Reply |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
I was removing bad information from the article; not inserting it. [[User:Banzernax|Banzernax]] ([[User talk:Banzernax|talk]]) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
I was removing bad information from the article; not inserting it. [[User:Banzernax|Banzernax]] ([[User talk:Banzernax|talk]]) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
:{{reply to||Banzernax}} You removed referenced material which you appear not to agree with and added unreferenced material. Please have a look at [[WP:POV]]. [[User:Ifnord|Ifnord]] ([[User talk:Ifnord#top|talk]]) 14:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
:{{reply to||Banzernax}} You removed referenced material which you appear not to agree with and added unreferenced material. Please have a look at [[WP:POV]]. [[User:Ifnord|Ifnord]] ([[User talk:Ifnord#top|talk]]) 14:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
::The material is correct. The reference is the word of God. [[User:Banzernax|Banzernax]] ([[User talk:Banzernax|talk]]) 14:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:33, 18 November 2017
My talk. Archived messages are here.
The existence of "fact" tags is not an excuse for not doing any legwork and looking something up, nor is it a reason to tag onbious facts that anyone familiar with the subject would recognize as valid. Your ignorance of a subject is not excuse for tagging something without researcing it. If you don't know anything about the subject, you probably have no business editing the article.
Now, feel free to archive this so your talk page will be nice and clean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
left a comment on bluegrass companies talk please give me a shout back, shouldn't we be discussing it on the afd page? --208.111.114.126 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
really enjoying our bluegrass companies battle my friend :) looking forward to your next comment :) --208.111.114.126 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
News7 Tamil
I've removed again the claims that News7 Tamil operates with a Christian bias. No reliable source is given for this claim, and Facsix was correct in removing it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Then I owe Facsix an appology. Thank-you for the head's up. Ifnord (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Indibloggies deletion
I saw your note voting for the deletion of this page. I just wanted to register here my dismay, because you mention that its a blog, which shows that you probably have no idea on what is difference between a blog and a blog award website. Its pretty funny One random wikipedian (who actually has made almost nil contribution on English wikipedia) marks an article for deletion, and then he and you together are able to delete it, while so many people contributed towards the creation of that page. Would you please hold the same standard and vote for the deletion of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weblog_Awards_(Bloggies), because Indibloggies was parodied upon this weblog award site. Why is this pages still there (despite the notice hanging there since over 2 years (since Feb 2015), but Indibloggies was deleted in a hurried manner? Debashish (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Debashish: That discussion involves notability for that specific article. Unfortunately, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedic article, please visit WP:GNG. It was not compared to another article, and it does not logically follow that any other article needs to be either deleted or included simply based on another article's AfD; please see WP:WHATABOUTX. Ifnord (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ifnord: I think you conveniently evaded the crux of my message. Why is it that this article was deleted in a hurry when a similar article in all respects has a notability notice since past 2 years and has still not been deleted. From your note I presume that you are not a subject matter expert on blogs, what made you suddenly take a decision on this is my query. Now on notability, I don't think you were non partisan in your decision:
- * How does an article which stood on Wikipedia since many years suddenly became non-notable? Is it because the site is defunct, if so why is there is a page on Yahoo Geocities still there. Its there because Geocities made a huge difference in the life of people using internet and even if its closed its services long ago, it still has a historical significance.
- * The article links to various Newspapers, Google Scholar quotes etc, all necessary citations are there. How is it still not notable?
- * There has been no other blog award from India that ever ran so long or enjoyed so much popularity, I am sure you didn't care to research on it, before jumping to conclusion. Debashish (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Next time you want to accuse someone of removing content without explanation...
...Maybe check to see if they have given an explanation? In this case, there was in fact an explanation. In fact, it appears to be YOU who did not provide an explanation for your undo. 164.67.77.247 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just had the same experience on the Weinstein effect page. I DID leave an explanation.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is being discussed.70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- 70.112.229.80 While you put an edit summary, I didn't think it was a sufficient and encouraged you to use the talk page to get consensus from other editors. I spend the bulk of my time trying to revert vandalism on articles but I do make mistakes. My intent to to neither discourage constructive edits nor push any point of view, I do not have any attachment to the articles I edit. I would encourage you to register a username, this would make any future edits less likely to be tagged as vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience. Ifnord (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I appreciate your reply. Likewise, I try to prevent vandalism to articles as well. No hard feelings, and cheers!70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- This is clearly not good-faith editing, hence the level 3 warning that I left them. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- I appologize, @Home Lander:, for taking so long to respond. Your comments are well taken and I appreciate the opportunity for growth and development. Sorry, and thanks. Ifnord (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Bible
I was removing bad information from the article; not inserting it. Banzernax (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)