| Revision as of 02:36, 13 February 2013 editSPECIFICO (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users35,511 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:45, 13 February 2013 edit undoXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits →Removal of reliably sourced content: if you're not willing to do a better job...then please keep your criticisms to yourselvesNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :::::I'm too lazy to trim it down tonight. Your suggestion is fine. Xerographic might also want to consider pasting and editing into a sandbox. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | :::::I'm too lazy to trim it down tonight. Your suggestion is fine. Xerographic might also want to consider pasting and editing into a sandbox. ]{{SubSup||]|]}} 02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I'm puzzled as to why an editor would think it's appropriate to cut and paste from another editor's talk page. Clearly, if Erin had wished to create the article she could have done so. Then, X, having done the cut and paste, could very well have done the appropriate review himself rather than issuing a call, above, for some other editor to do the work. Just my opinion. ] ] 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ::::::I'm puzzled as to why an editor would think it's appropriate to cut and paste from another editor's talk page. Clearly, if Erin had wished to create the article she could have done so. Then, X, having done the cut and paste, could very well have done the appropriate review himself rather than issuing a call, above, for some other editor to do the work. Just my opinion. ] ] 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks. --] (]) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:45, 13 February 2013
Removal of reliably sourced content
SPECIFICO deleted the content on this page with the following explanation, "Delete promotional content". The content was all reliably sourced and fact based. It would be helpful if somebody could review the content. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't reviewed all of the sources in the original diff, but at least two of the sources are of excellent quality (WSJ,NatGeo). I don't understand on what basis almost all of the content was removed. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)- Hello. I was not questioning the sources, but rather the promotional tone of the text. That text was cut and paste by Xerographica from the user page of a WP user who is affiliated with ioby. The user apparently did not intend it to be a WP article and wrote it in a promotional style that is appropriate for a user page self-description. I expect that neutral descriptive content will be added to the stub in the future. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was a bit promotional, I agree. But it wasn't so bad it needed to be stubbed. Tagged, certainly. Any objections to restoring the original version and excising some of the more obvious puffery? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)- Much too promotional. I restored a small portion of the material and couched it in a non-promotional tone. The quality WSJ, NatGeo, etc. material can be restored as well, but the prose needs fixing. (Editors should keep in mind that much of this was C&P from another user's page.) As Xerographic was the article creator, he ought to do so. Then he would not be responsible for the soapboxing. The original material is there for restoration in the edit history – a piece-by-piece restoration, properly edited, is the best way to go in order to avoid the puffery. If it is restored wholesale, then who would undertake proper article development? – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm too lazy to trim it down tonight. Your suggestion is fine. Xerographic might also want to consider pasting and editing into a sandbox. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)- I'm puzzled as to why an editor would think it's appropriate to cut and paste from another editor's talk page. Clearly, if Erin had wished to create the article she could have done so. Then, X, having done the cut and paste, could very well have done the appropriate review himself rather than issuing a call, above, for some other editor to do the work. Just my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO and Rich...are you guys going to build this article up? If so, then you're more than welcome to thumb your nose at Erin's quality and reliably sourced contributions. If not, then please don't criticize other people's contributions if you're not willing to make better contributions yourselves. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm puzzled as to why an editor would think it's appropriate to cut and paste from another editor's talk page. Clearly, if Erin had wished to create the article she could have done so. Then, X, having done the cut and paste, could very well have done the appropriate review himself rather than issuing a call, above, for some other editor to do the work. Just my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm too lazy to trim it down tonight. Your suggestion is fine. Xerographic might also want to consider pasting and editing into a sandbox. little green rosetta(talk)
- Much too promotional. I restored a small portion of the material and couched it in a non-promotional tone. The quality WSJ, NatGeo, etc. material can be restored as well, but the prose needs fixing. (Editors should keep in mind that much of this was C&P from another user's page.) As Xerographic was the article creator, he ought to do so. Then he would not be responsible for the soapboxing. The original material is there for restoration in the edit history – a piece-by-piece restoration, properly edited, is the best way to go in order to avoid the puffery. If it is restored wholesale, then who would undertake proper article development? – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was a bit promotional, I agree. But it wasn't so bad it needed to be stubbed. Tagged, certainly. Any objections to restoring the original version and excising some of the more obvious puffery? little green rosetta(talk)
- Hello. I was not questioning the sources, but rather the promotional tone of the text. That text was cut and paste by Xerographica from the user page of a WP user who is affiliated with ioby. The user apparently did not intend it to be a WP article and wrote it in a promotional style that is appropriate for a user page self-description. I expect that neutral descriptive content will be added to the stub in the future. SPECIFICO talk 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)