|
Please be careful about repeating the same arguments in the discussion page, as it is not productive to building consensus. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has some other useful information. I understand that you feel O'Donnell has apologized and the world should move on, but Wikipedia is here to present notable information in a neutral manner. If we as a community are successful, then a reader can learn about O'Donnell and be able to draw an informed decision. Bagumba ( talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you are very passionate about ensuring as much "ching chong" content is stuffed into the article. I simply disagree with you even if I don't know which rule to pull out. This was a insignificant event in that compared to the other main ones (Trump, Hasselbeck) this was done and over with, kaput. These others raged for weeks and actually impacted her life. This one did not and no sourcing supports that it did. Jnast1 ( talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 | On 19 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Racist music, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that racist music is considered an effective recruiting tool for the modern neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements, and a breeding ground for domestic terrorism in the United States? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jnast!: My editing noted each example of plagiarism and fallacious logic, yet you revert anyway. No one is "blaming" the Southern Poverty Law Center, just calling attention to the fact that the SPLC, and its employees, are the only sources cited that presently label persons as neo-Confederate. If there are others organizations that currently employ the term, please provide details; otherwise, I would appreciate it if the fact was not hidden from public view. The whole page has already been flagged and not being neutral, please don't make it worse. 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of another project for the next few. I will look at the various changes if no one else gets to them. Please note where they are plagiarzed from on the article talkpage if you haven't already. Jnast1 ( talk) 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Massive changes were made because of the massive problems with the entry. It is slur-graffiti disguised as scholarship. And Tom [NorthShoreman] will defend it at all costs with help from others. If you are truly concerned with massive changes being made w/o consensus--please look at Secession in the United States, where Tom [North Shoreman] obliterated modest contributions, properly documented, to protect his POV (anti-Confederate/anti-secession/anti-revisionism at least as it concerns the causes and nature of the "Civil War.). Let's apply the rules uniformly and not protect certain supported historic facts, while enforcing untenable and unsupported POV. Next time, please review each edit before reverting wholesale. Thank you! 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 01:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, plagiarism does not bother you, since you revert the material with studying it and then claim that you are in the middle of a project and can't be bothered right now. If you are in the middle of a project, how did you find time to revert my well explained changes? You collaborate with Tom [NorthShoreman], so I won't be holding my breath to see if you ever get around to correcting the plagiarism and sham citations. 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you do want assistance getting the article corrected you are using some rather odd tactics. I have been working on two articles for several weeks and they need the majority of my attention. I also have a watchlist and saw the changes which upon inspection were problematic, at least as much as the prior version. Have patience, be polite and the article will get fixed. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Jnast1 ( talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Racist music for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racist music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racist music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Skrelk ( talk) 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- has Wagner context
|
Please be careful about repeating the same arguments in the discussion page, as it is not productive to building consensus. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has some other useful information. I understand that you feel O'Donnell has apologized and the world should move on, but Wikipedia is here to present notable information in a neutral manner. If we as a community are successful, then a reader can learn about O'Donnell and be able to draw an informed decision. Bagumba ( talk) 19:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you are very passionate about ensuring as much "ching chong" content is stuffed into the article. I simply disagree with you even if I don't know which rule to pull out. This was a insignificant event in that compared to the other main ones (Trump, Hasselbeck) this was done and over with, kaput. These others raged for weeks and actually impacted her life. This one did not and no sourcing supports that it did. Jnast1 ( talk) 20:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
|
| On 19 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Racist music, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that racist music is considered an effective recruiting tool for the modern neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements, and a breeding ground for domestic terrorism in the United States? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Jnast!: My editing noted each example of plagiarism and fallacious logic, yet you revert anyway. No one is "blaming" the Southern Poverty Law Center, just calling attention to the fact that the SPLC, and its employees, are the only sources cited that presently label persons as neo-Confederate. If there are others organizations that currently employ the term, please provide details; otherwise, I would appreciate it if the fact was not hidden from public view. The whole page has already been flagged and not being neutral, please don't make it worse. 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of another project for the next few. I will look at the various changes if no one else gets to them. Please note where they are plagiarzed from on the article talkpage if you haven't already. Jnast1 ( talk) 23:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Massive changes were made because of the massive problems with the entry. It is slur-graffiti disguised as scholarship. And Tom [NorthShoreman] will defend it at all costs with help from others. If you are truly concerned with massive changes being made w/o consensus--please look at Secession in the United States, where Tom [North Shoreman] obliterated modest contributions, properly documented, to protect his POV (anti-Confederate/anti-secession/anti-revisionism at least as it concerns the causes and nature of the "Civil War.). Let's apply the rules uniformly and not protect certain supported historic facts, while enforcing untenable and unsupported POV. Next time, please review each edit before reverting wholesale. Thank you! 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 01:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, plagiarism does not bother you, since you revert the material with studying it and then claim that you are in the middle of a project and can't be bothered right now. If you are in the middle of a project, how did you find time to revert my well explained changes? You collaborate with Tom [NorthShoreman], so I won't be holding my breath to see if you ever get around to correcting the plagiarism and sham citations. 74.192.7.135 ( talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you do want assistance getting the article corrected you are using some rather odd tactics. I have been working on two articles for several weeks and they need the majority of my attention. I also have a watchlist and saw the changes which upon inspection were problematic, at least as much as the prior version. Have patience, be polite and the article will get fixed. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Jnast1 ( talk) 02:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Racist music for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Racist music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racist music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Skrelk ( talk) 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- has Wagner context