Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:17, 4 May 2008

Bidgee is currently fatigued and is away from the computer, may not respond swiftly to queries.

Unsigned and uncivil comments on this talk page maybe reverted. To sign your comment click on or type ~~~~

Archives

/Archive (March - July 2006) /Archive (August - December 2006) /Archive (January - September 2007) /Archive (October 2007 - April 2008)

Re: Telstra Article

Hello. I am new to Wiki but thought I had read the T&Cs fairly well. I am surprised at the number of citations you are demanding for my edit to the Telstra mobile page. Many of the facts you are seeing citations for are indesputible engineering realities and hence you wont find a seperate statement from someone claiming same (although you may find news paper articles backing some of the claims). The points made about 850 having superior coverage to 2100 cant be disputed and I would ask since that being the case, what sort of citation should I be looking for to back up the statement?

I accept referencing Whirlpool for carrier customer numbers is a bit slack. The only reason I did that was that in that discussion thread was a neatly pulled together list of each carriers end of year reports showing their customer base - which highlighted the point that Telstra is the largest carrier by subscriber base at this time. Considering that it is not appropriate to reference a forum thread, how can I best reference this to Misplaced Pages's satisfaction?

I also note that you removed the citations that pointed back to Telstra.com. The third party aspect of your requirement there is almost not appropriate when you are refering to direct history or a Telstra product reference on the topic. Specifically, the references to Telstra having the first automated mobile network are hard to find anywhere else but on Telstra's media pages - because quite frankly no other operator is going to want to talk about it, and no other Australian source of any repute exists on the internet that would be bothered backing up such claims that I have been able to find (again I dont like quoting news papers because there is no traceability as to the reliability of their sources in the first place - an encyclopedia based on newspapers is a sure way to enshrine into history some editors' warped viewpoint which may or may not be right, but someone reading something and seeing a reference pointing at a news paper may not recognise as simply being another editors point of view.

Please, can you outline how I can more effectively cite elements of my contribution and to an extent justify your requirements for citations where I have not yet been able to find any suitable meaningful references?

Wildrider99 (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure if you have checked out Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources which also links to many other wiki policies. If there is a few lines in the article which is in a source you can cite it more then once using <ref name="citename"></ref> once then adding <ref name="citename"/> on the other sentences with in the article.

Whirlpool isn't a reliable source but other if it links to a source you could use that source instead but as long as it's reliable source and a third party source.

Websites Telstra and any company it owns isn't a third party source which can be seen a bias and can be seen as a point of view which it way we use third party sources (See Self-published sources).

Newspapers can be used whether or not it's a website or you can just reference the title of the article, name of the paper, page, date it was printed and who the story was written by, As you can trace Newspapers who's stories may not be online or the story was before the internet was around. I hope this helps. Bidgee (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

But I already tried the talk page, and rather than discussing the issue there, user: Ryulong opted to revert. I notice only I'm accused of edit warring. Does war require two parties, or are you just supporting the use of Misplaced Pages for spam and fighting hard for it? --Blechnic (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Admins are warned and blocked for edit warring, just like non-admins. It's not a special privilege account to edit war. Admins can be blocked also. But, I see where the writing on this wall is. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

.

Bidgee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A unfair block first time block. I haven't been disruptive or edit warring.Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have certainly been edit-warring and you certainly broke the three-revert rule as MBisanz said. No reason to unblock. Sam Korn 09:52, 4 May 2008 (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.

{{unblock|48 hours for a first time block isn't right or fair if other first timers get 24 hours Misplaced Pages:3RR#Enforcement. I was reverting edit by a user which was claiming the source wasn't creditable when it was Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor's personal blog and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shrew.27s_fiddle}} Bidgee (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a fair point. As you are a new user and clearly acting in good faith, I have reduced the block duration to 24 hours from the original block. Sam Korn 10:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)