596:. Both of these are articles I have worked on heavily, and which are linked from my user page. Neither is in an area where you have generally worked, and as far as I can tell, you do not have a pattern of usually requesting citations (rather the contrary: you seemed to view as hostile a citation request that I think fell well within the realm of reasonable, and that was on a matter much more subjective than anything that you tagged, at least in the Spitalul de Urgenţă article).
18:
854:
conventions. Reading the article, the style you're keeping in is often unbalanced and needs some editing. Consensus per the edit history and talk page is for the citations to be inline or have a {{fact}} tag against them and you need to stop just reverting other's changes. I'd think you would do well
619:
as hostile, and have responded by trying to retaliate instead of by trying to satisfy a reasonable request. Again, for the moment, I will allow for the shred of possibility that this is not what you are doing, and that this is simply coincidence, but with you doing this to two articles in succession,
274:
with red panels and gold lettering—is both sturdy and attractive. The paper is of very good quality and particularly suitable for color reproduction. The two-column page layout lacks flair but is clean and functional. The many new color illustrations add much to improve the set's overall appearance.
522:
page). If I was a betting man I would put money on it at low odds. In cases like this, I believe the onus is on the author or the wikipedia community to verify it is kosher rather than look away. I have done a bit of background research on the topic and made a number of edits to the article while
425:
I believe you are totally in the wrong in this matter, and that is something I rarely say to anyone. This particular article is simply not important enough for me to keep fighting over it, so I will not repeat my request for citations, although I reserve the right to cite this as an example of your
339:
policy to prove a point. I am doing nothing of the sort. I am marking places where opinion is stated and no citation is given. This marks statements that violate our policies. The alternative would be to remove them, which I don't particularly want to do. I think it is best to leave them there and
826:
Since you clearly are here and watching the article, could you please implement this compromise as agreed? The redundant analysis is still cluttering the main text, the duplicated information has been placed back in there, the separate article has not been created, your introduction has not been
643:
for the half-hearted praise. But, I never saw any need to remove any material from your articles or mine. They're simply requests, and I think you're getting a little worked up over nothing. I am a very busy man, and minor mistakes I make cost thousands of dollars. This project is not real life.
160:
Welcome to wikipedia, first of all. Let me point you to a couple of policies regarding wikipedia. The point of cleanup tagging an article is to allow editors with more experience on a subject or more time to devote to a subject to be aware of an article in need of attention. In regards to your
599:
For the moment, I will reluctantly presume good faith and (barely) extend the benefit of the doubt. I have addressed the issues in one article; I will try within a few weeks to get to the other. However, be forewarned that if you systematically follow me around making similar requests, I will
754:
analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.
762:
If your analysis is based dominantly, especially in conclusions, on other publications, please wikify it and add inline references, mention authors of specific arguments and conclusions in the text, and so on. If this is done, the article can be put in the main namespace with name like
694:
I have also alerted the other editors who have been working on this page and will place a statement on the talk page so that a group discussion can take place there. If you want to dispute my edits, then please let's continue the conversation there so that everyone can have input.
690:
for a better explanation than I could give of why this is, especially if you look at your own sentence in the deleted section that goes "the positive outcome of Abel's migration between two worlds can be seen as a hopeful beginning of a new period of Pueblo culture."
911:
Not sure about HQCentral being a sockpuppet. Lack of attention to some things may suggest that; however, he was editing quite actively, and at least at times constructively. Seems to have at least some real intents, though often fails to listen to others.
283:
This is book review material, very far from writing from a neutral point of view. It is so far out of our style that if it weren't for your contributions elsewhere in
Knowledge (XXG) I would have thought I was looking at a plagiarized book review. -
571:, I believe I have satisfied all of your requests for references, except one. I do not have a citation for Helciug's wit being "bitter" or hard to translate. I believe that the article is still better with that statement left in, and I have left
517:
It is hard to know because I cant check all possible sources; the original appears is as if it is directly copied from another source. Upon inquiry, a source has since been removed because the contributor didnt know what it referred to (see the
873:
Could you stop reverting the article? It may be considered violation of reversion rules, and generally non-collaborating action. As it was suggested, it could be moved to
Wikibooks. I can help with the technical aspects if needed.
774:
If your analysis contains original thought, it's fine, and it can be stored in
Wikibooks, which has less restrictions. Formatting is still needed, but referencing sources in the corresponding section is more than enough. See the
747:, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.
523:
waiting for a response (good faith and all), so I am happy to replace it with a simple biog from my own fact-base, and let it grow from there. The article is not referred to from other articles so it could also be deleted.
615:, I described them as "massive and mostly useful". That was praise, in case you didn't notice. Unless I have misinterpreted your actions, you then reacted by taking my rather standard request to cite the source
485:
This text in this article appears to have been derived from another source. If that is the case, could you mention the original source of the content at the bottom of that article. btw, welcome to wikipedia!
787:
So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.
686:(neutral point of view) policy and is not encyclopedic material - though it might very well be publishable in another sort of project. Do please take a look at the paragraph headed "A simple formulation" in
713:
698:
Again, I was highly impressed with your analysis and (speaking as someone who is professionally engaged in the study of
American Indian literatures) would urge you to attempt publication. Cheers.
809:
So, since we decided to move the analysis and add a short intro, could you do it? I'm sure you can do it better than me or most other editors, since you are well familiar with the subject.
540:
The thing that confuses me most is where you people think I copied the material, given you can't find it online or in print. The constant haranguing of me over the matter stikes me as
779:
for similar works. Either me, other editors of the article, or some editors at
Wikibooks can help you with formatting. In this case I suggest we don't creep the guidelines and
185:
entry. If you have any questions about wikipedia culture, please feel free to ask any of your fellow wikipedians or refer to the helpful guides that have been created.
500:
from another source, or nearly so? In that case there would be copyright issues. On the other hand, if it is merely a broad paraphrase of another source, that's OK. -
315:
That's very interesting. Until the matter is resolved, perhaps we should remove those repetitive, unprofessional citation-needed tags that you're using to make a
153:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
458:
Well, perhaps some other kind soul will look them up for you, then ;-) But we really must indicate the source of those opinions more precisely; and the
244:
204:
to
Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
177:. We are all here to work on making wikipedia better, and my goal by tagging the article is so that people experienced in Ohio politics can make the
623:
In any event, I believe I have fulfilled your requests for citation in the case of one article, and will do my best to do so with the other. -
58:
301:. Probably a better place to take it up than the individual article, because this is about a general principle more than about one article. -
138:
415:
298:
228:
166:
53:
879:
816:
795:
725:
213:
201:
584:
Your request for citations on simple matters of fact—none of which I can think why you would doubt—makes me strongly suspect
390:
article (all of them requests for citation of opinions), without satisfying any of them. In addition, almost certainly on a
247:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
170:
377:
Clearly you have made some good contributions to
Knowledge (XXG). Equally clearly, you are trying to pick a fight with me.
855:
to relax on this article and let others edit - keep the finger off the revert button and see what consensus comes out -
743:
the analysis doesn't fit
Knowledge (XXG) standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's
233:
31:
25:
258:
A lot of what you are doing looks really great. For example, you added a ton of highly informative material to the
30:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
411:
682:
article. While it is an interesting, well-written and well-researched essay, it unfortunately falls foul of the
519:
568:
208:
575:
462:
119:
240:
847:
612:
589:
548:. If you wish though, Javdb, I can continue the argument over formatting with you (I'm sure, ad infinitum).--
386:
259:
72:
601:
894:
399:
644:
Still, I cannot stand having my hard work called "plagiarism," so perhaps I over-reacted a bit, myself.--
248:
162:
678:
Hi there. Just to give you a heads-up, I have removed your literary analysis in its entirety from the
657:
I have now supplied all of the citations you asked for. I am also, by the way, a rather busy person. -
541:
223:
174:
776:
479:
859:
469:
449:
124:
279:
is not a flashy encyclopedia, but it is a well-built, smartly put together set of reference books"
679:
186:
585:
419:
391:
332:
316:
581:
on that statement; I won't object if you remove the statement, but I think it would be a loss.
255:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
270:"The set's physical format is well constructed and aesthetically appealing. The binding—black
851:
687:
683:
394:
basis, you arbitrarily asked for citation on every single statement in two articles I wrote (
263:
716:. Please come to the page and post your opinion and arguments. I'd also suggest to consider
662:
628:
505:
431:
345:
306:
289:
178:
147:
932:
917:
744:
605:
545:
444:
Given the subjective nature of the statements in question, I think it's appropriate to ask
592:
article. This is only enhanced by the fact that you seem to have made similar requests in
600:
consider it unreasonable to presume good faith; I will follow then my hunch that this is
856:
645:
549:
320:
116:
36:
862:
422:, because you had the audacity to cite it to me when you were blatantly violating it.
114:
There is covincing evidence, collected by many well-respected admins, that you are --
593:
395:
218:
402:); I dealt with every single one of those requests, and you responded not merely by
768:
588:
with respect to my issues with your lack of citation on opinions expressed in the
898:
828:
699:
658:
624:
524:
501:
487:
427:
341:
302:
285:
266:. Some of your work really violates this policy, which is one of our most basic:
928:
913:
875:
812:
791:
721:
717:
271:
827:
written. It's been over a month now since this compromise was agreed on.
767:. The section with brief summary will link to it as the main article (see
182:
418:
if you have not already done so; you are obviously alreadyfamiliar with
936:
921:
901:
883:
831:
820:
799:
729:
702:
665:
648:
631:
552:
527:
508:
490:
472:
452:
434:
348:
323:
309:
292:
189:
128:
850:(and a number of editors) this article is in need of sources the the
262:
article. However, I woudl suggest that you familiarize yourself with
468:
tags are as good a way as any to indicate that for future editors.
299:
Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite_sources.2C_round_III
735:
Suggestions (see case or article talk page for further discussion)
366:"Knowledge (XXG): Don't Disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to Prove a Point"
410:
them. I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with
16:
712:
The question of keeping or removing the material is now in
135:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
155:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
426:
behavior if you behave similarly in other articles. --
86:
82:
76:
67:
63:
49:
45:
41:
448:
of the listed sources are responsible for them, no?
24:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
758:For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:
359:
Don't disrupt
Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point
161:comments on my talk page, you should read up on
838:Referencing and Style in Collier's Encyclopedia
611:When I first remarked on your contributions at
846:per comments from myself on the talk page of
604:, and will proceed accordingly with a formal
8:
239:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
750:The article is excessively long, and the
620:it does genuinely strain my credulity.
384:removed my requests for citation in the
406:my requests for citations, but also by
416:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view
7:
340:leave them marked for follow-up. -
251:, ask me on my talk page, or place
209:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
167:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
933:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
918:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
880:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
817:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
796:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
781:anyway keep it as the main article
726:Knowledge (XXG) Neutrality Project
14:
927:Convinced now (on my talk page).
181:article eventually look like the
171:Knowledge (XXG):Assume good faith
373:Removing requests for citations
832:19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
765:Analysis of House Made of Dawn
1:
937:10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
922:02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
412:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
129:00:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
837:
496:Jay, are you saying this is
229:How to write a great article
902:02:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
884:21:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
821:00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
190:17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
28:, who declined the request.
953:
869:Could you stop reverting?
863:08:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
800:22:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
783:for the analysis section.
730:22:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
703:09:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
666:06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
491:08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
473:03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
453:03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
435:06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
324:03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
310:00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
293:03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
249:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
163:Knowledge (XXG):Etiquette
139:guide to appealing blocks
649:08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
632:06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
553:08:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
528:01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
509:18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
349:18:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
175:Knowledge (XXG):Civility
637:That's fine. Thank you
848:Collier's Encyclopedia
739:It's quite clear that
613:Collier's Encyclopedia
590:Collier's Encyclopedia
387:Collier's Encyclopedia
368:
281:
260:Collier's Encyclopedia
200:Hello, HQCentral, and
21:
357:
268:
73:change block settings
20:
895:User:HQCentral/House
480:David Farrow Maxwell
606:request for comment
569:Spitalul de Urgenţă
563:Spitalul de Urgenţă
400:Spitalul de Urgenţa
103:I'm not Primetime.
720:for the analysis.
680:House Made of Dawn
674:House Made of Dawn
608:on your conduct.
214:How to edit a page
127:
22:
741:the way it is now
115:
944:
580:
574:
467:
461:
364:Knowledge (XXG),
254:
179:Betty Montgomery
152:
146:
122:
92:
90:
79:
61:
59:deleted contribs
19:
952:
951:
947:
946:
945:
943:
942:
941:
909:
891:
871:
840:
807:
737:
710:
676:
578:
576:citation needed
572:
565:
483:
465:
463:citation needed
459:
442:
375:
360:
252:
234:Manual of Style
158:
150:
144:
143:, then use the
132:
120:
105:
80:
70:
56:
39:
32:blocking policy
17:
12:
11:
5:
950:
948:
940:
939:
908:
905:
890:
887:
870:
867:
866:
865:
842:Hi HQCentral,
839:
836:
835:
834:
806:
803:
785:
784:
772:
736:
733:
709:
706:
675:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
652:
651:
564:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
533:
532:
531:
530:
512:
511:
482:
477:
476:
475:
470:Kirill Lokshin
450:Kirill Lokshin
441:
438:
374:
371:
370:
369:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
327:
326:
297:Discussion at
245:sign your name
237:
236:
231:
226:
221:
216:
211:
194:
133:
112:
108:Decline reason
101:
97:Request reason
94:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
949:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
906:
904:
903:
900:
896:
888:
886:
885:
881:
877:
868:
864:
861:
858:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
833:
830:
825:
824:
823:
822:
818:
814:
810:
804:
802:
801:
797:
793:
789:
782:
778:
773:
770:
766:
761:
760:
759:
756:
753:
748:
746:
742:
734:
732:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
707:
705:
704:
701:
696:
692:
689:
685:
681:
673:
667:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
653:
650:
647:
642:
641:
636:
635:
634:
633:
630:
626:
621:
618:
614:
609:
607:
603:
597:
595:
594:Corneliu Baba
591:
587:
582:
577:
570:
562:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
529:
526:
521:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
481:
478:
474:
471:
464:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
447:
440:Re: Unsourced
439:
437:
436:
433:
429:
423:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
396:Corneliu Baba
393:
389:
388:
383:
380:You have now
378:
372:
367:
365:
356:
355:
350:
347:
343:
338:
334:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
291:
287:
280:
278:
273:
267:
265:
261:
256:
250:
246:
242:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
215:
212:
210:
207:
206:
205:
203:
198:
197:
192:
191:
188:
187:Youngamerican
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
157:
156:
149:
142:
140:
131:
130:
126:
123:
118:
111:
109:
104:
100:
98:
93:
88:
84:
78:
74:
69:
65:
60:
55:
51:
50:global blocks
47:
46:active blocks
43:
38:
33:
29:
27:
26:administrator
910:
892:
889:House made..
872:
841:
811:
808:
790:
786:
780:
771:as example).
769:World War II
764:
757:
751:
749:
740:
738:
711:
697:
693:
677:
639:
638:
622:
616:
610:
598:
583:
566:
497:
484:
445:
443:
424:
407:
403:
385:
381:
379:
376:
363:
361:
336:
296:
282:
276:
269:
257:
238:
199:
195:
193:
159:
154:
136:
134:
113:
107:
106:
102:
96:
95:
68:creation log
35:
23:
617:of opinions
544:and not of
382:three times
335:is against
907:Sockpuppet
602:harassment
546:good faith
253:{{helpme}}
241:Wikipedian
219:Help pages
64:filter log
857:Peripitus
777:Bookshelf
718:Wikibooks
714:mediation
708:Mediation
646:HQCentral
550:HQCentral
337:violating
321:HQCentral
277:Collier's
272:Fabrikoid
243:! Please
137:read the
83:checkuser
42:block log
37:HQCentral
752:complete
586:WP:POINT
498:verbatim
420:WP:POINT
408:removing
404:ignoring
392:WP:POINT
333:WP:POINT
317:WP:POINT
275:In sum,
224:Tutorial
196:Welcome!
183:Bob Taft
54:contribs
852:WP:CITE
805:Article
688:WP:NPOV
684:WP:NPOV
542:incivil
264:WP:NPOV
202:welcome
148:unblock
125:rtinp23
77:unblock
899:Improv
860:(Talk)
829:Vizjim
745:WP:IAR
700:Vizjim
659:Jmabel
625:Jmabel
525:Jayvdb
502:Jmabel
488:Jayvdb
428:Jmabel
342:Jmabel
303:Jmabel
286:Jmabel
173:, and
640:again
446:which
141:first
929:CP/M
914:CP/M
893:See
876:CP/M
813:CP/M
792:CP/M
722:CP/M
663:Talk
629:Talk
520:talk
506:Talk
432:Talk
414:and
398:and
346:Talk
307:Talk
290:Talk
567:At
319:.--
87:log
34:).
935:|
920:|
897:--
882:|
819:|
798:)
728:)
661:|
627:|
579:}}
573:{{
504:|
466:}}
460:{{
430:|
344:|
305:|
288:|
169:,
165:,
151:}}
145:{{
110::
99::
81:•
75:•
71:•
66:•
62:•
57:•
52:•
48:•
44:•
931:|
916:|
878:|
815:|
794:(
724:(
362:—
121:a
117:M
91:)
89:)
85:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.