Hello Naapple. I see that you have undone my recent edit on Austerity. Per WP:BRD I asked editors to engage on talk so that we may achieve a consensus view on that content. After other editors have had a chance to discuss, pro and con, and to respond to the concerns I raised, we may well decide to re-insert the text. However barely 24 hours passed since my initial edit and that is not sufficient time for editors to discuss or even for all interested editors to notice that the question has been raised. I am therefore asking you please to undo your re-insertion of that text and, if you wish, to participate on the talk page to discuss what text should ultimately be included in the article. Please undo your re-insertion of that Krugman text until a reasonable time has been allowed for discussion. Your re-insertion without resolution on talk could be viewed as edit warring, which I presume was not your attention. Please revert your edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems, however, that all the editors in there except you prefer the inclusion. Perhaps in the spirit of BOLD you could instead edit the materials as you suggested in talk, and see how the other editors respond, rather than expecting someone else to do this for you. Reverting someone's work comes off as somewhat confrontational, and really should only be done when the material truly shouldn't be there; not when it just needs some work, particularly when all the other editors seem to think it's ok. I hope you understand I won't be unreverting my revert of your revert of someone else's edit.
Naapple (
Talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- RE: Your recent revert. Please review WP:SYNTH. It's not that the content wasn't in the source, it's that the juxtaposition of the two sentences creates an association or thread of thought that was not entailed by the source. Please undo your revert. At any rate you must use talk and not simply revert with contentious edit comments. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That was completely entailed by the source. The whole point of the article was to point out that Latvia is going the same way as Argentina in that they would default on their loans. The other editors see this. Also, I didn't "revert", you reverted my new material, I restored mine. In any case, can we discuss this on the talk page? Naapple ( Talk) 07:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you are one of the most active contributors to the Austerity article. I am a new user and I want to improve that page. I recently made a rewrite that was undone by Farcaster. This article is important and should be better than C-class. I wrote Farcaster to try to achieve consensus on some improvements. If Farcaster does not respond in the next few days I will be floating several rewrites. See Farcaster's talk page if you want to see my ideas. In the end, I will bring my ideas to the Austerity talk page if Farcaster and I cannot agree. I am a noob--this is my first Wiki article edit attempt. Any help or advice you provide will be greatly appreciated. Typothetes ( talk) 23:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can see Farcaster has slanted that article to shit now (there's a Paul Krugman 1% cite in the lead of all things). Your lead change is too much, however. You have to cite things constantly, and the changes you did have no cites at all. I wouldn't mind reverting it back to about a year ago when I did it. It was adequately balanced then (with a consensus), but I can see that slowly over time, it's been slanted to clearly cast austerity in a negative light.
- Fixing it is going to be no easy task. I'm just way too busy these days, I barely edit wikipedia at all anymore. I will keep it in mind, however and try to visit from time to time. This would be a difficult article to really get into wikipedia on, as every change you make is going to be opposed. The real trick is to just adequately cite your sources. I wouldn't mind at all lending my weight if the opposition is being obstinate, but I won't be able to donate much of my time to rewriting the article. It's a shame, really, Austerity was the very first article I edited here on wikipedia.
Nnapple, how about using a reliable source? IMDB is not one.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen IMDB used a lot, and it can be, but after looking at Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, it isn't entirely black and white. I'll admit your reference is much better. Naapple ( Talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good job reversing that edit on Hardballer, that's what we wanted to avoid. Hitman is different than Res Evil in regard to use of the AMT.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Please review /info/en/?search=Template:POV.
You may remove this template whenever:
1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given 3. In the absence of any discussion.
As none of these provisions apply, I will ask you to act in good faith and not remove the POV tag again.
This has been put out for mediation and a request for comment. Until those are resolved, the tag should remain. GreekParadise ( talk) 05:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop adding totalitarian, dictatorship to the article... No other country ruled by a dictatorship is called totalitarian or a dictatorship in the infobox, and the DPRK should be no exception.. Secondly, discussions on including the word totalitarian has failed on the East Germany, Soviet Union, China , Ba'athist Iraq and Nazi Germany articles, and teh DPRK again, should not be an exception to the rule. If you want to include it so bad, start a discussion about it on the talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am talking about it on the talk page, have you checked before you bothered to write me here? And I will include the word "totalitarian" because it's the proper one, I don't really care about the whitewashing on the other articles. Totalitarianism actually has Nazi Germany as it's main example, so clearly something is wrong if it's not being included. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without
verifying it by citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is a reliable source. It's done by a journalist working for a publication who's a political science professor at a university. The other source is also done by a law professor at a university who did an interview on NPR. What exactly isn't a reliable source about this? Both are experts in their field. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Further more, the analysis is using the same GSS data used by the study. Same data source, different interpretations (one's looking at state level, the other individual level). What exactly do you need here? Both are experts reviewing the same data. Did I mention they're using the same data by the GSS? ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, one more: I've readded it from a different publication, and a link from Pew Research, which is certainly non-partisan. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I took a closer look at the source. At first glance it looked like a run-of-them-mill blog, but you make a good point regarding the authorship of the blog (a Polisci professor). I was about to refactor your previous addition (identifying the author, etc), but I see you've already refactored it. Your latest version looks reasonable to me. Sorry for not taking a closer look at your original source. Regards, OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello Naapple. I see that you have undone my recent edit on Austerity. Per WP:BRD I asked editors to engage on talk so that we may achieve a consensus view on that content. After other editors have had a chance to discuss, pro and con, and to respond to the concerns I raised, we may well decide to re-insert the text. However barely 24 hours passed since my initial edit and that is not sufficient time for editors to discuss or even for all interested editors to notice that the question has been raised. I am therefore asking you please to undo your re-insertion of that text and, if you wish, to participate on the talk page to discuss what text should ultimately be included in the article. Please undo your re-insertion of that Krugman text until a reasonable time has been allowed for discussion. Your re-insertion without resolution on talk could be viewed as edit warring, which I presume was not your attention. Please revert your edit. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. It seems, however, that all the editors in there except you prefer the inclusion. Perhaps in the spirit of BOLD you could instead edit the materials as you suggested in talk, and see how the other editors respond, rather than expecting someone else to do this for you. Reverting someone's work comes off as somewhat confrontational, and really should only be done when the material truly shouldn't be there; not when it just needs some work, particularly when all the other editors seem to think it's ok. I hope you understand I won't be unreverting my revert of your revert of someone else's edit.
Naapple (
Talk) 05:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- RE: Your recent revert. Please review WP:SYNTH. It's not that the content wasn't in the source, it's that the juxtaposition of the two sentences creates an association or thread of thought that was not entailed by the source. Please undo your revert. At any rate you must use talk and not simply revert with contentious edit comments. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- That was completely entailed by the source. The whole point of the article was to point out that Latvia is going the same way as Argentina in that they would default on their loans. The other editors see this. Also, I didn't "revert", you reverted my new material, I restored mine. In any case, can we discuss this on the talk page? Naapple ( Talk) 07:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I see you are one of the most active contributors to the Austerity article. I am a new user and I want to improve that page. I recently made a rewrite that was undone by Farcaster. This article is important and should be better than C-class. I wrote Farcaster to try to achieve consensus on some improvements. If Farcaster does not respond in the next few days I will be floating several rewrites. See Farcaster's talk page if you want to see my ideas. In the end, I will bring my ideas to the Austerity talk page if Farcaster and I cannot agree. I am a noob--this is my first Wiki article edit attempt. Any help or advice you provide will be greatly appreciated. Typothetes ( talk) 23:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can see Farcaster has slanted that article to shit now (there's a Paul Krugman 1% cite in the lead of all things). Your lead change is too much, however. You have to cite things constantly, and the changes you did have no cites at all. I wouldn't mind reverting it back to about a year ago when I did it. It was adequately balanced then (with a consensus), but I can see that slowly over time, it's been slanted to clearly cast austerity in a negative light.
- Fixing it is going to be no easy task. I'm just way too busy these days, I barely edit wikipedia at all anymore. I will keep it in mind, however and try to visit from time to time. This would be a difficult article to really get into wikipedia on, as every change you make is going to be opposed. The real trick is to just adequately cite your sources. I wouldn't mind at all lending my weight if the opposition is being obstinate, but I won't be able to donate much of my time to rewriting the article. It's a shame, really, Austerity was the very first article I edited here on wikipedia.
Nnapple, how about using a reliable source? IMDB is not one.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen IMDB used a lot, and it can be, but after looking at Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, it isn't entirely black and white. I'll admit your reference is much better. Naapple ( Talk) 17:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good job reversing that edit on Hardballer, that's what we wanted to avoid. Hitman is different than Res Evil in regard to use of the AMT.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Please review /info/en/?search=Template:POV.
You may remove this template whenever:
1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given 3. In the absence of any discussion.
As none of these provisions apply, I will ask you to act in good faith and not remove the POV tag again.
This has been put out for mediation and a request for comment. Until those are resolved, the tag should remain. GreekParadise ( talk) 05:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop adding totalitarian, dictatorship to the article... No other country ruled by a dictatorship is called totalitarian or a dictatorship in the infobox, and the DPRK should be no exception.. Secondly, discussions on including the word totalitarian has failed on the East Germany, Soviet Union, China , Ba'athist Iraq and Nazi Germany articles, and teh DPRK again, should not be an exception to the rule. If you want to include it so bad, start a discussion about it on the talk page. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am talking about it on the talk page, have you checked before you bothered to write me here? And I will include the word "totalitarian" because it's the proper one, I don't really care about the whitewashing on the other articles. Totalitarianism actually has Nazi Germany as it's main example, so clearly something is wrong if it's not being included. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 00:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without
verifying it by citing a
reliable source. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is a reliable source. It's done by a journalist working for a publication who's a political science professor at a university. The other source is also done by a law professor at a university who did an interview on NPR. What exactly isn't a reliable source about this? Both are experts in their field. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Further more, the analysis is using the same GSS data used by the study. Same data source, different interpretations (one's looking at state level, the other individual level). What exactly do you need here? Both are experts reviewing the same data. Did I mention they're using the same data by the GSS? ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, one more: I've readded it from a different publication, and a link from Pew Research, which is certainly non-partisan. ∴ Naapple TALK| CON 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I took a closer look at the source. At first glance it looked like a run-of-them-mill blog, but you make a good point regarding the authorship of the blog (a Polisci professor). I was about to refactor your previous addition (identifying the author, etc), but I see you've already refactored it. Your latest version looks reasonable to me. Sorry for not taking a closer look at your original source. Regards, OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)