Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:21, 13 February 2007

Archives

Current March 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 – August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 – August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 – August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 – December 2009 January 2010 – June 2010 July 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – June 2011 July 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – December 2012 January 2013 – June 2013 July 2013 – December 2013 January 2014 – December 2014 January 2015 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2021 January 2022 –

Hi.

Ben Thompson

Thank you for you message on my talk page. However, if you look you will notice that I rewrote the section in an effort to reach a consensus. User:TheEditor20 reverted this back to his unreliable, POV edit. I have reported this as 3RR. Furthermore if you look through the history of him, his previous username User:Edgovan20 and the various IPs he has used you will see that he is a habitual vandal. However I do acknowledge that perhaps my reversions were excessive. --BMT 18:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not sided with either user, you both violated WP:3RR and were both warned. Cbrown1023 talk 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your intervention, however I'd like to ask a favour, I made an which I think is a much fairer representation of the truth and an encyclopaedia, bearing this in mind, where should the article be left? --BMT 18:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, yours has POV as well and does not appear to have reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you deem both edits to have POV, what would you suggest would be the next step? I tried moving the section to the talk page but the other user kept on reverting. You've said that neither are suitable so is it a section to be deleted? Where does this leave the article? --BMT 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that BMT's sources do not carry the same validity as those I have provided for the section. The section has merit in explaining to the reader why the character Ben Thompson is not so well known in modern times, and I think just because one user disputes it does not warrant it's removal. I appreciate that everything should be looked at from a neutral POV, and if BMT can find a reliable source for the information he provided then by all means he can add it. However, this does not mean he can remove another, arguably more prominent POV. By reliable and valid souces I mean major stories in credible published newspapers, which would not have a bias for wanting to make him appear famous (such as a website devoted to selling Ben Thompson era mechandise).--TheEditor20 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page to get more of the authors involved in the discussion. Cbrown1023 talk 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreamgirls (film)

Can this article have a GA nom and a FA nom at the same time? Thanks. Real96 02:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is possible. But I would discourage it. Anyway, FA is higher than GA and gives you more stuff to work-on if it doesn't pass. Cbrown1023 talk 02:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The Article On Armenian Genocide

Hi Cbrown,

I agree with u about that possible vandalism should be hindered. However, this article is completely different from that of Turkish version. It means that this issue can be understood different ways because of languages, and English is much more broader than Turkish. This is unfair. Because I want to remove conflict between both articles, and so that Turkish thesis can be given objectively, I demand unprotection on "The Armenian Genocide" article. On the other hand, one of the administrator, Arjun01, blocked my IP as marked vandalism. In my sentences, there is no vandalism considering wikipedia policy. Therefore,I think turkish and english version of the wikipedia explanation about this issue should be the same.

Than u!

Dakini1978 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)dakini1978

The artice is only protected from new and unregistered users because of the controversity of the topic and the likely hood of a future edit war. If you would like to edit it, then keep your account for a while. But please note that if you edit war and break WP:3RR, you will be blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)