Content deleted Content added
64.85.220.69 (talk) attribution has been satisfied hopefully |
220 of Borg (talk | contribs) →Copy Edit and linkrot: advice to new editor |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
I like that edit with the recent tags added. They are very relevant and may spark some constructive change.--[[User:YummyDonutsmmm|YummyDonutsmmm]] ([[User talk:YummyDonutsmmm|talk]]) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
I like that edit with the recent tags added. They are very relevant and may spark some constructive change.--[[User:YummyDonutsmmm|YummyDonutsmmm]] ([[User talk:YummyDonutsmmm|talk]]) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:But didn't you then remove the tags {{diff2|469429095|[DIFF]}} "(removed tags for DYK nomination)"? This was after, less than an hour before, also removing {{diff2|469422615|[DIFF]}} a multiple issues template saying"(I removed the multiple issues template because the issues have since been fixed.) ", when in fact all those issues ''still'' exist? |
|||
:What ''is'' your train of thought here 'YummyDonuts'? This page <s>looks like crap!</s> <u>is substandard</u>. It ''still'' lacks citations for many statements, and has ''bare URLs'' in the text(!) and references! I have never said this before on WP but you are exhibiting severe [[wp:ownership]] issues over this article. You currently have ≈104 edits. It is about time you started taking the advice of the much more experienced editors (Dori has ≈7,810 edits and 'Bar Code'(BCS) has ≈1,200) who are trying to give you ''good'' advice. If ''you'' had accepted the re-direct of this page to the other ''better'' article, whatever the title, this situation would not exist. - [[user:220 of Borg|'''220''']] [[Special:Contributions/220 of Borg|''<small>of</small>'']] <sup>[[User talk:220 of Borg|''Borg'']]</sup> 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:19, 4 January 2012
Merge
This page should be merged into 2011 Los Angeles arson spree as it appears to cover the same incidents, but the other page is much better developed. - 220 of Borg 18:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The information on that page should be moved to this article because the article was older and had a more accurate title. It was not just one arson spree.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it should be a redirect… so I'm going to be bold and do so. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bring the 2011 article contents to the 2011-12 article. Activity continues in 2012. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly, oh I know this article is better, but I do not know which was made first.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean this article is better? This article when I first saw it had more maintenence tags than sentences. Then you copy-pasted my article into this title and added stuff about the Arab spring and two arsonists. And then you pronounce your article better. BCS (Talk) 03:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
One cleanup possibility
Right now, things are a mess. Can we agree on that, at least?
Here's how I suggest making things better:
- Delete 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks
Sorry, but it has to happen for the rest of this to work. - Revert 2011 Los Angeles arson spree back to this version
- Rename 2011 Los Angeles arson spree to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks
- Normal editing can then proceed with the goal of updating and improving the article
The end goal of all this:
- Everything that's good is kept
- Everything that's bad is gone
- All the relevant edit history is saved
Your thoughts? Anyone have a better idea? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've requested an admin do a history merge and admonished the user who did the cut and paste move which caused this mess. A history merge is required per internal attribution requirements, specifically the CC-BY-SA and GDFL licensing. If a histmerge is too entangled, the only other real option is linking back to the page histories prominently on the talk pages. --64.85.221.131 (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Both are good ideas, DoriSmith's and the IP's. I think YummyDonutsmmm should agree before we delete, though. BCS (Talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, well, it does not make sence to delete anything, because that would cause more confusion with deleted edit history. The pages involved are 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks, 2011 Los Angeles arson spree, and 2011 Southern California fires. I am okay with some of these pages being moved, if that means all of the page historys are combined into one larger page history. I think they should be moved to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks because that has the most coverage, is set up the best, is not a redirect, has the most edits in its history, and was the first of these to be created. Making a move should be easy enough, and although I would rather have the article set moved to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks. I am okay if it is moved to one of the other 2 articles. It really should not be too difficult to move all of the articles/pages into 1 article instead of deleting all but one. I refer to what another editor mentioned earlier about attribution. All of the edits shall remain attributed to who contributed them, even if those edits are not currently repesented in the article. Just consult me again before you do anything. So in summary, do page moves or switch around redirects, but preferably towards 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks and DO NOT do any deletions.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose I agree that both are good ideas, but I agree more with the IP's because the other idea has a major flaw in that it wants to delete.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Step 1 would actually not have to happen because you coould just copy-and-paste the revision of the article mentioned in step 2 to 2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks. You could replace the current text or could try to somehow merge the edits of the copy-and-pasted version with the good and important updated edits on this article. Maybe add a horizontal bar at the bottom then add the copy-and-paste text below that and even add a tag informing of the paradigm shift.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and also you mention relevant edit history while all of it is relevant at least to the extent that it is important enough to stay in the edit history.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- You obviously don't know much about page histories, so I will inform you. Firstly, I don't see why you want to keep them because they aren't extremely important. Secondly, deleted pages' histories can not be seen by anyone except admins or higher. Pages can't be moved to a title that already exists, so a page has to be deleted. Your article being better is your opinion. Two articles can't be moved into one. Also, copying and pasting is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Having two of the same article separated by a horizontal bar wouldn't work. Deleting isn't really bad, but it could be avoided. Further reading:
- BCS (Talk) 00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I did not know pages could not be moved to titles that already exist. Maybe the best thing to do is to just continue editing this article. Anyting else that would be needed to be copy and pasted would be minor.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to what I just said, maybe there could be a major edit tag like I have seen before. This article already has a perfect or near perfect title.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I did not know pages could not be moved to titles that already exist. Maybe the best thing to do is to just continue editing this article. Anyting else that would be needed to be copy and pasted would be minor.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Both are good ideas, DoriSmith's and the IP's. I think YummyDonutsmmm should agree before we delete, though. BCS (Talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- As of when you posted this section and message I agree this was a mess, but I think it is already much less of a mess and may not be a mess anymore. There is still room for improvement, however.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- The history merge was made impossible due to technical limitations because the original article was edited several times after the cut-and-paste-move. Therefore, as per the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, I have added the proper attribution template on both talk pages. 2011 Southern California fires was moved using the move tab, so no attribution was lost there, so there is no need to acknowledge it further. Please, YummyDonutsmmm, do not make anymore cut-and-paste-moves; these violate the terms of use (specifically the CC-BY-SA and GDFL licensing) you agreed to when you hit the save button and further violation will result in your editing privileges being revoked. 2011 Los Angeles arson spree cannot be deleted now, for aforementioned attribution reasons, and its talk page has been tagged as such. Bar Code Symmetry's contributions to the bulk of the copied text are preserved in the talk page templates, but have been made unnecessarily murky by the cut-and-paste-move. I don't know of anything else that can be done in this situation, so I think this can be marked as resolved. (Sorry, I have a stupid dynamic IP so it keeps changing -- I'm the same person as the above IP.)--64.85.220.69 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Copy Edit and linkrot
I like that edit with the recent tags added. They are very relevant and may spark some constructive change.--YummyDonutsmmm (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- But didn't you then remove the tags [DIFF] "(removed tags for DYK nomination)"? This was after, less than an hour before, also removing [DIFF] a multiple issues template saying"(I removed the multiple issues template because the issues have since been fixed.) ", when in fact all those issues still exist?
- What is your train of thought here 'YummyDonuts'? This page
looks like crap!is substandard. It still lacks citations for many statements, and has bare URLs in the text(!) and references! I have never said this before on WP but you are exhibiting severe wp:ownership issues over this article. You currently have ≈104 edits. It is about time you started taking the advice of the much more experienced editors (Dori has ≈7,810 edits and 'Bar Code'(BCS) has ≈1,200) who are trying to give you good advice. If you had accepted the re-direct of this page to the other better article, whatever the title, this situation would not exist. - 220 of Borg 09:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)