Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 23 September 2007

Sociology NA‑class Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology NA This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

rudeness

67.166.42.66, my issue was not that you were trying to improve the article, but that you were both rude and removing important information. I can live with the wording, but I'm glad they've not made you an admin either. Chris 19:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Peters not an admin? He certainly acts like it- every revision to any smoking related material i've posted on he's reverted. I think it may be because his smoking article was highly "rated" and "nominated" and all that stuff- (he self-nominated it - meaning he wrote the article).

Naacats 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You hit it right on the nose, I checked out the Revision history of "Smoking", he's been involved with that article since day 1, which makes him a biased editor on this one. Chris 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want a real laugh go check out the history page from the article. I'm pretty much dismantling his article because almost all of its content is covered in better articles. He's not happy about it and within seconds of an edit he reverts it and refuses discussion.

Naacats 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

removals without explanation

If you feel something is POV, this is the place to explain yourself, else I can revert as often as you can. Chris 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

undiscussed and unwelcome redirect

I have reverted the undiscussed and unwelcome redirect by peter isotalo-that's what these talk pages are for. Chris 21:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is in very bad shape and what it discusses is presented in much greater detail at smoking, which is also thoroughly referenced. Unless someone actually puts in some work on improving this article, I don't see why we should keep it around as a separate entity.

And I don't honestly see how one can so vehemently protest removals when there's not a single source in the article. It's not a mere pack of lies, but it is a rather motley and patchy collection of facts without proper stucture.

Peter 06:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you are most welcome to source it-I will continue to undo your redirects, as that is a separate article dealing with separate if related issues. Chris 08:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually read the sections of smoking dedicated to sociability, art, literature, etc? It has more information on smoking culture than this article and it's a serious attempt to present the information in an organized fashion. This information could just as well fit within the frame of the main article instead where it would actually receive attention from other editors.

Peter 08:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

merge proposal

Then I have found a solution to your constant redirects-merge that section here. Smoking is a long article and that section is very good, as you say, and merits its own home. That way also, the sourcing is satisfied. Chris 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how is content forking from a general article just to save an article constructive improvement?

Peter 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• NA-Class sociology pages
• Mid-importance sociology articles