| Revision as of 16:50, 25 September 2015 editSignedzzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,559 edits Undid revision 682729642 by Signedzzz (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:17, 25 September 2015 edit undoSignedzzz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,559 edits ←Blanked the pageNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == GA reassessment for ] == | |||
| ], an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (<small>]]</small>) 06:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Maiduguri Bombing ITN == | |||
| ] (or ]) Please transfer my !vote as it is important. I am unavoidably detained. | |||
| My !vote ''in absentia'' is '''Weak Support after changing the blurb''' to "Following a military offensive last month that drove Boko Haram out of their bases in Nigeria...", as without the context it is misleading and pointless, given the countless similar Boko Haram attacks over the past months and years, '''''which ITN does not cover''''' (I know this, because I have added many such events myself to Portal:Current events, ie not the main page, whenever the death toll is above 40, and frequently above 100, eg ). Here is how reports it: "A new offensive launched by the Nigerian army to clear Boko Haram out of some more towns over the last month saw a sharp drop in the frequency of attacks in Borno, the worst affected by the insurrection, and neighboring states." Nigerians will be well aware of the context, but other readers will not, because ]. And ] has ] problems. For example, {{xt|"The bombs took place after a more than a month without incident from the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram."}} - presumably a ]esis of "The BBC's Will Ross says it is now clear that this was ''one of'' the most deadly attacks in ''recent months''" (which is the cite) and Reuters' "''The city'' has been free of attack for ''about a month''" (emphasis added). Frankly, I'd like to understand what has caused the sudden tabloidesque frenzy to (mis)report this event. ] (]) 04:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Pinging ] and ] again, just in case. ] (]) 04:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| And ]. ] (]) 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Also note that you could just unblock me instead, since blocks are not supposed to be punitive, which this one pretty obviously is atm. (Just a thought.) ] (]) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Also pinging ]. ("Hmmm..." indeed). ] (]) 06:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Seriously, ]? No comment except ? ]? ] (]) 06:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, seriously. It has consensus to post, and is in brief but adequate shape. ] (]) 06:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you're knowingly dumbing down to sub tabloid levels. What is the reason this gets reported (with a factually inaccurate article), without context, as opposed to the other frequent attacks in the past? What misconception are you aiming to provide, and why? ] (]) 06:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And by the way, look up ], and read my !vote. ] (]) 06:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] this is amazing. How can you say "It has consensus to post, and is in brief but adequate shape" when there is no consensus, the blurb is incomplete and therefore totally misleading, and the article is factually inaccurate? This is abysmally disappointing. ] (]) 07:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Sorry you're so disappointed. Once your block expires I'm sure you can contribute constructively once again. ] (]) 07:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Are you telling me "ha ha, I don't care cos you're blocked?" Wow. ] (]) 07:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No, I'm saying that you can contribute without such vitriol once your block expires. I don't know why you have decided to take your anger out on me. ] (]) 07:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::] I'm not angry, and I apologise if that's how I came across. I'm just disappointed, and confused, really. I can't follow the logic (or lack thereof). The story, which normally wouldn't be in iTN at all anyway, is being misrepresented by entirely stripping it of its context - which would be the only legitimate reason for posting it in the first place. ] (]) 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I fail to see how "A series of explosions kills at least 54 people in Maiduguri, Nigeria." is a POV blunder. If you want to add context to the article, you can do that once your block expires. ] (]) 07:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::] It's not the article (apart from the OR mentioned above), it's the blurb. The reader who just reads the blurb, ie most readers od the main page, will actually come away knowing ''less'' about the situation in Nigeria than before. The blurb is effectively just disinformation, weirdly. ] (]) 08:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Well I disagree, as do others. So that's really all I can say at the moment. I'm sure if it's posted, and once your block expires, you can bring it to ] for wider debate. ] (]) 08:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Well I'm glad I've had a chance to attempt to explain my point, anyway. I daresay it's a wee bit too subtle to get across at ERRORS, and I'd most likely be called a "terrorism supporter" as I have been before on Misplaced Pages more than once, for my efforts. Thanks anyway. ] (]) 08:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::And by the way, look up ], and read my !vote. ] (]) 06:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no need to look up consensus and yes, I have read your !vote. Thanks for the pointers. ] (]) 07:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I'll reply to the ping, though you seem pretty riled up. I don't know the circumstances of your block, but take care or your TP access could go next. So, what struck me was comparing the bombing article to the Greek Election nomination just below, where the article is substantial, instead of a stub. Pretty dramatic difference, in my view. Make of it what you will, but it gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, that the two articles' varied political content Is a contributing factor here. ]]] 07:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] If you read my !vote, above, you will immediately see that the political content of this is being knowingly misrepresented. I am honestly amazed. My block expires tomorrow anyway, by the way, but this is really gonna stick in my throat when it comes to editing to improve the encyclopedia, whose Main page is about to be misused in this way. ] (]) 07:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You've been here 15 months, I see. I'm coming up on 8 years. I say above that this looks odd to me. However, I've learned that, like life itself, Misplaced Pages is not always logical, or fair. I comment when I see things that strike me as odd, sometimes. Best advice I can give: when steamed up, walk away and don't hit "Save page." ]]] 07:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::True, and very apt. I'd have thought this particular ITN blurb was a very easy POV blunder to avoid, though. Thanks. ] (]) 07:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Your rollback at HoJ == | |||
| Hey, how were Curly Turkey's edits unconstructive? He was just making the article more concise. ''']''' (]) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :] Just . No opinion on the others, they were probably all constructive. ] (]) 16:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That edit introduced an unacceptable degree of error, such as claiming "firm evidence" of "human habitation" 32–38,000 years ago, which is false (there may or may not be firm evidence, depending on interpretation): the evidence is much more difficult to interpret than that. The slightly longer version of that paragraph is necessary, to avoid stating obvious mistakes. ] (]) 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC) | |||