Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:47, 24 May 2007

Edit war

Raggz, I understand that you feel that the articles animal rights, individual rights, collective rights etc. violate wikipedia policy. Deleting the information is however not the way to address this. I advise you to read WP:POINT (which means do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point) WP:3RR (which states that if you revert someone else's edit three times you will be blocked for a given period), WP:DISPUTE (which explains how to solve disputes you have) and WP:OR. From these it is clear that random deleting information from wikipedia multiple times is not the way we solve disputes. C mon 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Raggz, first I did not write these articles, I am merely trying to protect wikipedia's stability and legibility, by reverting your actions. I am neutral towards the question whether these articles violate WP:OR. You are deleting the entire text of articles like collective rights or the introductory sentences of articles like Men's rights and animal rights, by doing so you are violating wikipedia policy, especially WP:POINT and Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. Please try to work in good faith and try to improve wikipedia instead of mutilating it so it meets some policy. If you have a problem with an article, make this clear with the use of template and tags, point out on the talk page what the exact nature of your problems is. C mon 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that we have any dispute to settle. The deleted material was all original research, and you have not disputed this. If you claim that it was not original research, we can discuss the policy on that. The deletions were not content-related, so we need not get into that. I deleted text I agreed with and text that I disagreed with.

I use [[fact|date=May 2007}} tags when there are areas that need work. This was not the case, whole articles, and multiple sequential paragraphs were original research.

Compromise? I just label these articles OR at the top, and you do the necessary research by 15 June?

So, do we have an issue? Is so, what is it? Raggz 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the fact I would have to do the research by some date, it is not my writing. The idea of the tags is that problem will be solved by some one in the system and that until then readers are warned.

What I think we/you should do is tag and template all the article you have problems with. Rewrite those OR-violations which you think are not controversial, in such a way that the logical nature of an article is preserved. As long as you delete introductory sentences of articles, without replacing them, I will revert your edits under WP:POINT. C mon 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we dealing with significant amounts of OR, in your opinion? If we agree on this - or not, it makes a difference in how to approach the issue.

• 1. Is the OR issue the main issue?

• 2. IF true, is the OR (1) incidental (2) minor (3) substantial?

Substantial OR gets deleted, not tagged. So, in your opinion is the deleted materal OR? Raggz 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to take a position in this, the issue is that you can not disrupt wikipedia to make this point. You should not blank an entire article or delete an introductory sentence without replacing it, starting the article in medias res. C mon 20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I cannot disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. OR disrupts Misplaced Pages, it never helps it. Do you agree? This is why I'm asking your opinion on the OR issue, so that I be sure that I know what you are talking about.

You have taken a position on the OR content, a tacit position. You tacitly agree that we are discussing the removal of OR, so you are trying to dodge this issue because you have an agenda here. I don't have an agenda, I'm just deleting OR, as Policy requires. If this is not your tacit position, you will of course - correct me.

At this point I summarize your issue to be: The deletion of Orignial Research is disruptive, and subject to the disruptive editing rule. If I misunderstand, please advise me? Raggz 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your final description of my position is correct: the way you have deleted what you perceive as original research is disruptive to wikipedia, that is why I have on multiple occassions reverted your edits.

The main point is that one should not 1) blank pages or 2) delete introductions of articles without replacing them, starting an article in medias res.

This interpretation of WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT conflicts with your (in my view overzealous) interpretation of WP:OR.

I do not have a position on whether there is original research, the only thing I know is that you disrupt the article for that reason.

Finally there is a difference between the way OR disrupts wikipedia and edits like I reverted it do. You have consciously mutilated wikipedia by blanking whole paragraphs and removing introductions, that makes wikipedia illegible, OR merely makes it unreliable. C mon 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the OR is an initial editing step. In collective rights I have begun to help develop the article, introducing useful material. Next I will add information about collective rights and collective bargaining. I suspect that you too will have useful additions.

The deletion of the OR is positive, not disruptive, it will allow you to insert USEFUL supported text. Blank spaces encourge this. Check collective rights, it needs help, but we have a good start there. Raggz 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your efforts at any page to provide references, and I am happy that you have found a better way to express your OR-issues about certain article than wantonly deleting stuff, since I do believe that creating blank spaces is disruptive and it makes reduce the use this encyclopedia has to its readers. Happy editing! C mon 22:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Side Show Bob

Raggz, three days ago, you introduced controversial original research to the International Criminal Court article (“The ICC lacks any effective means to prosecute itself”). I explained clearly that you were violating Misplaced Pages's policies by making this claim without citing a source, and I removed the claim. I pleaded with you not to continue ignoring my comments, and I specifically asked you not to restore your claim without ensuring that it was directly attributable to a reliable source. You immediately restored your claim without bothering to address my concern. Two days later, your original research remains in what was, until that point, an article with no original research and a very high standard of referencing.

Please remove your own original research before blanking any more articles. Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the talk page, and I find no reasons there for most of the material that you deleted. May we address your concerns there? It helps me to be able to read the history to refer to the talk page. The citation that you are challenging is missing. I can't review it if it is missing? Do you know how to find it? Please shift to that talk page?

Oh, you provided the link, I just found it. Thanks. Raggz 01:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Another unsourced claim

In response to my comment asking you to remove your unsourced statement, you've inserted another controversial claim that's not attributable to a reliable source.

The ICC article now claims that “The ICC has jurisdiction over UN Peacekeepers, but will not investigate crimes by the UN”, and the only reference is to this article, which makes no such claim.

I've explained to you several times that when you cite a reference you must ensure that your source actually states what you claim it states. I have also asked you to reply to me here and let me know whether you understand this point. You continue to ignore my requests.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my notes say that is the correct reference. I'll check, maybe it is the wrong one.

What am I ignoring? I fixed the text that you had problems with, now I will look at this issue. Is the last problem now solved - or not? What am I ignoring if I fixed the last problem? If I didn't fix it, what is the issue then?

I think you were right, the article is now better for the attention. Raggz 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)