| Revision as of 06:13, 24 June 2012 editScheinwerfermann (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,205 edits →Question on Digital ballast article: +← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:52, 25 June 2012 edit undoJbhunley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,645 edits CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| :Hi there. I think you did pretty well, all things considered. I agree with you that ] gave every appearance of a shill/soapbox piece (or at least a conflict of interest), what with all the "references" to a manufacturer's web pages and an image provided by (and linked to, in its description/caption) a ballast manufacturer. There was very little encyclopædic-quality information in the article, which should not have been created in the first place given the existence of ]. Each situation is different, so there's no universal answer to "What should I do?". In all but blatant, potentially damaging cases (and those are few) there's time to get things sorted out on a non-urgent basis, so even if talk page discussion gets nowhere and you have to initiate an RfC or take it to AfD or NPOV-N and it takes a few days, the world won't stop spinning. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>06:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)</small> | :Hi there. I think you did pretty well, all things considered. I agree with you that ] gave every appearance of a shill/soapbox piece (or at least a conflict of interest), what with all the "references" to a manufacturer's web pages and an image provided by (and linked to, in its description/caption) a ballast manufacturer. There was very little encyclopædic-quality information in the article, which should not have been created in the first place given the existence of ]. Each situation is different, so there's no universal answer to "What should I do?". In all but blatant, potentially damaging cases (and those are few) there's time to get things sorted out on a non-urgent basis, so even if talk page discussion gets nowhere and you have to initiate an RfC or take it to AfD or NPOV-N and it takes a few days, the world won't stop spinning. —<span style="font:bold 11px Arial;display:inline;border:#151B8D 1px solid;background-color:#FFFF00;padding:0 4px 0 4px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup>·<sub>]</sub><small>06:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :: Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to make sure that I did not end up being a jerk to the other editor. ] (]) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:52, 25 June 2012
| ⇒ ⇒ So long, and thanks for all the fish… ⇐ ⇐ I have I drop in twice or thrice in awhile. |
A kitten for you!
Ĉiuĵaŭde (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yay, kitty! —Scheinwerfermann ·C19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Question on Digital ballast article
I am very new at Misplaced Pages and I would like to ask your advice if I may. I came across this article just after it was created. It had been Speedyed before with a note to put it in electrical ballast so I nominated t for speedy delete agaim. An admin said that it was not appropriate to speedy it again. My opinion was that the author possibly had a conflict of interest and/or was writing a promotional article but I AGF so tried to bring it more in line with NPOV and get rid of the links to manufacturers and provided the author with a link to a Scholar search to try to give him an idea of what good sources might be. Just before you did the merge he added the manufacturer links back in. My question is did I handle the article/situation properly up to that point? If not what would have been proper? Had you not done the move or if I run into a similar circumstance again should I take it to AfD, NPOV Noticeboard or someplace else. Would it have been proper to have done one of these things earlier? Thank you for your consideration. Jbhunley (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. I think you did pretty well, all things considered. I agree with you that Digital ballast gave every appearance of a shill/soapbox piece (or at least a conflict of interest), what with all the "references" to a manufacturer's web pages and an image provided by (and linked to, in its description/caption) a ballast manufacturer. There was very little encyclopædic-quality information in the article, which should not have been created in the first place given the existence of Electrical ballast. Each situation is different, so there's no universal answer to "What should I do?". In all but blatant, potentially damaging cases (and those are few) there's time to get things sorted out on a non-urgent basis, so even if talk page discussion gets nowhere and you have to initiate an RfC or take it to AfD or NPOV-N and it takes a few days, the world won't stop spinning. —Scheinwerfermann ·C06:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to make sure that I did not end up being a jerk to the other editor. Jbhunley (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)