Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 26 March 2014

Figure Skating Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Figure Skating, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of figure skating-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Figure SkatingWikipedia:WikiProject Figure SkatingTemplate:WikiProject Figure SkatingFigure skating Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Best scores

Prior to the competition, the existing ISU seasons best scores were as follows.

Total Score	Julia Lipnitskaia (RUS)	209.72	2014 Europeans	17 January 2014
Free program		139.75
Short program	Mao Asada (JPN)	73.18	2013 Skate America	19 October 2013

Response

The response is basically a one-sided collection of people's opinions who only saw that stumble on Sotnikova's third jump in one of the combinations, why do we need the opinion of these people if they think all you need to do is skate a clean but easier program? 99.240.54.57 (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added some responses from Stojko and Weir, I think that's quite enough of quoting the media, though, so I removed the recently added quote from some Spanish media, that's just unnessesary 99.240.54.57 (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the opinions that count are those of the experts. I am sure we have not heard the last of this, given Salt Lake City. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Inside Skating articles

I've been seeing a couple paragraphs continually pop-up on this page. There are slightly different version, but they more or less go like this:

After the Olympics, Former figure skating judge Sonia Bianchetti wrote a review on Inside Skating website, addressing inconsistencies with GOEs and PCS scores, favoring Russian skaters Adelina Sotnikova and Julia Lipnitskaya during the short program in Sochi 2014 Olympics. - Ref: Something is rotten in the state of Sochi: analyzing Ladies’ short program

Inside Skating released another article titled "Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made", addressing the faults in technical calls at Sochi Olympics. Adelina's triple triple combination jump should have received wrong edge and under rotation; this actually means that Adelina has one less triple. Also, Step sequence levels were not correctly awarded for Yuna kim, as she deserved level 4, whereas Adelina should have received level 3. - Ref: Letter to ISU office holders: “People deserve to know if a mistake was made"

First paragraph: 1) It says "Sonia Bianchetti wrote a review on Inside Skating website". The reference article is not by Sonia Bianchetti but by Florentina Tone (who to my knowledge, is not a former figure skating judge). 2) In the referenced article, the part about Adelina Sotnikova and Julia Lipnitskaya scores increasing is about the 2014 Europeans, not the 2014 Olympics. Unless your going to start a debate that a different tournament having bad judges, this doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages. 3) This paragraph also has issues with capitalization, abbreviations not expanded, using Julia instead of Yulia, and lacking wikilinks.

Second paragraph: 1) This is already included in the article - the lines "Former figure skater Tim Gerber argued that Sotnikova's triple triple combination jump should have received wrong edge and under rotation. Gerber also asserted that the step sequence levels were not correctly awarded for Kim and Sotnikova." 2) There were hundreds of articles written on this issue their is no need to include a specific article's title. 3) I did not see in the article anything stating that it made Sotnikova have "one less triple". This seems like original research or an addition to what the article stated. 4) This paragraph also has issues with capitalization, using first names instead of last, and lacking wikilinks.

Before adding back these paragraphs, please discuss here or edit them to remove the issues I have brought up. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

March 23, 2014 cleanup

I've previously tried to engage Heritoctavus (talk) to discuss on this talk page and/or on his/her talk page. Heritoctavus has chosen not to engage on either talk pages and instead continued with his/her disruptive edits.

I've explained the reason for undoing many of Heritoctavus' edits on his/her talk page. But I'll reiterate here:

• For article continuity, paragraph about KOC intending to submit a complaint needs to be retained in the "Official responses" even if summarized at the top of the article.
• Top of article is summary. The summary already says KOC intends to file a complaint. There is no need to have a full paragraph here (even if it's super-duper notable, a summary is sufficient). If readers want to know more, then they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. ^1 Heritoctavus seems to be under the impression that this controversy is the biggest in any sports history. S/he made the following comment on another page: "What about judging controversies in Sochi? I have never seen this controversial things in any sports before." May I point out the 2010 Olympics controversy or the 2002 Olympics scandal. This is just in figure skating since 2000. There have been hundreds of sports controversies bigger than this one.
• There is no need to tell users to go to section 4 or "self-citation" as Heritoctavus calls it. That's not done on Misplaced Pages, partially due to sections being self-numbering (if a new section is added, sections get re-numbered).

Further explanations:

• Heritoctavus keeps wanting to include that Sotnikova is from the host country at the top. My opinion is that this is irrelevant and unimportant. The only thing I can come up with is that it's meant to create an implication -> bias -> against WP:NPOV.
• The part about "journalistic debates" is already summarized on top. If readers want to know more, then they know to jump to that section using the table of contents or just scrolling down. If Heritoctavus wishes to replace the words "press controversy" with "journalistic debates" that's fine with me.

Heritoctavus also made two new additions that I'm reverting.

• I'm removing "Reuters UK" addition because it adds nothing to this article. The fact another newspaper noted a controversy adds nothing. The fact Kim said she had no comment, also adds nothing.
• I'm removing "Fox sports" addition because it adds nothing to this article. A sports reporter saying that there have been past controversies and that "conspiracy theories that are having a blast" doesn't add to this article. There is already a statement in that journalists questioned the composition of the judging panel, naming a specific journalist, doesn't add to this page.

Heritoctavus, I am asking that instead of engaging in further disruptive editing, you join the conversation on this talk page. Kirin13 (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying the issues and reverting.

1. ISU or IOC usually do not issue official response. If there is some issues, they do it in response to those issues. So, International Skating Union's 21 February 2014 statement is a response to the request by Korean skating union's officials. Think logically! Nobody suddenly issues a statement out of nothing. ( Guilty conscience needs no accuser ! ) There were issues and voices of criticism, so ISU reacted to that. That is why criticism has to come first then support and/or official response to the criticism has to follow it. (I also left this as a comment several times)

2. USA Today's report about the judging panel must be back under criticism. You created another section and arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning, which constitutes vandalism.

3. Reuters UK report and Fox sports are reliable sources and what they reported are worth noting here. I will remove NYTimes article since it adds nothing but is supporting the already announced results by ISU. What the article is saying is the same as the judges. What was new ?

4. I have to add the sentence 'The results of this competition caused immediate controversies.' because this is what actually exists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 March 2014‎ (UTC)

1. I believe the 21 February 2014 ISU statement was issued due to the public, journalistic, and expert debate. There is nothing to indicate that KSU or KOC made any request. As far as whether criticism or official response should come first - as I told FelixRosch, I have no opinion on that.

2.1. USA Today's report is criticism. The reason it was moved, as you noted, was because I made to sections. If you read the comments on the edit where this was done, it was explained: "separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores - this is done b/c scores have been acknowledged as final, but judge debate officially continues". As the overall section is named "Controversies", you're acknowledging there was multiple. This was my attempt to separate them into two controversies - one that is still open and one that is closed.

2.2. Heritoctavus, as you must realize, you are not the only editor on Misplaced Pages. If a different editor wishes to edit or move a sentence you write, it is NOT vandalism. The move was not arbitrarily - as it was explained in comment & above, it was to go into the new section.

3.1. No one said that Reuters UK and Fox Sports are not reputable sources. The reason they were removed is stated above in "March 23, 2014 cleanup" section. You have yet to respond to justify there inclusion. There were hundreds of articles written about this issue, there is no point in listing all of them. Similarly, your addition "ESPN's Bonnie D. Ford addressed the controversy regarding the judges in this figure skating event" adds nothing to this article, because there were dozens of reports who addressed this controversy. Listing all of them doesn't do anything for this article expect make it harder to read.

3.2. The reason for the inclusion of the The New York Times article is that it explains that Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not. This supports that Sotnikova a more technically challenging program. This is not explained anywhere else explained in this Misplaced Pages article.

4. I have no objection to having summary include mention of the controversy. I have objection to having "hosting country", which I have explained above in "March 23, 2014 cleanup" section, which you haven't replied to.

Kirin13 (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

-- Let's discuss one by one

1. You wrote , the above, that "I believe the 21 February 2014 ISU statement was issued due to the public, journalistic, and expert debate". Then you agree that their official announcement is a response to the debates. That is why I say the debate comes first then, the response comes to the next. Action ->then reaction.

2. "USA Today's report is criticism." you agreed above! That is why it is under the section 'Criticism of the results' And you added "Separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores" But, as NeilN gave me a beautiful information, I use the same thing here - I see no Misplaced Pages-based guideline that mandates this seperation.

3. Vandalism is the word you first used when referring to my editing in Winter 2010 page. I never used that word before and I learned that this word is used in order to attack somebody that writes an the article in a different way. ( Normal meaning of Vandalism is distroying or ruining.)

4. "There were hundreds of articles written about this issue, there is no point in listing all of them." I totally agree with you. You are right at the point.We do not list up hundreds of thousands of news sources that support that scandal. But, at least a couple of more are necessary to convey the correct situation into Misplaced Pages. I only listed three out of thousands. Is it difficult to read? HOW MANY NEWSPAPERS ARE IN FAVOR OF ISU? Five? Ten? ( other than NYT )

5. You mentioned that "The New York Times article is that it explains that Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not." Correct ! It is true that Sotnikova got the gold medal because "Sotnikova did elements that Kim did not."

But,.... what? one more element while doing two foot landing and under rotation gave her gold? I STRONGLY WANT TO HOPE YOU KNOW FIGURE SKATING. And, what about the highly inflated artistry points? God.... I don't need to discuss it here since people who know about figure skating know what was wrong with the judgement. It is up to you if you post NYT again or not. But, do not delete my news!!

6. And you wrote that "I have no objection to having summary include mention of the controversy" Then why did you keep deleting the sentence ? Why? What do you so desperately want to hide?

7. Russia is the "hosting country" of the Sochi 2014 winter olympic games. Is it a violation of Misplaced Pages:NPOV ? I didn't know that. But, I need wikipedia's autoritative interpretation on this. I will follow wikipedia's judgement on this. I do not know how to do this. Could you do it?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Heritoctavus, you've made over a dozen talk comments by now - learn to sign your name. As explained before, type four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Yes, I "agree that their official announcement is a response to the debates." I have never argued this. As I've said above, I have no opinion about the order. The person you need to be arguing about this is with FelixRosch (talk).

2. USA Today's report is criticism of the composition of the judging panel. I agree, there is "no Misplaced Pages-based guideline that mandates this seperation". However, there are no Misplaced Pages guideline stating they must be together. I have given reason for the separation twice now: "'separating into two controversies - Composition of the judging panel & Scores - this is done b/c scores have been acknowledged as final, but judge debate officially continues'. As the overall section is named 'Controversies', you're acknowledging there was multiple. This was my attempt to separate them into two controversies - one that is still open and one that is closed." You have yet to give a single reason for non-separation. Furthermore, you were upset with me for created a new section, yet you have just created three new sections, making that argument fall flat.

3. "Vandalism ": And where on the 2010 pages was this? I can't find it. On the other hand, I do find you using the word toward me on the 2010 Ladies' talk page. Going forward to 2014 pages, I see you using this word toward me plenty of times, and I see myself using it only once toward you. That was when you were adding junk firsts on the 2014 page. Per Misplaced Pages vandalism page: "inserting obvious nonsense into a page" is vandalism. You might not like my edits, but all of them were made in good faith. The adding junk firsts wasn't made in good faith - you even admitted they were "Obsurd statistics". So, those edits could count as vandalism.

4. "at least a couple of more are necessary to convey the correct situation into Misplaced Pages." That is false. Misplaced Pages only needs to relate the facts of the situation - news articles are used as references/citations. If you wish to add more <ref>, be my guest. On Misplaced Pages, news articles are not listed to show that news articles were written. As far articles in favor of the results, there were hundreds. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who support the results. As a reminder, here on Misplaced Pages, we strive to be neutral - that is why I have added as much information in support as in opposition of the results.

5. NYT article gives information in support of the results that are otherwise not on this page. As far as your arguments for why it's wrong, that's original research and not allowed on Misplaced Pages. If you have citations for this information, then please add this information in the criticism section. As for not deleting your news - sorry, if I have a valid reason, I will. (By the way, I've already given you the valid reasons.)

6. I didn't delete that sentence. FelixRosch (talk) did.

7. "My opinion is that this is irrelevant and unimportant. The only thing I can come up with is that it's meant to create an implication -> bias -> against WP:NPOV." Please explain why you think it's relevant and important. Sotnikova is already listed as from Russia.

Kirin13 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus (talk) has never asked me my opinion on this controversy, though probably assumed them. My opinion is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages, because only facts and opinions of experts are important, and Misplaced Pages editors should strive to be neutral. Just the same, in the hopes that Heritoctavus will cool down a bit and stop accusing me of who knows what, I'll state my opinion. Adelina Sotnikova PCS was through the roof compared to her previous performances. Also, one of the judges giving her practically all +3 GOE looks suspicious. On the other hand, Kim Yuna's performance wasn't as great as it was four years ago (my opinion). Were the scores inaccurate? I wouldn't bet against it. However, I don't know what the accurate scores would have been. I am not a figure skating technical expert (and I'm going to guess anyone reading this isn't one either, otherwise they would right now be giving interviews/quotes to a newspaper instead of arguing on Misplaced Pages). From my understanding of the news reporting, the results are final and KOC acknowledges this. There is a complaint on the composition of the judging panel that we'll have to wait and see what happens. Regardless, in the mean time, we must strive to write this article as neutrally as possible while stating the facts. Kirin13 (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proceeding of discussion 1. Solved.

2. You said

• "no Misplaced Pages-based guideline that mandates this seperation"
• "However, there are no Misplaced Pages guideline stating they must be together."

What is your point?

3. YES ! moving to the new section --> destroying continuity of the section. Was this what you wanted? You will never succeed.

4. When 10 is dealt the same as 1000, do you call it neutral? It seems seriously biased in favor of the 10. There is no[REDACTED] rules for this. Fox sports news point is the judging controversy in figure skating has long history. I will rearrange some of them. Do not delete this time !!

5. Solved. As I said NYT is up to you. I don't care.

6. Solved.

7. I don't need to prove anything about the expression "Russia, the hosting country" This is normal English style. Usually, in English, people have tendancy to avoid repeating the same word and use an alternate expression. That is why I prefer "the hosting country". You have to prove that this expression violates any[REDACTED] policy. Or, ask administrator for intervention. The busybuddy C.Fred will love it.

8. NEW - needs discussion Reuters UK report is meaningful because it reported what Yuna Kim said just after the competition. And it is not even in subsection but in the Controversies head part. i will recover this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus, please sign your statements on talk pages. Also, please write in the section that you are commenting in. (Just because there is a newer section, doesn't mean all new comments need to be made there.) I moved your comment to the this section since you made it clear that it belongs in this section. Kirin13 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to sign this. I am busy recovering the article you are destroying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 06:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've told you multiple times already how to sign (including once in this thread already). This is also explained twice on the edit page (both above the edit area & between the edit area and "Edit summary"). Type four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Btw, in my opinion you are the one who's is destroying this article. But unlike you, I am trying to keep this conversation civil. Kirin13 (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2 My point is, you entire argument just fell apart. You need to provide better justification than "Misplaced Pages allows it."

3 What? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say it's vandalism by "destroying continuity of the section". Sorry, no go for you. First of all, I justified the two sections. Second of all, it was done in good faith. Thus, no vandalism on my side. As far as your statement "You will never succeed", you should look at WP:WIN.

4 Sorry, your wrong. Just because you only read articles from one side, does not mean articles from the other side don't exist. You just call those articles biased and choose to ignore them. Don't bother telling me what to or not to delete. Instead, give an actual reason for inclusion.

7 You have yet to give reason for inclusion. Your reason "in English, people have tendancy to avoid repeating the same word" is lacking since no word is being repeated. Thus still no reason for inclusion.

8 Please tell me what Kim's statement adds? That she has no comment? If you like, I can add Sotnikova statement. But once again, it adds nothing to this controversy. If you really want to include this statement. It would be better placed in the Overall results section, but I don't think it adds anything to the discussion of these controversies.

Kirin13 (talk) 06:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2. This is pointless, we're debating over nothing, so I say

3. Pretty sure this one is also pointless, so unless you have something to add I say

4. Don't cite news article to site that news articles existed. Cite news articles as <ref> when they had information that actually adds to this page.

7. I see what you did there, changing "Adelina Sotnikova of Russia" to "Adelina Sotnikova from the hosting country". I undid, because "of Russia" is more clear. Could you please explain why you want to add "hosting country" so badly. The only reason I can think for you wanting to include this so badly is to imply bias.

8. This is better discussed in next section - so for this section

Kirin13 (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing several articles

Full reasoning for removing articles:

• As previously stated: "I'm removing Reuters UK addition because it adds nothing to this article. The fact another newspaper noted a controversy adds nothing. The fact Kim said she had no comment, also adds nothing." No reason to support inclusion of this article was made (except 'to add an additional article to demonstrate articles were written' which was refuted above).
  • Though I removed previous lines about the Reuters UK article, I believe it does have some value. I have added the line "Questions over the judges, the judging system, and the anonymity of scores were also raised." citing this article.

• As previously stated: "I'm removing Fox sports addition because it adds nothing to this article. A sports reporter saying that there have been past controversies and that 'conspiracy theories that are having a blast' doesn't add to this article. There is already a statement in that journalists questioned the composition of the judging panel, naming a specific journalist, doesn't add to this page." No reason to support inclusion of this article was made.

• Removing ESPN article for same reason as above. I already noted it's lack of purpose for inclusion. No reason to support inclusion of this article was made.

Kirin13 (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional, removing "public's opinions" lines due to lack of notability & significance:

• Removing GoldenSkate forum thread. Lack of notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this thread?) Also claim "one of the biggest online forums on figure skating" is lacks citation.

• Removing today.yougov.com poll. The fact a website had a poll doesn't show anything. Websites have polls all the time. Lacks any information like number of people polled and results. Furthermore, lack notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this poll?)

• Removing ESPN poll. Lack of significance - doesn't add anything to this article. There is already statement on the 2 million signing a petition - what is 90% of 24,800 compared to 2,000,000 -> not much.

Kirin13 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

-- my response

• Reuters UK is the only comment of Yuna Kim who is at the center of this turmoil.

This report IS significant. Prove why the only comment of Yuna Kim is not significant.

• ESPN poll is significant because it is more publically known than change.org

Have you heard about change.org before? Different poll, different organization, different website, different coverage, different target viewers. Both are significantly different, if you know about statistical sampling. Do you perhaps know about the difference between self-selection bias and random sampling?

• Removing today.yougov.com poll. Do as you want.

• Golden skate is a big figure skate forum.

This is the first one that appears in google search with keyword : figure skate forum

• Fox sports news point is the judging controversy in figure skating has long history. Their point of view is different. The present situation is what is expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 06:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back on lunch time Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters UK: As I stated above: Please tell me what Kim's statement adds? That she has no comment? If you like, I can add Sotnikova statement. But once again, it adds nothing to this controversy. If you really want to include this statement, it would be better placed in the Overall results section. However, I don't think it adds anything to the discussion of these controversies.

• ESPN poll: Yes, I heard about Change.org years ago. It's been around for seven years and quite popular. The figure skating one isn't even their most signed petition. For example, the Trayvon Martin petition has more signatures. Your lack of knowledge does not prove it's lack of relevance. Obviously, you "publically known" statement is false, since 2,038,684 vs 24,800, clearly says the Change.org petition was more publicly known than the ESPN poll. By the ESPN poll was not random sampling, people still choose to reply, thus still self-selection. So, what does this poll add to this article? That a poll was conducted? That 24,800 people choose to reply? So ... that doesn't add anything to this article.

• Golden skate: do you have a citation or not? What you gave is called original research. Thus lack of notability & significance. (Do you have a news article reporting on this thread?)

• Fox sports: What does that add to this controversy? That the ISU Judging System is long known to be messed up? If it says that, then add that instead of what you have.

Kirin13 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters UK: I've replaced with statement: "Both Sotnikova and Kim said they can not comment on the judging." It's cited by Reuters UK and Yahoo Sports articles. I do not see a reason to have direct quotes from either (since they basically say "no comment"), but if we do, we should have from both.

• Fox sports: Looking into this article, I don't think this is actually a criticism of the scores. Peter Schrager presents both sides of the debate. He says that judging controversies are common in figure skating, it should be expected, and that "this will blow over". If you can find an article saying "judging controversies are common in figure skating AND the judging system needs to be fixed so to prevent future controversies", then this article should be included in criticism section. But Fox's articles just doesn't say that. At best it's a neutral opinion of "so what".

Kirin13 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history in this report Michelle Kwan said "hands down" OK? Do you understand English. This is not the expression of positive support But, the expression of giving up on the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 16:57, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

You did not explain the removal of USToday's second article. And sectional blanking of is vandalism. Only remove what you want to do. I will recover it. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history.... In this report Michelle Kwan said "hands down" OK? Do you understand English. This is not the expression of positive support But, the expression of giving up on the situation. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

For, Fox sports Peter Schrager "So, why would we expect the 2014 Sochi Games be any different than any of the other Winter Olympics in which the sport's final results were met with controversy, curious marks, and more than precarious makeups of the judging panels?" Read this first paragraph , very carefully. Questioning. Feel the sense. This is criticism. This is not the support for or justification of the controversial results. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reuters UK: Yuna Kim said something. This is her response. This is different from "NO comment". She said "... my words can change nothing." is a meaningful comment. She used the word "change". Why did she spoke that word? This is up to the readers. This is why I recovered this. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 25 March 2014‎ (UTC)

Ok, Heritoctavus, I see five comments of yours.

1) You're accusing me of not understanding English? Do you even know what the expression "hands down" means? It means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. Michelle Kwan's comment was in favor of Adelina Sotnikova. I think you have just proven my understanding of English is better than yours.

2) I did not remove any USA Today articles. There were three before my edits and three after. Stop accusing me of things I have not done. And there was no section blanking - as the comments clearly state, the information was moved to the criticism section. Once again, stop accusing me of things I have not done. Once again, stop accusing me of vandalism.

3) same as 1)

4) You're quoting the article out of context. If you read the entire article, you will see that if anything Schrager is pro-Adelina Sotnikova and dismisses this controversy saying it'll "blow over". A reporting saying this controversy will blow over, if anything says that it's unimportant. Schrager also said that "conspiracy theorists having a blast", giving the impression that Schrager doesn't have much stock in these theories. Giving the overall tone of this article, your quote is taken out of context and does not reflect Schrager's views.

5) Are you saying Kim Yuna's comment was meant as criticism of the scores? If so, then it belongs in criticism section. If not, then it's non-comment.

Kirin13 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Schrager wrote : "blow over"

Please, read the whole sentence :

" this will blow over. Things like this always do in this sport." ..."You can't ignore history."

You don't feel the synical voice of the writer? If not, that is because you are biased.

• Sentence with Kwan's comment :

Also, read carefully the whole sentence :

Why do you think Schrager used the word 'eerily'? if he agrees that Adelina won. Why did Kwan add "Under the scoring system" when she said "hands down"? Don't you understand the two-sided meaning of "hands down" here? You think Kwan supports the result? or just accepting the situation, hands down?Got what I mean?

• Schrager wrote : "conspiracy theorists having a blast"

Please, read the whole sentence, again. What he wrote is :

"Oh, and the Russian girl won the gold. Connect the dots and you can see why there are more than a few conspiracy theorists having a blast at the moment."

-> Schrager doesn't have much stock in these theories as you claim ? This is, at least, reporting the situation of controversies.

• Do not interpret this like Schrager is supporting the result. He is, at least, not supporting the results, but wanted to report that the competition is as controversial as any figure skating events before becaused of the judging system. That is why this article must go under the controversies section head.

• Michelle Kwan's comment is just a small part of Schrager's report and will be removed since everthing is in the article.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "hands down" means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. There is no "two-sided meaning" of hands down. Kwan acknowledges that with the scoring system, racking up points is important, and in her opinion Sotnikova racked up the point "hands down"/"easily"/"unquestionably". You don't get to remove Michelle Kwan's comment just because you don't like it.

Schrager article is cynical. It's also sarcastic and it's making fun of this entire controversy. You can keep it if you want, even though in opinion it doesn't add to the article. However, I still reserve the right to edit what you take from the article, just like I reserve the right to edit everything on this wiki page. Kirin13 (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"hosting country"

On going debate if third line of article summary should read "Adelina Sotnikova of Russia won the gold medal" or "Adelina Sotnikova from the hosting country won the gold medal."

My opinion:

• "of Russia" is more clear & to the point
• "hosting country" is irrelevant and unimportant
• "hosting country" may give an implication -> bias
  • more so because the next sentence talks about the controversy in the scoring

Heritoctavus, however, completely disagrees with me and believes that "hosting country" has to be absolutely included. (I am basing Heritoctavus's view on his/her comments on talk page above and edit summaries on article, as well as, the number of times s/he's added "hosting country" to article).

As far as I've understood Heritoctavus's argument for inclusion is:

• "of Russia" is repetitive
• "hosting country" is not against any rules
• s/he likes "hosting country" better

I've already replied, but I'll expand on my answers:

• "of Russia" is not repetitive, this is the first time Adelina Sotnikova is listed to be from Russia. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - the goal is state facts as clearly as possible.
• I'm not so sure. By how insistent Heritoctavus is that Adelina Sotnikova be listed as "from the hosting country" instead of "of Russia", makes me suspect this is to create bias. Thus against WP:NPOV.
• irrelevant

So from what I gather:

• neither of us thinks "of Russia" creates any bias
• one of us thinks "from the hosting country" can create bias

So, we can either pick the one both us agree is neutral or we can continue arguing. Kirin13 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is my response :

• It is your opinion that "hosting country" may give an implication -> bias

You did not justify it why it is biased.

• Thus, you failed to explain why the expression "hosting country" MUST BE REMOVED.
• Do not give your opinion, but objective reason ( any rule or law or newspaper or reference etc )
• If there is no reason it MUST BE AVOIDED, I will use the expression "Russia, the hosting country" simply because "Russia was the hosting country"!

For this reason, I will revert it. Heritoctavus (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want it so badly? Because you want to indicate that she only won because she's from the host country? Next sentence talks about controversies as well. The implication is there & thus bias. To make statement more neutral, removing "hosting country". There is no reason to list "hosting country", that fact you keep insisting tells me there is something off with that statement. Kirin13 (talk) 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove it so desperately? I explained the same thing over again many times. You say "Because you want to indicate that she only won because she's from the host country?". In which part of the word "Russia, the hosting country" am I implying this? I explained the same thing over again many times. "the hosting country" does not deviate from neutral expression. Period.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also note that, from the first I have kept using both words together. "Russia, the hosting country". I wanted to use only "the hosting country" but added "Russia" because of you not because I wanted it. So, "Russia, the hosting country" is fair to both us. Objection? Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not about being 'fair' to both of us - it's about being fair & neutral toward the article. "Hosting country" is not needed, but you're refusing for those words not to be on the page. That's why I'm unsure of your motives. Kirin13 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism warning : sectional blanking by Kirin13

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, you may be blocked from editing. public's opinion

I clearly warned you above that sectional blanking of is vandalism. You did it again even though I said "Only remove what you want to do" which means you can remove a sentence or reference, and did not mean removal of the whole section. This is definite vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Repeated for the 5th time, since you haven't been paying attention, it is not section blanking. Three of the items were moved into criticism section, the other 2 removed - as discussed on this page. What you are doing is tendentious editing and violating Misplaced Pages's civility policy. Kirin13 (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How many times more than 5 times do I need to tell you that this section is a separate section as I created as it is. Do not illegitimately move them. And prove why keeping my original intention is violation of tendentious editing and violating Misplaced Pages's civility policy

I REPEAT, PROVE IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

When I created a new section, you called it vandalism. When you create a new section and I merge it (because both sections were criticism), you call it vandalism. You can't have it both ways Heritoctavus, especially since neither was vandalism. I justified creating when I created a new section. I justified when I merged the two sections. You can't forbid other user's from editing this article - including anything you add. Kirin13 (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I said above "USA Today's report about the judging panel must be back under criticism. You created another section and arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning, which constitutes vandalism." I meant --> arbitrarily moved my sentence against my warning

Please , always read the sentence from the beginning to the end and try to understand the meaning of the sentence AS A WHOLE.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You can edit the contents in the section. And I can also edit it. BUT DO NOT BLANK THE WHOLE SECTION !!! I SAY 6TH TIME !! I know you don't like it but do not blank the whole section only because you don't like it.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat: you cannot tell others that they are not allowed to edit 'your' work, so you might as well stop warning people to not touch 'your' work.

As it's been explained to you multiple times, when I created a new section, I put the justification. It was that I was separating the controversies into two parts, the judging (where a complaint exists) and scoring (where the matter is closed by KOC's own admission). The move of 'your' sentence was not arbitrarily because it was about judging, not scoring. (By the way, you have no ownership of any sentence on any Misplaced Pages article.) You did not bother considering any of this, instead you immediately reverted my work and inaccurately called it vandalism.

And for the 7th time, the section was not blanked. I removed two of the points (the two points that you have not defended inclusion on , yer you keep reinserting them for some reason). The other three points were clear criticism of the results, so I moved them into the criticism section. Moving content is not deleting content. Section blanking is when you delete the content of an entire section. Instead of discussing why you believe there should be a second criticism section, you keep reverting my work and falsely calling it section blanking and vandalism.

First of all, none of this is vandalism. Second of all, stop having a double standard. If creating a new section is vandalism (which it isn't), then the second criticism section you so adamantly defending is vandalism. Kirin13 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalists --> USA Today_USA_Today-2014-03-26T06:17:00.000Z">

Please, write like "USA Today" instead of "Journalists". Clarify the source. Objection ? Heritoctavus (talk)

Source is unimportant in this case. There were a lot of journalist who commented on this. Unless this comment is only seen in one specific source, citation should be left within ref tags. Kirin13 (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)_USA_Today"> _USA_Today">

HA HA HA HA , I can't believe... You are an experienced writer, right? WHO SAYS THE SOURCE OF THE NEWS IS UNIMPORTANT? WHO SAID THAT? It's possible if you make an aggregate description. But, "USA Today" stands out and the name must show up. Do not be too subjective.... I'm more and more disappointed in you, the experienced writer.

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The source is important, that's why we cite all claims using the ref tags. However, majority of the time, there is no reason for the article text to explicitly name a newspaper. Any experienced reader of Misplaced Pages (or academic journals), knows to look at the citation to find the source. Kirin13 (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Kwan's comment

Michelle Kwan's comment is a small part of Schrager's report. And you think it is support for the results and I think it is just surrender and acceptance 'hands down'. So, it is arguable and the report has been moved to head of Controversies section. Add your opinion below. Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "hands down" means "easily; unquestionably" 1, "without much effort; without question" 2. There is no "two-sided meaning" of hands down. Kwan acknowledges that with the scoring system, racking up points is important, and in her opinion Sotnikova racked up the point "hands down"/"easily"/"unquestionably". She gave her support for result being the correct one. You don't get to remove Michelle Kwan's comment just because you don't like it. Also, it doesn't matter how "small part of Schrager's report". I'm not saying Schrager's report is about Kwan's comment. I only stating Kwan said what she said. Kirin13 (talk) 06:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also sorry about this. You do not agree! What Kwan implied. Only Kwan knows that. So, you agree that we do not agree. The report is titled "Judging controversy no surprise in figure skating". The main subject is not Kwan's interview. You agree!

Conclusion : it should be placed in the head of controversies section with the original description of "Fox sports Peter Schrager pointed out that the judging controversy in figure skating has long history and Sochi figure skating events is not any different. "

And, Wait a minute! Do you know the long time friendship between Michelle Kwan and Yuna Kim? Well.....what do you know about their relationship? What do you know?

I just ... don't know what to say about the way you interpret news article so subjectively....

Kwan's position was nearly the same as that of Yuna. Did Yuna supported the result OR just accepted it? Could you just find a news article in which Kwan clearly states her support for the results? (not just accepting)

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fox article: you're getting a bit ahead of yourself. We weren't even discussing what should/shouldn't be said about it in this section. The only thing I said about the Fox article is that it is not about Kwan's comment.

Kwan comment: Stop trying to get something out of Kwan's comment that isn't there. I've given you two sources for my definitions of "hand down". You keep reiterating that there is a secret definition that the dictionaries aren't telling. Are you confusing "hands down" with you put your hand up when you surrender (an argument or to the police)? Kwan's comment stated, "Under the scoring system, hands down, Adelina won." This is equivalent of saying "Under the scoring system, without question, Adelina won." There is no secret meaning. Kirin13 (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This may be tenth time that I request you to read the sentence completely. What I said is Kwan's comment is not 'SUPPORT' but the 'ACCEPTANCE'. It must not be in section.

That was one of the reason I created another section . This should go under this section together with Katarina Witt and other's. That will be less arguable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heritoctavus (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to continue the discussion here, limitlessly

Just information. I just do not know all the policy or functions in wikipedia. But, one thing is sure ; not everybody who has good opinions are good at writing in wikipedia. You got the right person who just started writing after long years of reading only, who has smelled high degree of distortions in some articles and, who rarely gives up once got started.

Heritoctavus (talk)

New York Times

It is removed because it adds nothing. It just repeats the same competition results and only includes technical assessments. Opinion? Heritoctavus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A technical assessment is hardly nothing. And this edit is full of problems - commentary, obscure polls, webforum content... --NeilN 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. A technical assessment by NYT is hardly something. It adds nothing new but repetition of the official results. So, unnecessary. 2.Give objective, verifiable reasons why polls of ESPN and Yougov are obscure. Prove why they have problems with objective reasons including[REDACTED] rules, references, news articles etc. 3. Look NeilN, I appreciate your twinkle twinkle little star but keep objectivity. Heritoctavus (talk)

1) This gives details not found in the article. 2) 24,000 participants in an unscientific online poll is hardly noteworthy. And please keep your commentary out of the article. 3) Judging from your talk page, I'm not the one with editing issues. --NeilN 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with NeilN. Heritoctavus this is the third time you are arguing to delete this paragraph. The last two times you agreed to keep it. Why do you keep bringing it up? As, previously told, it add technical assessment that is not found elsewhere on this page. Having the scores listed is not the same as providing a technical assessment. Kirin13 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Kirin13, First, this was the revert of the unjustified removal by tiwinkle twinkle NeilN. Second, I agreed to keep NYT on the condition that you will not remove my sentences repeatedly. I warned that "It is up to you if you post NYT again or not. But, do not delete my news!!" You ignored this warning more than three times. Removal of NYT is my reaction to this. You delete my news, I delete yours. FAIR. Heritoctavus (talk)

No, that's WP:DISRUPT. Continue this way and I don't think you'll last long here. --NeilN 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

1. . ISU http://www.isuresults.com/isujsstat/sb2013-14/sbtslto.htm. Retrieved February 6, 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. . ISU http://www.isuresults.com/isujsstat/sb2013-14/sbtslfs.htm. Retrieved February 6, 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. . ISU http://www.isuresults.com/isujsstat/sb2013-14/sbtslsp.htm. Retrieved February 6, 2014. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• Start-Class Olympics articles
• Low-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• Start-Class Figure skating articles
• Low-importance Figure skating articles
• WikiProject Figure Skating articles