User talk:Inutero2222
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ashlee Simpson. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bruce
You have now reverted Ashlee Simpson 4 times in 36 hours. Why don't you discuss it on the talk page? --Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The only thing you've ever done on wikipedia is delete the criticism section from the Ashlee Simpson article without ever making a good-faith effort to improve it. I'm giving you a block for excessive reverting, and if you keep this up you will be blocked again. Improve the article, don't just delete things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Inutero2222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that relies on user edits. One of the most important functions of editing is the removal of bad material. Indeed, excising poor material can often be more important to the quality of an article than contributing good material. If one admin should disagree with the reason for my edits, then that admin should state the reason why on the talk page. A reactionary banning is nothing more than an abuse of power.
Decline reason:
Removing a criticism section is not improving the article. Continuing to edit war is not improving the article. The criticism section you are excising is sourced and entirely appropriate. — Yamla 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Agree with Yamla. Deleting is not improving. If you want to make a better section, do that, but a missing section is not a better one, and an article about someone who got 1,000 angry letters written to Marie Claire magazine - hardly a hotbed of controversy usually - without a criticism section is not a better article. If you don't understand that, you won't be unblocked. If you keep deleting the section rather than improving or discussing after waiting out your block, you will probably be blocked again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)
Inutero2222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not engage in an edit war. I reverted twice in 24 hours, not three times. Further, deleting is improving in this case. I do not argue that the criticism is not sourced; I argue that the sources are irrelevent. Specifically, in reference to the article, how is a MadTV sketch indicative of anything? Ther "Her critics..." sentence is unsupported, while the "Simpson is sometimes criticized..." sentence contains weasel words and refers only to the opinion of one writer. The "Some allege that Simpson..." sentence contains weasel words and its sources include a web site, the authority of which is unknown. The Razzie and Marie Claire sections may be worth retaining, but they in themselves do not make the criticism section worthwhile, particularly considering that the Marie Claire section contains a reference to an "alleged" surgery. I reiterate: this is a bad section. The section's existence is the problem, not its content. Therefore, the only solution is to remove the section. I do not see why I should have to go to such lengths to improve an article in an encylopedia that relies on user contributions.
Decline reason:
This was a clear cut case of edit warring, which you have been doing on the Ashlee Simpson article since February 2007. In the future, please stick to the one revert rule and discuss before reverting. - auburnpilot talk 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Inutero2222 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed clear cut edit warring when you continue to remove a section against the consensus on a page, especially a useful section like criticism (see WP:CENSORED). While the block may have been premature, the blocking admin is correct. If the section has problems, you can try to fix those problems on this page (as an editor, I've found this infinitely more effective than just removing the whole thing), or, barring that, placing {{npov}} or {{weasel}} tags. Part Deux 17:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There was little "consensus" on the page. Most of the revisions were made by singular motivated editors. There mere existence of a Criticism section does not mean that section is useful - in this case, that section contains almost zero content that makes it worthwhile. It is not possible to improve the criticism section, because there is no material criticism to be made. Placing {{npov}} or {{weasel}} tags is not an improvement; it merely posts a big sign up saying, "This encyclopedia is inadequate." My aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not point out its inadequacies. Putting various tags over sections only stalls the improvement of the article. Inutero2222 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)