Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 11 November 2010

November 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --Dbratland (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but however, User North wiki did this style of edit.Go porch books (talk)

It is obvious you are deliberately adding negative information about Honda without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. There are thousands upon thousands of vehicle recalls every year, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every recall into all the Honda articles. The policy undue weight explains why. --Dbratland (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned User North wiki did this style of edit. He/she said it was OK to edit. I learned from him/her. Go porch books (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be part of an edit war with another user. You should stop reverting edits and stick to discussing this on the talk page until you work it out. If talk fails, then see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for advice on what to try next. --Dbratland (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but User North wiki did this style of edit. I learned from him/her. If his edit is OK. Why not me? Go porch books (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-read the warning you gave to North wiki regarding edit warring, and remember that it applies to you just as much as it applies to him. —C.Fred (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

However, I agree with Dbratland. It is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. There are thousands upon thousands of vehicle recalls every year, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every recall into all the articles. The policy undue weight explains why. (TO North wiki) If North wiki is OK, why not me? Go porch books (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be rather dense to have a policy of allowing any bad behavior simply because one other user got away with it once, wouldn't it? Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists covers this. It is obvious that you're doing this to make a point, and not with the intent of making the articles better. This sort of behavior is going to get you blocked from editing if you don't stop. Again, if you dislike what another editor has done, do not throw a tantrum. Follow Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. --Dbratland (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your point is valid. First, My edit based on public ciation. It is not mine. Second, Honda recalled 570000 faulty brake cars. It is significant. Third, You said, "There are thousands upon thousands of vehicle recalls every year, and most of them are not significant. You can't go on a mission to put mention of every recall into all the Honda articles." >> this thing should apply to North wiki also. OK? Go porch books (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Or, do engage in discussion about the issue, as you've done at Talk:Hyundai Sonata. I've been bold and already made an edit there, but hopefully I've done an edit that satisfies both concerns: it updates the page with new sources without overly discussing another model of car. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hyundai Sonata. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This edit is especially problematic. There was a source present in the material you deleted, and the re-addition was not bad faith. This sort of misrepresentative edit summary could get you blocked if you do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summary said "Revert possible vandalism and POV by unsourced material". The edit was neither vandalism nor unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Remember that other stuff exists. Whether to include material in an article depends more on whether it is relevant to that article than what stuff exists on other similar articles. That said, there will be project guidelines that make articles similar in structure and formatting. However, it is not a valid argument to include/exclude a recall on one vehicle because a recall on another vehicle is included/excluded. Each recall must be considered on its own merits and based on the reliability of the sources provided. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very obviously editing to make a point here. Saying you learned it from some other editor who you are in a dispute with isn't going to fly. Recalls are generally not listed unless they have received significant media coverage. --Leivick (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, So i point out double standard. Same thing should aplly to North wiki's hyundai edit. Go porch books (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If anything, "other stuff exists" applies here too. What sanctions you may or may not receive because of your conduct are not automatically linked to another editor's conduct or possible sanctions. Two wrongs do not make a right, and "He did it first!" is not a valid excuse for misconduct. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)