Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 1 February 2014

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/US Petrochemical

This is not where to create a question; this is an area for discussing whether or not to delete an existing article. There is no article at US Petrochemical, although it looks like a number of people have tried to recreate that article despite the fact that the company doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. If you can show that the company does meet that criteria, you should take your reliable independent sources to Deletion review. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you having posted a deletable article at US Petrochemical, the title was protected. You then went on to post the same article again at US Petrochemicals. I've blocked you for 48 hours for reposting deleted material. When the block expires, please don't recreate the article without addressing the problems the article had. In this case, please make sure that the article makes it clear that the company is significant or important in some way. The best way to do that is to find some reliable sources and use them in creating the article. I suggest you work on the article at a page in your userspace, like User:1houstonian/US Petrochemical, so that it doesn't get deleted while you're still working on it. Mangojuice 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The company has nine figure global sales and does meet the notability criteria.

1houstonian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

68.88.253.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

reposting deleted material

• Blocking administrator: Mangojuice (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You were asked to go to Deletion review and chose to ignore this message. Please ask for a deletion review once the block expired. — -- lucasbfr 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Steve Stockman article

Dear editor: I notice that you have made several edits to the article on Steve Stockman that appear to indicate a lack of understanding of the Misplaced Pages policy on neutrality. The Houston Chronicle is a SOURCE. It is a major newspaper, and it is considered a reliable source. A newspaper, such as the Chronicle, is not required to be "neutral" or unbiased under the Misplaced Pages rules. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) in Misplaced Pages refers to how Misplaced Pages presents the information. Deleting material because you feel the newspaper is not neutral or is presenting on half the story, etc., is not your role as a Misplaced Pages editor -- even if your feeling is correct. Please review the policy. Famspear (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rule (see the page on Neutral Point of View):

"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias.....

Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And this:

Misplaced Pages articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective....

It is probably not going to be appropriate for you as a Misplaced Pages editor to delete material from the Houston Chronicle merely because the reporting is biased. And it is probably not your place as a Misplaced Pages editor to decide whether the Chronicle has gotten the story right.

Also, some of material you have added to the article appears to approach cheerleading or soapboxing on behalf of, or in favor of, Steve Stockman. Please be careful about that. Famspear (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steve Stockman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Stockman has challenged Biden unlock the economic potential of the country by lifting the EPA[[http://stockman.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/stockman-challenges-biden-to-lift-epa-
• job growth and encourages employment, Congressman Stockman has been pushing to keep power costs low[[http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/Letters/121913_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Rinkle gorge. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Steve Stockman, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rinkle gorge (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Steve Stockman. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — MusikAnimal 22:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Steve Stockman, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. GabrielF (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned you on WP:BLPN

Here: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steve_Stockman. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL and then don't do it anymore, ok?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and talk

And also read WP:3RR, which you're on the verge of violating.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Elected officials positions, bills he has sponsored are neither an advertisement or cheerleading. Please stop vandalizing Congressman Stockmans page. His positions are also not liked by many people. Please stop removing his positions and bills from the page. There are many voters who will not like his press releases or bills or support to open up drilling, get more building permits for Petrochemical plants etc.

Sure. Talk about it on the talk page of the article, so that all interested editors can participate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

writing on a talk page

Hey, if you write your new comments at the bottom instead of interspersing them into other comments people will be able to understand your points much better. Also, if you end each comment with ~~~~ it'll sign your name to them, which will also help keep the conversation clear. The way you're doing it now makes it almost impossible to have a conversation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Steve Stockman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Hey, please undo your own revert, since it was your 4th. That's really not OK. Read the rules and talk before reverting, as we've been asking you to do. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)