| Revision as of 17:22, 3 February 2014 editAndy Dingley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers160,425 edits →Woppit← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:46, 4 February 2014 edit undoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers135,756 edits →WoppitNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ::oh, dear andy, i am pretty sure that "people didnt leave my non reliable sources" is not really a position you wish to base any critique upon. And do you really want me to quote what the third party responses and consensus to that ANI discussion were? -- ] 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | ::oh, dear andy, i am pretty sure that "people didnt leave my non reliable sources" is not really a position you wish to base any critique upon. And do you really want me to quote what the third party responses and consensus to that ANI discussion were? -- ] 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::: It went to ANI, which to save duplication I've already linked to rather than quoting. Your view garnered no support. You didn't even attempt to defend it yourself. There is still ''no'' policy requiring that ''all'' sources have to meet RS. ] (]) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | ::: It went to ANI, which to save duplication I've already linked to rather than quoting. Your view garnered no support. You didn't even attempt to defend it yourself. There is still ''no'' policy requiring that ''all'' sources have to meet RS. ] (]) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::::since you seem to think what was said there is relevant | |||
| :::::*" More stalking, wikihounding and harassment by Andy Dingley, when they get into a disagreement with another user this is fairly standard tactics for him. ]" | |||
| :::::*"The picture of the bear at a funeral is patently as primary as sources get. I see nothing wrong with that removal. ] " | |||
| :::::*"I want to correct some inaccuracies in Andy's report here. ... ]" "that kind of revert is not exempt, but your calling them "blankings" makes him sound like a vandal and again confirms my suspicions about your motives.--]" | |||
| :::::*"It is self-evident that if someone removes a source, she/he is challenging it. Thus, any non-reliable source, as I understand the term, may be removed on sight. That doesn't forbid adding unsourced material, or poor sources; it just forbids complaining about their removal. ]" | |||
| :::::*the only statement actually in support of your position "IMO a reasonably bright line here is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also IAFIU, "challenged" does NOT mean "IDONTLIKEIT":" however that was followed up with *" In addition, Flickr is hardly a usable source in many cases, because what you see and what one shows in a photo is subject to interpretation (WP:RS) hence easily contestable as to how it can support ''article content''. ]" | |||
| ::::::So the ANI which you point to is in fact essentially: ANDY YOU ARE WRONG. -- ] 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * To 79.70.66.86, as you insist on blanking sections of this page and citing NPA, I've raised it at ] ] (]) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | * To 79.70.66.86, as you insist on blanking sections of this page and citing NPA, I've raised it at ] ] (]) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 01:46, 4 February 2014
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Woppit
If Mr Whoppit is a Woppit, then (partly due to the new Merrythought regeneration) where does the generic Woppit fit, in terms of notability? This blog post contains some further info which could possibly be sourced elsewhere. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of refs, including this, were removed as they're "not RS" (which is a reason that we can't rely on them to prove notability or a contentious claim, but not a reason to exclude them in general). This even went to ANI, but TheRedPenOfDoom chose not to engage in that discussion and the only argument for removing non-RS seemed to come down to, "Things are removable because I want to remove them". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.66.86 (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- oh, dear andy, i am pretty sure that "people didnt leave my non reliable sources" is not really a position you wish to base any critique upon. And do you really want me to quote what the third party responses and consensus to that ANI discussion were? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- It went to ANI, which to save duplication I've already linked to rather than quoting. Your view garnered no support. You didn't even attempt to defend it yourself. There is still no policy requiring that all sources have to meet RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- since you seem to think what was said there is relevant
- " More stalking, wikihounding and harassment by Andy Dingley, when they get into a disagreement with another user this is fairly standard tactics for him. Werieth"
- "The picture of the bear at a funeral is patently as primary as sources get. I see nothing wrong with that removal. Mangoe "
- "I want to correct some inaccuracies in Andy's report here. ... Bbb23" "that kind of revert is not exempt, but your calling them "blankings" makes him sound like a vandal and again confirms my suspicions about your motives.--Bbb23"
- "It is self-evident that if someone removes a source, she/he is challenging it. Thus, any non-reliable source, as I understand the term, may be removed on sight. That doesn't forbid adding unsourced material, or poor sources; it just forbids complaining about their removal. Howunusual"
- the only statement actually in support of your position "IMO a reasonably bright line here is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also IAFIU, "challenged" does NOT mean "IDONTLIKEIT":" however that was followed up with *" In addition, Flickr is hardly a usable source in many cases, because what you see and what one shows in a photo is subject to interpretation (WP:RS) hence easily contestable as to how it can support article content. Staszek Lem"
- So the ANI which you point to is in fact essentially: ANDY YOU ARE WRONG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- since you seem to think what was said there is relevant
- It went to ANI, which to save duplication I've already linked to rather than quoting. Your view garnered no support. You didn't even attempt to defend it yourself. There is still no policy requiring that all sources have to meet RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- oh, dear andy, i am pretty sure that "people didnt leave my non reliable sources" is not really a position you wish to base any critique upon. And do you really want me to quote what the third party responses and consensus to that ANI discussion were? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- To 79.70.66.86, as you insist on blanking sections of this page and citing NPA, I've raised it at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_on_RedPenOfDoom Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)