Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Contributor clean-up/Qworty/Edits 2: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contributor clean-up | Qworty Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:16, 2 June 2013 editBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,280 edits →Articles 1001 through 1020: completed section, collapsed← Previous edit Revision as of 02:23, 3 June 2013 edit undoLightspeedx (talk | contribs)738 edits →Articles 1461 through 1480Next edit →
Line 663: Line 663:
:::::That information is contained in the dispute resolution case cited above. Cheers! ] (]) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC) :::::That information is contained in the dispute resolution case cited above. Cheers! ] (]) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


:: '''To all who are reading this'''. Coffeepusher does NOT even know who Erica Andrews is. Is not interested in her work, never seen her in performance, doesn't know her from a piece of sand from the beach. He had never heard of her prior to his discovering of her article in April. He couldn't tell you how she was when she was alive if his life depended on it. Yet now he is suddenly her article's keeper. He's now decided he will become the #1 speaker for her article. All of you should really find this very weird that someone would be so obsessed with some dead entertainer whom he doesn't even know. I suspect he's transphobic or homophobic and have a need to use this article to push his agenda. For me, whatever you want to think of me through Coffeepusher's smearing - I am at least her fan, seen her in performance, met her when she was alive, researched heavily for her article and the bulk of what you see in her article was written by me (even after it was chewed up by Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher). ] (]) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

:: To Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? ] (]) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)




Revision as of 02:23, 3 June 2013

Articles 1001 through 1020

Section complete. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed spaces. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit, removal of content. Seems to have been accepted by other edits, source now used later in the article. Left as is. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Reverted vandalism. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Minor correction. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Spelling corrections. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content. Bulk since returned with sources. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of unsourced content in a BLP. Material has been replaced, still unsourced. Tagged for sources, will revisit to source or clean after some more time has passed. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of content, some unsourced, some not. Returned most content, minus the overly promotional material, and added sources. Moved to proper title. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Update, removal of wikilink. Returned wikilink, as its used seemed consistent. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1021 through 1040

Articles 1041 through 1060

Articles 1061 through 1080

Articles 1081 through 1100

Section complete
Possibly ok at the time. I would add it back, but it is now moot. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedits, but ok. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid edits. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
A bit harder. Unexplained removal of a non-redlink. I would put it back, but it is in part of a direct quote, in a way that suggests that it might be best leaving it out. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Some questionable removals, but all since repaired. - Bilby (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Redlink removal, although link was possibly valid for a different target. Seems ok as a removal, though. -Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate removal of content, since fixed. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1101 through 1120

Section complete
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed wikilink. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
A lot had been removed. I've returned some, and raised one section which I think could be ok on the talk page. - Bilby (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I returned some of the content that was removed - edit summaries were questionable, and some of the content was viable, if a bit too promotional. Trimmed back and removed promotional language. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit, removed extra external links. All seemed ok. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Valid redlink removal, although questionable approach. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed wikilink. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1121 through 1140

Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit, removal of external link. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of redlinks. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of redlinks. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removals were ok overall - mostly promotional text. Some very strange copyvio in the article, that seems to have come from competitor's institutions. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of redlinks. Both were correctly removed at the time, although one was to the wrong article. I have restored one, as the correct article now exists. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Ugly article. Removed content since returned with better context. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Acceptable removal - content was not needed, and promotional. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed vandalism. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Edits ok. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1141 through 1160

Removed vandalism. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed vandalism. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed redlinks. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Edits were ok, but needed a reference. Ref added. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Mostly ok. I returned the IMDB link, as I think they're useful, but the rest of the edits were ok. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit summary was questionable, but valid removals. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems valid. Others have since removed the context, so best left out anyway. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Previously reverted. - Bilby (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1161 through 1180

Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of redlink and name. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of redlink and name. A bit iffy, but the name was unsourced, so left removed.. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Text removals. Seem fair, made it more neutral. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed mention of self-published books. Talk page discussion was in favour of some mention, so I returned the prose coverage and explained on talk, but left out the full list. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed name. Not ideal, but seems ok. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed name. Not ideal, but seems ok. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
NPOV rewording. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Poor removal, but the article has since moved on, so no need to add back. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of text. Since reverted. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok removal, since added back. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of unsourced text, removal of bibliography. All since restored. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Removal of unsourced content, external links. Bulk of the content since returned with sources. No action necessary. - Bilby (talk) 12:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles 1181 through 1200

Articles 1201 through 1220

Articles 1221 through 1240

Articles 1241 through 1260

Articles 1261 through 1280

Articles 1281 through 1300

Articles 1301 through 1320

Articles 1321 through 1340

Articles 1341 through 1360

Articles 1361 through 1380

Articles 1381 through 1400

Articles 1401 through 1420

Articles 1421 through 1440

Articles 1441 through 1460

Articles 1461 through 1480

Restored Andrews' career information that was deleted primarily by Qworty and also by Little Green Rosetta. The removed material is true, verifiable (even if sometimes the sources are not mainstream publications), and useful. This suggests that we should restore it. I also added new information about Andrews' last movie, as well as additional citation sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs)
Information added by Lightspeedx has been removed by Howicus citing the original dispute resolution case where Lightspeedx was told by two three different editors, unrelated to the dispute, that those edits violated BLP guidelines. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Those edits did not violate BLP guidelines. All the edits are sourced information. Explain in detail as to how her pageant titles which are well sourced, well documented, occurred in real life and earned by the late Ms Andrews violated BLP? Explain how mentioning her last film which she acted in violated BLP? Explain how mention of her stage work violates BLP? Explain how mentioning her pageant titles violates BLP. The dispute resolution I filed was so extremely contaminated by Qworty and Little Green Rosetta's views. Both of those were banned for doing exactly what they did on the Andrews article on others. So far no editor can back up with sourced evidence as to why the information should be deleted. All I keep hearing is people parroting Qworty that it should be deleted. If there is a content limit rule of x words on a page and the article violates that rule, then say so and at least we can finally agree on something. If you say it is contentious, then prove it with source that it is contentious or libelous. For example, if I placed information that Andrews acted in a particular film or won a particular pageant title, prove that I am making up lies because she did not win nor acted in any of it. You can never find that the information is contentious because she really did act in the film and she really did win the titles. They are not lies. What's damaging is your constant assertion that it's contentious but cannot prove it. Lightspeedx (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
That information is contained in the dispute resolution case cited above. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
To all who are reading this. Coffeepusher does NOT even know who Erica Andrews is. Is not interested in her work, never seen her in performance, doesn't know her from a piece of sand from the beach. He had never heard of her prior to his discovering of her article in April. He couldn't tell you how she was when she was alive if his life depended on it. Yet now he is suddenly her article's keeper. He's now decided he will become the #1 speaker for her article. All of you should really find this very weird that someone would be so obsessed with some dead entertainer whom he doesn't even know. I suspect he's transphobic or homophobic and have a need to use this article to push his agenda. For me, whatever you want to think of me through Coffeepusher's smearing - I am at least her fan, seen her in performance, met her when she was alive, researched heavily for her article and the bulk of what you see in her article was written by me (even after it was chewed up by Qworty, Little Green Rosetta and Coffeepusher). Lightspeedx (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
To Coffeepusher, seriously dude, chill. Take a big chill pill and really re-examine why you are so obsessed with following me around and pushing your edits and agenda around regarding the Andrews article. For me, at least I have reasons - I am a fan of Andrews and I did work on researching for content on her and would like to see that her article has some integrity. You don't know Andrews, you don't really give a dang about Andrews and you are not in the least interested in her career. What's it to you about this whole thing? If it's a pissing contest you want me to partake in, I'm not interested. I really am not. You really have no need or reason to keep shadowing me. What's it to you if the Andrews article is shredded to bits or if it wins Featured Article status? Really. Go find something in your life to fill your time with. It's not worth you daily obsessing and jumping up and down trailing me around trying to diminish my reputation. Despite what you think, I'm not worth your time and I really don't care about you or what you think of me. Your obsession is not healthy. If you are transphobic or homophobic and really want to see to that the Andrews article gets beat up, then come on out about that. Please stop the nonsense. OK? Lightspeedx (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Articles 1481 through 1500

Articles 1501 through 1520

Articles 1521 through 1540

Articles 1541 through 1560

Articles 1561 through 1580

Articles 1581 through 1600

Articles 1601 through 1620

Articles 1621 through 1640

Articles 1641 through 1660

Articles 1661 through 1680

Articles 1681 through 1700

Articles 1701 through 1720

Articles 1721 through 1740

Articles 1741 through 1760

Articles 1761 through 1780

Articles 1781 through 1800

Articles 1801 through 1820

Articles 1821 through 1840

Articles 1841 through 1860

Articles 1861 through 1880

Articles 1881 through 1900

Articles 1901 through 1920

Articles 1921 through 1940

Articles 1941 through 1960

Articles 1961 through 1980

Articles 1981 through 2000

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Contributor clean-up/Qworty/Edits 2: Difference between revisions Add topic