![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Roxy the dog: Roxy, you have now reverted my edits twice. I see your link to WP:NOTNEWS, but I believe you are applying that rule far too stringently and unconstructively here. If that rule were followed to the letter, hardly any wikiarticles about current events, places, people, or things would ever be updated. I am a veteran editor with more than 12 years of experience here, and I believe any other neutral, experienced editor would agree that my addition to this stub article was appropriate and reliably sourced.
I have never been in an edit war, but, in my view, your reverts are an outrageous misuse and misapplication of Wikipedia policies that would deny readers reliable and appropriate information on this topic - one which, by the way, I have no particular interest in, and never heard of before today. I will not get into a long game of words or edit war with you, but before I take the next steps in dispute resolution, I am willing to hear your justification for your reverts on this talk page. Textorus ( talk) 09:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi. I've never edited this article before, and have never even heard of The Vineyard Beverly Hills until just now.
The article is about an expensive plot of undeveloped land. The first and only paragraph outlines its economic and title history. Presumably, these are the only facts that make the plot of land notable. By extension, the latest information about economics and title is just as essential and appropriate to the article. The LA times is generally considered a reliable source and certainly would be in this context. The citations for the previous paragraph come from newspaper and magazine articles. So the LA times should be able to be used for the second paragraph. WP:NOTNEWS does not appear to apply. The information is not breaking news. The auction was reported last week in the wall street journal [1]. The actual sale is a matter of public record, so this is presumably not original reporting. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean we should never use newspapers as sources. If it did, this entire article would be up for prod. I would suggest rewording the facts, instead of using a direct quote, and avoid using the word "ballooned". That sort of word belongs in a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. It would read better if the facts were laid chronologically. Start with Dickens buying the property and ending in the foreclosure sale. -- Work permit ( talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
-- -- Work permit ( talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record: A few minutes ago I reposted my original contribution to this article, believing per Roxy's comments above, as well as on his own talk page, that he had agreed not to revert me again. But he just did so, in contradiction of his own words. I will be reporting this disruptive editing to the Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus ( talk) 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: We have three editors ( Maproom, Textorus, and Work permit) who support adding the disputed content. I've laid out my reasoning. Could you please lay out yours, specifically elaborating on your comment WP:NOTNEWS is sufficient justification for my edit. Thanks. -- -- Work permit ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current title is confusing. I thought that this was about one of The Vinyard churches.
Changing the title to something like The Beverly Hills Vineyard would make it less confusing. Are quotes allowed, as in The Beverly Hills "Vineyard"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The Vineyard Beverly Hills →
The Mountain Beverly Hills – The existing name is confusing; it sounds like one of the many churches in the Association of Vineyard Churches. The name on the official webpage is "The Mountain Beverly Hills". The Los Angeles Times (2019 story) calls it "the famed Mountain of Beverly Hills". (The Hollywood Reporter and LA Weekly called it the Vineyard in 2015, so we can put "Formerly The Vineyard" in the lead.)
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
11:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Roxy the dog: Roxy, you have now reverted my edits twice. I see your link to WP:NOTNEWS, but I believe you are applying that rule far too stringently and unconstructively here. If that rule were followed to the letter, hardly any wikiarticles about current events, places, people, or things would ever be updated. I am a veteran editor with more than 12 years of experience here, and I believe any other neutral, experienced editor would agree that my addition to this stub article was appropriate and reliably sourced.
I have never been in an edit war, but, in my view, your reverts are an outrageous misuse and misapplication of Wikipedia policies that would deny readers reliable and appropriate information on this topic - one which, by the way, I have no particular interest in, and never heard of before today. I will not get into a long game of words or edit war with you, but before I take the next steps in dispute resolution, I am willing to hear your justification for your reverts on this talk page. Textorus ( talk) 09:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi. I've never edited this article before, and have never even heard of The Vineyard Beverly Hills until just now.
The article is about an expensive plot of undeveloped land. The first and only paragraph outlines its economic and title history. Presumably, these are the only facts that make the plot of land notable. By extension, the latest information about economics and title is just as essential and appropriate to the article. The LA times is generally considered a reliable source and certainly would be in this context. The citations for the previous paragraph come from newspaper and magazine articles. So the LA times should be able to be used for the second paragraph. WP:NOTNEWS does not appear to apply. The information is not breaking news. The auction was reported last week in the wall street journal [1]. The actual sale is a matter of public record, so this is presumably not original reporting. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean we should never use newspapers as sources. If it did, this entire article would be up for prod. I would suggest rewording the facts, instead of using a direct quote, and avoid using the word "ballooned". That sort of word belongs in a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. It would read better if the facts were laid chronologically. Start with Dickens buying the property and ending in the foreclosure sale. -- Work permit ( talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC) |
-- -- Work permit ( talk) 02:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record: A few minutes ago I reposted my original contribution to this article, believing per Roxy's comments above, as well as on his own talk page, that he had agreed not to revert me again. But he just did so, in contradiction of his own words. I will be reporting this disruptive editing to the Admins Noticeboard tomorrow. Textorus ( talk) 11:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Roxy the dog: We have three editors ( Maproom, Textorus, and Work permit) who support adding the disputed content. I've laid out my reasoning. Could you please lay out yours, specifically elaborating on your comment WP:NOTNEWS is sufficient justification for my edit. Thanks. -- -- Work permit ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.
Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current title is confusing. I thought that this was about one of The Vinyard churches.
Changing the title to something like The Beverly Hills Vineyard would make it less confusing. Are quotes allowed, as in The Beverly Hills "Vineyard"? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The Vineyard Beverly Hills →
The Mountain Beverly Hills – The existing name is confusing; it sounds like one of the many churches in the Association of Vineyard Churches. The name on the official webpage is "The Mountain Beverly Hills". The Los Angeles Times (2019 story) calls it "the famed Mountain of Beverly Hills". (The Hollywood Reporter and LA Weekly called it the Vineyard in 2015, so we can put "Formerly The Vineyard" in the lead.)
Guy Macon (
talk) 09:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
11:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)