This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 8 January 2014 (→You should not be surprised: yawn). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:42, 8 January 2014 by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) (→You should not be surprised: yawn)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Revert on Sati
Only one source is Tagged, not any other, you simply reverted back to the favorite version of Single purpose account, without explaining much.
Thanks OccultZone (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI you were obliquely mentioned
FYI, I made reference to the AFD "filing party" as an edit warrior, without naming names, but of course I meant you. The mention is here. I'm not seeking any action against you specifically, just wanting the process to work without shortcutting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
François Ponchaud
Hello! Your submission of François Ponchaud at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Iselilja (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
You should not be surprised
You should not be surprised. There was zero chance that it would be deleted. There may be no cabel, but if there were this one would be so deeply entrenched as to be impossible to break. Arzel (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Convince me without histrionics but with logic and discussion of the content of RSs that the list criteria are original research, and I'll switch to "delete". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Anything made up by Misplaced Pages editors one day is OR, how can you not know that? Not that it matters as I am about to be sanctioned for editing in good faith, you gotta love Wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- @NEAG. I went back and looked at the history of the definition and you guys made it up! End of story. There are no reliable sources talking about it. On top of that your group defined what is considered a scientist. Now if that is not "logical" enough for you than that is your problem. Arzel (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you want a reply, speak at the article talk page. You might even convince me, but diff-less accusatory bludgeoning won't work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Your edit-warring
Hello. In the course of closing the recent AfD concerning List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I noticed that you have recently, on 30 December 2013, engaged in an edit-war in which you sought to suppress all of the content of the list, after nominating it for deletion, to wit:
The article was then protected following a AN3 report, ending the revert war. As you are aware, the topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBCC#Standard discretionary sanctions), and edit-warring is forbidden.
You contend in your edit summaries that your content removals were based on WP:BLP. However, it appears that your interpretation of the BLP policy as applying to this article is contested, and the AfD did not result in consensus that the article's contents do in fact violate that policy. Per WP:3RRNO, "what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Your recourse to edit-warring, against multiple good-faith editors, to suppress the content that you consider to violate WP:BLP strikes me as particularly inappropriate because you did so while a deletion discussion which you initiated was underway, which would have been the appropriate forum in which to find a consensus-based solution to the question of whether or not this list violates the BLP policy. By attempting to ram through your preferred outcome of the deletion discussion by way of edit-warring, you violated the principle that Misplaced Pages content is determined by consensus, and the edit-warring policy.
For these reasons, I consider imposing discretionary sanctions against you to prevent you from repeating such actions. You now have the opportunity to respond to this and to make an argument why I should not do so, or any other statement that might help resolve this problem. Regards, Sandstein 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It does not matter if others think my interpretation of BLP is wrong, I was acting in goog faith. Sanction away. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, look here I am not the only editor who is saying there are BLP violations in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)