| Revision as of 23:39, 23 November 2013 editMiddayexpress (talk | contribs)109,244 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:09, 24 November 2013 edit undoHeisoutofsight (talk | contribs)342 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Semi protected and just going to do ]. ] (]) 23:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC) | Semi protected and just going to do ]. ] (]) 23:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks. ] (]) 23:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC) | :Thanks. ] (]) 23:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == African Australians == | |||
| Hi Middayexpress, I feel there are various problems with your contributions to the ] page. | |||
| Please see ]. According to that page, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." | |||
| You have removed the same citation and cited information on the page twice. As this is pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, to remove it is disruption. | |||
| Furthermore, "simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?")" Again, see ]. | |||
| I asked you ] questions that have not been responded to, e.g. | |||
| 1. "You assert your opinion of the specific source I have linked with no clear verification that it relates specifically to migrants or recent people. Please point out explicitly where this is stated in the link I earlier provided, I cannot see it." | |||
| 2. "You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you." | |||
| You have no responded to these questions. I appreciated that you made a generalised statement which apparently is intended to address the first. I would appreciate it if you could answer the question directly, and answer the second question. Unfortunately, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a ] effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors", again, see ]. | |||
| It is awkward trying to follow your posts because they are not threaded, again, see ]. | |||
| I have outlined my three main concerns with your contribution to the page. I am also concerned that you simply ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author, however as I have mentioned you consistently delete a government source that is contrary to your opinion when I add it in. Does this comply with ]? | |||
| I apologise if I have expressed myself in an obnoxious way. I apologise if I have expressed some of my arguments against your ideas poorly or obnoxiously in our discussion. However, I would appreciate it if you would consider the points I have raised. This would helpful in reaching ]. | |||
Revision as of 05:09, 24 November 2013
Eritrean cuisineSemi protected and just going to do Religion in Eritrea. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
African AustraliansHi Middayexpress, I feel there are various problems with your contributions to the African Australian page. Please see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. According to that page, "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." You have removed the same citation and cited information on the page twice. As this is pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style, to remove it is disruption. Furthermore, "simple, clarifying questions from others should not be ignored. (e. g. "You say the quote you want to incorporate can be found in this 300 page pdf, but I've looked and I can't find it. Exactly what page is it on?")" Again, see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. I asked you good faith questions that have not been responded to, e.g. 1. "You assert your opinion of the specific source I have linked with no clear verification that it relates specifically to migrants or recent people. Please point out explicitly where this is stated in the link I earlier provided, I cannot see it." 2. "You are constantly reinstating your preferred sentence, in its exact form. I don't see how this is constructive. Have you considered any alternatives? Please explain if any other options may acceptable to you." You have no responded to these questions. I appreciated that you made a generalised statement which apparently is intended to address the first. I would appreciate it if you could answer the question directly, and answer the second question. Unfortunately, "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors", again, see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. It is awkward trying to follow your posts because they are not threaded, again, see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. I have outlined my three main concerns with your contribution to the page. I am also concerned that you simply ignored the disclaimer on one source stating it is the view of "the individual author only", and argued it is more than the view of the individual author, however as I have mentioned you consistently delete a government source that is contrary to your opinion when I add it in. Does this comply with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view? I apologise if I have expressed myself in an obnoxious way. I apologise if I have expressed some of my arguments against your ideas poorly or obnoxiously in our discussion. However, I would appreciate it if you would consider the points I have raised. This would helpful in reaching consensus. |