This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 5 March 2009 (→Constantin Borodin: deleted again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:36, 5 March 2009 by Kevin (talk | contribs) (→Constantin Borodin: deleted again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.
If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.
It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Warren
Note Proposal 3 specifically removes all the problematic material you are concerned about re: the church's position as not relevant to a BLP on Warren. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also the RfM just made for the article, which was not particlualry mentioned there. Collect (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw that Prop 3 (this will shortly be confusing - we're up to 5 already) excludes this part, but I think that it does miss out important information. I may see if I can offer something today. Kevin (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The BLP/church position wasn't the point I was making, just that the source does not fully support the statement re previous contents of the web site, but I think only a slight rewording or better source is required. This is a separate issue from relevance/inclusion altogether. Kevin (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about Firestorm's posts, just that the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- That was not where it looked from my keyboard -- Firestorm proffered a compromise with the specific contentious material left out as long as some of the other church material could be moved to the church article. Unless, of course, I have misunderstood his posts. The consept is, to me, separatin of church and pastor. Collect (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to agree though that there are reliable sources connecting the invocation controversy with the alterations to the church web site. I will not be either supporting or opposing any of the proposals, in an effort to remain neutral. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The proposed compromise (moving church stuff to the church article) using proposal 3 as modified as the basis seems to have some support from Firestorm. Two appear hopelessly against anything using the word "compromise" <g> Collect (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. Collect (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Claims asserting that a church website is directly relevant to a BLP are extraordinary, especially when the purported former content is used to ascribe a position to a person who is not described as having written the material. I think that is fairly clear. I gave a hypothetical example to make it even clearer. And I am most certainly not trying to avoid answering any questions at all. Collect (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that 2 news refs linking Warren to the web site are acceptable so long as we do not state that he is/was the author of the content of the web site. It doesn't seem an extraordinary claim to me. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Your consideration and comment please
Hello Kevin - please will you consider this thread on my talk page and give me your opinions?--VS 07:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Kevin - I am hoping that Mike will see that we are all trying & I agree that if Lyonscc come to the mediation with others it would show he is more sincere about wanting a solution.--VS 10:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
AE
Hi Kevin thanks for your comment on AE could you explain to me what a consecutive edit is thanks. BigDunc 23:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, if you make 10 edits in a row, whether they are to different bits of an article or not, with no other editor editing in between, then that counts as a single revert. This is because it could have been done in a single edit. Look at this history, you see that Mike Doughney edited at 08:59 and 09:04 on Feb 12. This counts as 2 reverts because another editor edited in between, at 09:03. The 3 edits by EditorCasual between 04:21 and 04:23 on the 22nd count as a single revert because no-one else edited in between. Kevin (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thats great Kevin thanks very much for the explanation. So do the edits have to be the same content then to count as one revert in 3RR. If I reverted content say from four different paragraphs would this also be breaking 3RR as you made 4 reverts. BigDunc 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what the content is. In my example EditorCasual altered 3 different sections of the article, which still counts as one revert. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- So as long as no one else edits the page it is one but if any other editor edits inbetween they all count and it doesn't matter if it is in different places on the article, is that right? BigDunc 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's right. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- At last :) thanks very much for your help. BigDunc 23:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's right. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- So as long as no one else edits the page it is one but if any other editor edits inbetween they all count and it doesn't matter if it is in different places on the article, is that right? BigDunc 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what the content is. In my example EditorCasual altered 3 different sections of the article, which still counts as one revert. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thats great Kevin thanks very much for the explanation. So do the edits have to be the same content then to count as one revert in 3RR. If I reverted content say from four different paragraphs would this also be breaking 3RR as you made 4 reverts. BigDunc 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Roland Perry
A mug. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Deletion review for YouTube cat abuse incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of YouTube cat abuse incident. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. WikiScrubber (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Constantin Borodin
Um, I'm not sure what happened here but it seems I re-created the page that you had already deleted. I didn't get a warning or anything. My intention was to revert the speedy tag added by the previous edit as the G7 is (as far as I know) not valid unless the page has actually been blanked by the original author. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to shed any tears over that obvious hoax, but I figured I'd let you know so you can nuke it or whatever is appropriate :) §FreeRangeFrog 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The original author blanked it, and someone else tagged it as G7. My deletion and your revert must have crossed paths somewhere. Kevin (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)