| Revision as of 20:40, 2 May 2012 editMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Talk:Web Sheriff/Archive 3.← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:21, 11 October 2012 edit undo69.244.155.82 (talk) →There can be no resolution when the tagging editor is holding the article hostage and without relevant discussion as requiredNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ::::Link to ] discussion: . ] (]) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ::::Link to ] discussion: . ] (]) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Yes, you do love to go to the noticeboards, don't you? And while there you have often misinterpreted and misrepresented what I have written or my editing in order to try to discredit me and to distract the conversation and attention to yourself. I have brought this up before on the noticeboards that some of you more contentious editors are so fond of running off to. No wonder you never have time to write content or create articles. ] (]) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ::::Yes, you do love to go to the noticeboards, don't you? And while there you have often misinterpreted and misrepresented what I have written or my editing in order to try to discredit me and to distract the conversation and attention to yourself. I have brought this up before on the noticeboards that some of you more contentious editors are so fond of running off to. No wonder you never have time to write content or create articles. ] (]) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Reading talk pages like this reminds me why I don't do anything other than minor edits. This article reads like an IP industry puff piece. If this is the best NPOV can get us, NPOV is being mis-interpreted. ] (]) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == New tag == | == New tag == | ||
Revision as of 16:21, 11 October 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web Sheriff article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | Companies Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
There can be no resolution when the tagging editor is holding the article hostage and without relevant discussion as required
I added NPOV and reliably sourced material and did a little clean-up on this article today and once again the same editor has retagged it. He recently questioned reliable sourcing on the article and I addressed his issues and he did not dispute me and it has been over a month. He has refused to address any specific issues on this article just heavy material deletion of NPOV and reliable sourced information for the readers and has added two extreme and non applicable tags to the article. In other words, he and another editor are watching the article closely to keep it from being improved or ever added to without unfair tagging. He did not discuss adding the tags back on the article and his editing is disruptive and contentious, IMO. I will remove the unfairly applied tags but am willing and have always been willing to discuss any specific issues or "real" improvements that can be made to the article besides just tagging and deleting. Agadant (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what to say about this comment. The issues have been discussed endlessly, and your unwillingness to accept outside contributions that you do not personally agree with is one of the primary problems here. I've restored the tags as appropriate. If you've got a problem with the tags, I suggest you allow people to edit the article freely to address the issues they represent. Removing tags because you don't like them is disruptive. aprock (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are no current or specific issues discussed by you and you apparently are only interested in being disruptive and applying tags as a 'badge of shame', because I am not in agreement with you that your hand-picked subjective deletion of reliably source material is an improvement or a contribution. Agadant (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The above section clearly illustrates your lack of judgment in evaluating the reliability of sources. I stand by the tags. If you think they are based on an attempt to edit disruptively, I suggest you take your concern to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have a lot of judgment and experience in evaluating reliable sources. - articles I've created But do you? (as above). The proof is in the pudding. I have been willing to give my time for improving and adding content to Misplaced Pages for 6 years now and have never had this problem with any article or editors before this one. You need to examine whether your deletions and tagging here are done in good faith editing or as a 'badge of shame' with an obvious bias against this company. Agadant (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The above section clearly illustrates your lack of judgment in evaluating the reliability of sources. I stand by the tags. If you think they are based on an attempt to edit disruptively, I suggest you take your concern to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The proof is in the pudding Quite. Based on your evaluation of the sources above , I stand by my evaluation. I suppose the next step is to take those sources to a noticeboard to get some outside feedback. Given that I never heard of this company before this article showed up on the noticeboards for your disruptive behavior, I can't imagine what sort of bias I might have. On the other hand, your repeated insistence to include puffery based on unreliable sources seems a better indication of where the bias may lie. aprock (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I added these two new sources today that brought on your new accusations and tagging. Are you really going to say they are not from reliable sources and BTW, Web Sheriff does not speak at all in either one of them:
- The issues are not new. They are the same ones that have been plaguing the article for many months now. aprock (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- LOL... another diversion and again - not a specific answer. The issues are that you have latched on to this article - like you have other ones, according to your most common editing, and seem to think you are the ultimate authority in judging all measures of sourcing, POV, my judgment, my intentions, etc., etc, etc., and you display a heavy amount of contentiousness and article ownership. You just won't let go or for the sake of Misplaced Pages and constructive editing and policy application, collaborate for improvement - although you have done none of the tedious, time consuming work researching, compiling and formatting. I have been very discouraged by your attacks on me from the very beginning - taking me to COIN, and making unfair accusations against me but if I and other content editors give up there will be no one left to preserve the encyclopedia against the editors who only want to pass judgment, make accusations and delete our work because although they can't or won't do it themselves, they think they know best.Agadant (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you think I'm displaying ownership issues here, please do take your concerns to a noticeboard. aprock (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Link to WP:RSN discussion: . aprock (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you do love to go to the noticeboards, don't you? And while there you have often misinterpreted and misrepresented what I have written or my editing in order to try to discredit me and to distract the conversation and attention to yourself. I have brought this up before on the noticeboards that some of you more contentious editors are so fond of running off to. No wonder you never have time to write content or create articles. Agadant (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- If you think I'm displaying ownership issues here, please do take your concerns to a noticeboard. aprock (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- LOL... another diversion and again - not a specific answer. The issues are that you have latched on to this article - like you have other ones, according to your most common editing, and seem to think you are the ultimate authority in judging all measures of sourcing, POV, my judgment, my intentions, etc., etc, etc., and you display a heavy amount of contentiousness and article ownership. You just won't let go or for the sake of Misplaced Pages and constructive editing and policy application, collaborate for improvement - although you have done none of the tedious, time consuming work researching, compiling and formatting. I have been very discouraged by your attacks on me from the very beginning - taking me to COIN, and making unfair accusations against me but if I and other content editors give up there will be no one left to preserve the encyclopedia against the editors who only want to pass judgment, make accusations and delete our work because although they can't or won't do it themselves, they think they know best.Agadant (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading talk pages like this reminds me why I don't do anything other than minor edits. This article reads like an IP industry puff piece. If this is the best NPOV can get us, NPOV is being mis-interpreted. 69.244.155.82 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
New tag
aprock had labeled the article with a new tag that is not applicable at all to this article: The tag links to this essay: FANCRUFT "While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." I'll assume he didn't read it carefully enough though. These tags are not well explained on the template, IMO. I also do not agree with the NPOV template he had put up but I don't consider it uncivil, just subjectively applied to an article that I have "done my darndest" to write in an interesting and informative manner and to comply with restrictions previously applied to this article alone, such as not using the official website to source such things as the type of work the company does. I don't know if aprock considers that this type of company is unusual and can't be written about in the same way as say "Columbia Records" or "Apple Inc." Agadant (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The tag does not link that to that essay. aprock (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It did before it was renamed... I'll find it and post it here for you. Agadant (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- HERE: Overly detailed Agadant (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was renamed more than two years ago. Given that all your objections do not relate to the current version of the tag, I've restored it. aprock (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I linked to the talk page in error instead of the template page. My mistake.
- The template is dated April 2012 link and in the See Also section it links to Misplaced Pages Fancruft. Check it out. Why would you be in such a hurry? I try so hard to WP:AGF. I don't think that being enemies and deliberately insulting each other is good for us or the encyclopedia or does not in any way help to improve this article. I would ask you to please remove this tag as I think it is considered a real detriment to the article and the editor.
- The article is now listed here These articles do not even have any sources and do not in any way resemble this one in style. Agadant (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the see also links to an essay about fancruft. That's because that is one example of overly detailed content. This article is another example. aprock (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It was renamed more than two years ago. Given that all your objections do not relate to the current version of the tag, I've restored it. aprock (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- HERE: Overly detailed Agadant (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- It did before it was renamed... I'll find it and post it here for you. Agadant (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
You know, I find and I'm sure many others do too, that there is very little straight forward in the write-ups for guides to proper editing, sourcing, tagging, that we can depend on to be black and white. There are so many exceptions and loop holes that can be applied to almost anything on WP. That is why I often look for examples of what is allowable, proper, etc on GA or FA articles instead of trying to learn what policy applies and what all the guides are saying. I gave the link to the category page that this article now falls in and I feel like it is not fairly categorized. This article is very well-sourced - most of those are not sourced at all. This article is structured and the style has not been pointed to as a problem. Those are mostly sprawling and out of control. Once again, I feel like your comment is not helpful. You say the article is an example of overly detailed content. But if that was ever true in the past, it is not anymore. All articles on WP are only going to be read by a select, interested group of readers and all we can do as content editors is try to present the material that would be interesting to those readers. I have never read the articles here unless for 'some' reason I am interested in the subject matter. If you look at GA and FA popular musician's articles, as an example, they are never accused of being too detailed, maybe other things but not that. On this article, many sections were deleted and said to not be permitted (unjustly, IMO) - client list and in the media for one, and those are necessary in some form to explain the notability of the company. From what you have deleted in the past, and VQuakr too, you seem to feel like the history section should be trimmed to a few instances, or else trim the paragraphs to shorten the information. From a writer's perspective if the information is curtailed and you can't have enough material to make it interesting and informative than we are doing the readers and WP a disservice. You have often said I am too biased in favor of the company but that is not true. I find the company interesting and have often run across it as a content writer for musician's articles. So I basically wanted other readers who do to have information just like they can get on any biography or other company article for that matter. Sorry, to be so long winded but I just don't think you ever give me the benefit of the doubt on this article. You always, I think, have been suspicious of my motivations and feel like I am trying to promote (for what purpose?) and not just write interesting information. Your attitude towards me and your suspicions of my motivations do have a lot of influence on how you view this article. Agadant (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- This sort of discussion where you make vague and unsubstantiated accusations without diffs is unhelpful. You appear to be attributing things to me which I have never said. Either stick to discussing the article or bring your concerns (and diffs) to the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Noticeboard again? Why do you not ever discuss anything man to man, so to speak? Why always want to run to a noticeboard? I am not afraid of noticeboards or intimidated by them. I just don't find them to be the best way to resolve issues unless absolutely necessary as it means asking for unknown editors to solve your problems for you, but I can do it. You have threatened noticeboards 4 times on this current page now. - no diffs needed. And you took the reference issue to the reliable sources noticeboard currently and Vquakr on this page time line went to the dispute resolution noticeboard. You did immediately put me up on the WP:COIN when the article was before the NPOV noticeboard, when this all started. here On just this current page you made these comments about my bias: here, here. I don't deny that I have made comments about what I perceive as bias on your part but hoped to find that I was wrong about that. I meant for the above to perhaps give us a start in working together but obviously that is not what you want. I like to work and not fight on here but lately I have got no work done. It's a shame to waste our time this way, IMO. Agadant (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please review WP:DR for an explanation of what noticeboards are for. The suggestion that community input is not worth pursuing is antithetical to wikipedia policy. aprock (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Reviewing the diffs you supplied, I can only say that the actual content bears no resemblance to your characterizations:
- Discussing possible WP:COIN issues is more than a reasonable thing to do. The discussion ended with me saying Agadant has made it clear that he has no relationship with Web Sheriff, and I for one trust that he is speaking honestly here. Given that, I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
- I make no mention of any bias in your editing either here or here
- From my perspective, it seems you are railing against imagined attacks that do not exist. aprock (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- A big attack did exist and you were one of the first to precipitate it - never caring or thinking what a complete blow to me it was and how unprepared I was to have a group of people all against me (as never in my life before) and ridiculing the work I thought I had contributed to the encyclopedia's good during many, many hours of my free time. It broke my faith in the community always being fair and balanced and not acting sometimes as a mob. But of course, the community here is just a cross section of people in general. And in general and as individuals most people on wikipedia are decent and thoughtful. And I'm sure you are too. You just are my adversary and I can say that without any personal animosity at all. As you may have noticed, I don't speak Wikitalk and I never will. Good night, Agadant (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)