| Revision as of 08:21, 13 February 2007 editHoverfish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers48,018 editsm →Indian cinema assessment: more← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:21, 13 February 2007 edit undoHoverfish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers48,018 editsm →Indian cinema assessment: corrNext edit → | ||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
| == Indian cinema assessment == | == Indian cinema assessment == | ||
| Hi, I saw you gave start to a Tollywood film (]) that misses some of the sections we require for start. Minutes before I gave class stub to ], which has more sections. Just to be consistent with you, should we use other standards for assessing Indian cinema? - Actually I just |
Hi, I saw you gave start to a Tollywood film (]) that misses some of the sections we require for start. Minutes before I gave class stub to ], which has more sections. Just to be consistent with you, should we use other standards for assessing Indian cinema? - Actually I just saw that Supernumerary gave stub to ], so I will pull Simhadri down to stub, until we are sure what is right to do. ] <small>]</small> 08:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 08:21, 13 February 2007
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 don't know, yours has POV as well and does not appear to have reliable sources. Cbrown1023 talk 18:31, 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 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.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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)
Indian cinema assessment
Hi, I saw you gave start to a Tollywood film (Simhadri) that misses some of the sections we require for start. Minutes before I gave class stub to Okkadu, which has more sections. Just to be consistent with you, should we use other standards for assessing Indian cinema? - Actually I just saw that Supernumerary gave stub to Tagore (film), so I will pull Simhadri down to stub, until we are sure what is right to do. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)