anyone can look at previous versions of an article and by editing the previous version, return it to its previous form. If the change is very recent, one can just select "undo" to reverse the offending edit. Abductive (reasoning) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Valley Entertainment Monthly
This newspaper was published in California, with business licenses, ad sales and revenue, regular distribution and taxes, between 1991 and 1992. I have no idea why you are putting something on there that says it is not verified. How is it supposed to be verified? I am holding some of the past issues in my hand right now, so it obviously existed, just as it did when I was reading it back then. Misplaced Pages has a stated purpose of gathering all human information in one place online. This is a legitimate article about a previously published LEGITIMATE newspaper. Since I just started to build this article and IT IS NOT COMPLETE, it would be appreciated if you would help me to properly authenticate it rather than putting something on there that says it will be deleted. Just because you may not have heard it before now does not mean it did not exist. Everything in the article is factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteen Nightmares (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have added the templates to the article. The issue is not whether the paper existed; I'm sure it did. Subjects of Misplaced Pages articles must be properly sourced, and those sources must establish the subject's importance. 99.156.68.203 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Please hold this discussion on the article's talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 04:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Question
Abductive, with reference to Asian Fetish, I do not know you, and did not mean to offend by reverting your changes, but did want to know why the title is not OK. But most of all, how do you classify the naming of the prof's and uni's related to the study "spam?" When referencing academic studies, these two elements are absolutely critical to instill confidence in the integrity of the data and the credibility of the findings overall. Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- They belong in the refs, not in the text. It is assumed that a scholarly study is studious and scholarly. Look in almost any article on a scientific topic: the article rarely mentions the school and name of the professor unless s/he has a Misplaced Pages article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand. We are supposed to say that there was just a dating study, and that it had these (controversial) results, and not mention either the institution or the lead researchers? The issue here is that the results seem to be controversial and therefore there is particular need to underscore credibility.Computer1200 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't an effective argument in favour of adding commentary about the study. I don't think any source has said that these results were controversial at all. Moreover, there have been no sources presented (serious sources, at least) which contradict the study. All the information is in the refs. As Abductive has pointed out, Fisman is not notable, and he is not an expert on the subject of the article specifically. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Notability applies to articles, not being mentioned as the author or working on a study. Notability and undue weight have zero relevance to his being mentioned in conjunction with the study. Making an article on him, yes. His name included in text, no.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's vanity. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing vain about identifying the co-author of a study that is being discussed in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The guy is identified in the ref. Do you have a COI? Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- And there is no reason not to mention him in the section. You're now on your 5th revert in 24 hours and you've been reported for edit warring. Do you have a personal bias perhaps? Maybe you should go give WP:AGF a read. Undue has nothing to do with including the co-author of a study nor does notability. I asked you to cite a relevant policy and provide evidence of the consensus you claimed and you've failed to do so and instead want to edit war to get your way. That never flies.--Crossmr (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- The guy is identified in the ref. Do you have a COI? Abductive (reasoning) 05:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing vain about identifying the co-author of a study that is being discussed in an article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's vanity. Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Notability applies to articles, not being mentioned as the author or working on a study. Notability and undue weight have zero relevance to his being mentioned in conjunction with the study. Making an article on him, yes. His name included in text, no.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't an effective argument in favour of adding commentary about the study. I don't think any source has said that these results were controversial at all. Moreover, there have been no sources presented (serious sources, at least) which contradict the study. All the information is in the refs. As Abductive has pointed out, Fisman is not notable, and he is not an expert on the subject of the article specifically. --hippo43 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Abductive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Block period is disproportionate for a first offence. Discussion on dispute was ongoing here, not on article talk page. Dispute was not one-sided, with many editors arrayed against one, but one where experienced editors have noted that the article is a mess and steps are needed to clean it up.
Decline reason:
You've clearly violated 3rr; I'm glad you were engaged in discussion, but a better approach would have been to stop reverting until your discussion was completed. I don't know that the length of the block is all that important as most admins are willing to unblock when you've indicated you understand the reason and are unlikely to resume the pattern. I don't see that here yet. Kuru (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Don't know if my comments make any difference here, but I'm confused as to why only Abductive was blocked. Crossmr was edit-warring just as much, and for a long time has aggressively reverted changes to this article. I completely support Abductive's recent edits - the section in question clearly gives undue weight to one study, which is not directly on the subject of the article, and doesn't mention "Asian fetish" or any of the alternative terms at all.
- As far as I can tell, the only other editor taking Crossmr's position is Computer1200, who has no interest in contributing to any other articles besides this and Mail-order brides, and who seems to patrol this article reverting changes. Some of his discussion comments reveal an obvious COI. It's clear to me that these two are not interested in a balanced and accurate article, or in reasonable discussion.
- Although Abductive broke 3RR, his approach is sincere and in the interests of a better article - I think the block is harsh. --hippo43 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I don't see it as overly harsh; there seems to have been adequate opportunity to cease the disruptive pattern of editing. Kuru (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- And you're the only one supporting him. Which means there is no consensus to change the status quo. I only reverted 3 times, and I continued the discussion on the article talk page and asked him to do the same, he failed to do so.--Crossmr (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies, I had somehow counted more than 3, but you are correct. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- As for Hippo43, he has a long history of making sweeping edits on AF with no consensus. He has been blocked before on other pages for the same reason. I do not "patrol" the article and make "revisions." That is Hippo43, when he takes content that has been up literally for years, makes deep, sweeping changes, and then becomes highly agitated when people simply return the original content. Hippo43 refuses to discuss changes first. I agree that the block was not "harsh."Computer1200 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- What if the article needs sweeping changes? Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Computer1200, what is your connection with the article? Why are you so aggressive in maintaining a particular POV? You clearly have no interest in any other article, besides one, and your contributions history is a list of reverts to AF and rants on its talk page. I suspect you may have a COI here - it seems like you have an awful lot invested in its content. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with having a POV, and the article needs major improvement with input and compromise from all parties. Talk of improving the article should take place on the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 23:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Then they need to be discussed. That is the point of WP:BRD which you and hippo43 both seem to have a problem grasping. Making sweeping changes without consensus is a recipe for an edit war and getting nothing done. You both have just changed the status quo and upon being reverted, instead of discussing to gain consensus would rather revert and carry on. Fighting for your new version on the page and insisting on discussion after is tantamount to ownership.--Crossmr (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Computer1200, what is your connection with the article? Why are you so aggressive in maintaining a particular POV? You clearly have no interest in any other article, besides one, and your contributions history is a list of reverts to AF and rants on its talk page. I suspect you may have a COI here - it seems like you have an awful lot invested in its content. --hippo43 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- What if the article needs sweeping changes? Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for B.B. Kirkland Seed and Distributing Company
|
|
On April 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article B.B. Kirkland Seed and Distributing Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
If you want to make a statement, or add anything to the discussion before you are unblocked I am sure someone will copy it over.--Crossmr (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Since you've continued editing without returning to AN/I is it safe to assume you'll be offering no further defense of your actions, nor explaining how it is that you've been here over 3 years with an account that is less than a year old?--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Archives
Hello Abductive. I figured that some people might be coming to your talk page, due to your being mentioned at AN/I. To allow the record of your past contributions to be seen, I added an Archive box at the top of your page. (This allows clicking on your existing archives). Please revert if you don't like it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)