[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Northamerica1000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Northamerica1000 (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 12 November 2011 (→‎Disruptive editing: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Indian music 1.JPG
Higher thought
This user has rescued 265 articles by improving them in the face of pending deletion.




—Awards—
—News Sources—

Edit warring

You keep inserting a NYT image that you have concocted yourself (or that another user concocted), along with a caption that is also utterly unsourced. This is OR. Please read WP:SYNTH. I have explained this repeatedly and you have made no response, but instead keep inserting the image. Please stop. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False. Consensus appears thus far to include this image in the Occupy Wall Street article (if this is what is being referred to, consider being more specific in the future). Also, this is the first message I have received from you regarding your opinion of this image. I entirely disagree with use of the term "warring", which is a loaded word (weasel word). I haven't "concocted" anything, (another weasel word), other than adding a reference to this image:
File:Nytimes occupywallstreet.jpg
The New York Times had changed its media coverage of the event on October 6th, 2011[1]
This file may be deleted after Monday, 10 November 2011.


Your claim about consensus is utterly false (show me one other user who agrees the image should be added) and in any event it doesn't matter because you can't have a consensus to violate core policy. The image is original research (again, please read WP:SYNTH) and can't be used. I've explained this repeatedly and you have not responded in discussion but repeatedly re-insert the image, and yes, this is edit-warring and it's not using a "weasel word" to say so. And finally, the image, which is concocted (whether by you or another user), is itself completely unreferenced. The link is to the New York times website, which does not contain the image, discuss the image, etc. etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made these comments on that talk page repeatedly, as I've just said. You ignored them, so it was necessary to post on your talk page to get your attention. Do not re-add this image. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not re-add this image. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The New York Times. Accessed November 2011.

—Northamerica1000(talk) 16:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the discussion page for the article!

Not original research, not synthesis, not "edit warring"

The image above simply demonstrates a difference in reporting on the New York Times (NYT) website about an Occupy Wall Street protest event. The image only uses part of the articles from the NYT website, likely to maintain copyright integrity. The only point-of-view matter here is the NYT's point-of-view in their reporting. There isn't a particular point-of-view in the image caption, which simply states that NYT had changed its media coverage, and the image simply shows two versions of an article from the NYT website. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. The image and its caption advance a claim not advanced by any cited source. That's what OR is. You're repeatedly adding the image against consensus and in obvious violation of content policy. That's what edit-warring is. I'm not going to explain this to you any further. Do not re-add the image. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outsiders questions

Question - What are you tiring to demonstrate here anyways? - I now have looked at the two reports (articles) being used here for this image - I take it all are aware they are 2 different headlines by two different reports at two different times, one was not changed out for the other - they are both still there to be looked at. In fact I can find 5 reports from that day that saying this in 5 different ways. Moxy (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Please comment on the discussion page for the article, so the community can decide based upon consensus—

Disruptive editing

Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on discussion pages is not disruptive

I haven't re-added the image at this point. Continuing to direct your comments here, rather than on the discussion page for Occupy Wall Street is disruptive. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting on continuing to talk about something that has already been addressed and repeating arguments that have already been refuted is, in fact, disruptive. This point is made in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which you should read. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Northamerica1000&oldid=460314872"