Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smee (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 18 May 2007 (→3RR Violation and edit warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

An entry from PSI Seminars appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 13 May, 2007.

Created article

Created article on the organization, with 12 citations. Smee 17:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Removal of highly sourced material

• This article is no longer a stub. Add {{sectstub}} to sections you would like to see expanded. And please do not remove material that is backed up by highly reputable secondary citations. Smee 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

All due respect. Sourced material is not sufficient justification for including in an article. It must also be directly relevant and significantly notable. When notability or relevance is cited for removing material, citing RS is not a proper response for re-including the material.

This article is a stub as it gives very little information about the company.

Lsi john 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Smee, unless you are actually claiming that WP:RS is sufficient on its own, please specifically address the concern raised, and stop reverting based on WP:RS. Lsi john 22:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The information is cited in a reputable secondary source.
2. The information is again brought up by yet a different reputable secondary source.
3. One mention in a reputable secondary source might not be notable, but (2) or more, is.

Smee 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not questioning notability. I'm questioning relevance. Those other companies are not relevant to this article. Lsi john 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please, I am not objecting to your feeling that certain parts of the article need to be expanded upon, merely that you use the {{sectstub}} tag, instead. Smee 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

• And you believe that reverting the tag, instead of improving it, is helpful? How about if we work together, and you improve the edit, instead of deleting it. You know as well as I do where the deficiencies are and you're much more familiar with the nuances of the tags usage. Lsi john 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. {{sectstub}} tags have been added. Smee 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you. Hopefully you understand that, given our history of too many tags, I wasn't about to stub every section like that. :) Lsi john 22:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I will see if I can find additional reputable citations to expand on the history and organization of this company. Smee 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC).

Notable

• The groups are "notable". They have their own articles on the project. This is a common phrase used on the project, when referencing other articles that exist on the project. Smee 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

• It's OR unless you can find a citation. Just because other editors allowed OR doesn't mean we must. Lsi john 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stable articles in existence for a long time are inherently notable. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

• However, as a compromise, I will remove the word. Smee 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

• Good catch to avoid 4RR, eh? :) Lsi john 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• No. To Assume Good Faith. Please do not make these bad faith assumptions, this is not civil. It is also not conducive to constructive discussion on talk pages. And for your information, the information was only restored twice. Smee 01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok, then you didn't see that you were 4R in this article. I apologize for assuming you saw that. Lsi john 01:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I was not. Read WP:3RR. And try to act a little bit more polite on talk pages. Smee 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm being very polite, thank you. I've read 3RR and you reverted my edits 4 times already in the past few hours. I just can't report it due to the promise I made. Lsi john 01:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR refers to reverting back to the same version of a page. You are mistaken. But that's alright if you mistakenly misinterpreted 3RR. No worries. Just try to be a tad more polite on talk pages next time is all. Thanks. Smee 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

3RR Violation and edit warring

Smee, as you have indicated that I am not welcome on your page, I am hereby informing you that you have been reported for 3RR violation. Lsi john 02:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• No compromise was reached. No compromise was agreed to. The edits involved were REVERTS, they were not two editors working together. Lsi john 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I offerred a compromise, in-line with your previous edits, you wanted the word "notable" removed. I removed it, voluntarily, before you made me aware of any of your 3RR concerns. Do you want to discuss the issue, or do you only wish for punitive measures to be taken? Smee 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
    • And I am unable to edit here due to your edit warring. So I have no choice but to leave your compromise. You didn't discuss the compromise, you simply implemented it. That is not a compromise. Lsi john 02:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, I removed the word "notable", how can you object to my doing exactly what you wanted? That is the point of the talk page, for you to raise your concerns, albeit in a polite manner. Smee 02:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC).