Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:56, 9 February 2010

Pink in response to Kanye West at 2009 MTV Video Music Awards incident

It is not accurate that she walked past him and shook her head in disgust? Do you have proof of this? Pink said it is not true? Other sources countered it? Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "apparently not accurate," you mean the fact that West was removed from the show, then I am sure that the "Pink looked at him in disgust" matter happened before that. I am going to add it back...but in order and with "reportedly" in front of it . If you have proof that it did not happen or a convincing argument for why it should not be included, then feel free to remove it again (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this information is "too much gossip for Misplaced Pages" is an opinion, one that I disagree with. But since it is in the main article -- 2009 MTV Video Music Awards -- and the Taylor Swift article points to that, I will not protest your second removal of it from the Taylor Swift article. I will protest any removal of the information I have added to the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards article about this West controversy, however. If there is anything there you feel should not be mentioned, I ask you to take it to the talk page to see what others think about the matter instead of simply removing it...unless it's unsourced (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West article

Removing sourced material that is the consensus version is most definitely vandalism; you cannot remove this stuff simply because you do not like it. You are removing very relevant information. The crowd reacted negatively is all well-sourced and very relevant. The fact that he gave the microphone back to a stunned and reportedly upset Swift is well-sourced and very relevant. All of his apologies are well-sourced and very relevant. As for the "jackass" mention by Barack Obama, most editors are for that mention; they will keep adding it back. I did not include it when I constructed that paragraph, but it was added in. And it was added back by someone else after you first removed it. We also do not point to a main article in the way that you did in the middle of a section; that is not proper Misplaced Pages formatting. And calling a person a vandal simply for reinstating the consensus and (in this case, better) version of an article is completely uncalled for. See WP:CIVIL.

I will take your edits about this to the talk page for debate. If WP:Consensus is stated as against your edits there, there is pretty much nothing you can do about it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

Please stop reverting my removal of the ridiculous and inane content that says Gibson *cursed* at someone as vandalism. You have done this twice times now. My removal of that content is in no way vandalism. The content is non-notable, inflammatory and inane and has no place in the article. Your addition also misrepresents the exchange. According to the story, the reporter asked him "Do you think the public will perceive you any differently after all that's been in the news about you?" It does not say anything directly about his "addiction to alcohol", as you put it. Please stop calling this removal vandalism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Your additions violate WP:BLPLink title. Stop adding them. I've seen your source, Us magazine is not a reliable source. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)