| Revision as of 23:09, 13 March 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →March 2015← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:12, 13 March 2015 edit undoBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 edits →March 2015: deleting spam, its in edit history if it is ever needed for reference.Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a ] argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —] (]) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | :You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a ] argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —] (]) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. ] (]) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. ] (]) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == March 2015 == | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been ] or removed. | |||
| * If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
| * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
| Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. ''You removed all meaningful content from the article leaving only a pointless statement that simply reiterated the article title in different words. Either fix an article or seek to have it deleted, but do not deliberately cripple it. ''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> ] (]) 23:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Andy once again you fail to assume good faith. the content removed from "criticism of communism" was removed becuase it is present in the article ] we don't need to have the same content 2 places. If you insist on creating a content fork I suggest you consider what it means to have a nuetral point of view. I assume that you make accuastion in good faith since you want what is best for wikipedia, But forking content to avoid NPOV is not the solution.] (]) 23:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:12, 13 March 2015
Your 8,000 merger proposals
Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.
- You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)