Talk:Carl Hewitt: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:01, 3 January 2011 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits + page protection← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:26, 4 January 2011 edit undoCalamitybrook (talk \| contribs)6,053 edits →Page protection: checkNext edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	==Page protection==		==Page protection==
	Calamity Brook, I've protected the page to prevent a BLP violation. There's consensus (see the archives and history) that this material is inappropriate. The person who drew the media's attention to the situation, and who acted as the source, was also involved in the ArbCom case in opposition to the subject, so it was an unfortunate situation that's best left behind us. The page has been calm recently, and hopefully it will stay that way. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small>		Calamity Brook, I've protected the page to prevent a BLP violation. There's consensus (see the archives and history) that this material is inappropriate. The person who drew the media's attention to the situation, and who acted as the source, was also involved in the ArbCom case in opposition to the subject, so it was an unfortunate situation that's best left behind us. The page has been calm recently, and hopefully it will stay that way. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small>
			:Consensus has changed as of now.
			:Your not making a coherent argument.
			:Deepthroat both drew the media's attention to Watergate and acted as a source. So what??

			:There are two major news sources quoted from UK and from NZ, and a significant news source from Germany. Undoubtedly there are numerous other reliable sources.

			:Understand that these are quite clearly very reliable secondary sources that are spread worldwide in at least a couple of languages. That's all that's required for expanding an article in Misplaced Pages, despite the views of a few administrators.
			] (]) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:26, 4 January 2011

Skip to table of contents

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archive 1

Erdős number in introduction

Do others agree with me that having someone's Erdős number in the introduction is awkward? __meco (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe it should go in the bio section, with the names of those whose co-authorship earns him the number. On it's own it reads a bit like his shoe size, at least to someone unfamiliar with the term. Kevin (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss reverts

The incident concerning Hewitt's ban by Misplaced Pages administrators excited worldwide comment, as is easily shown by reliable sources.

To insist that it not be noted in the article seems inexplicable.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea is "revert & discuss." So will revert.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Page protection

Calamity Brook, I've protected the page to prevent a BLP violation. There's consensus (see the archives and history) that this material is inappropriate. The person who drew the media's attention to the situation, and who acted as the source, was also involved in the ArbCom case in opposition to the subject, so it was an unfortunate situation that's best left behind us. The page has been calm recently, and hopefully it will stay that way. SlimVirgin

Consensus has changed as of now.

Your not making a coherent argument.

Deepthroat both drew the media's attention to Watergate and acted as a source. So what??

There are two major news sources quoted from UK and from NZ, and a significant news source from Germany. Undoubtedly there are numerous other reliable sources.

Understand that these are quite clearly very reliable secondary sources that are spread worldwide in at least a couple of languages. That's all that's required for expanding an article in Misplaced Pages, despite the views of a few administrators.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories: