User talk:Eblem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mobil. 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. Kamope·?·! Sign! 23:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reply
Yeah, that's fine since it was removed content that was those three things. If you keep getting new messages from other users about that, just let them know your reason of removing the content. You can also type your reason in the edit summary. Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits/reverts on Mobil 1
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Mobil 1. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- intgr 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mobil 1
[cross-posted from User talk:Intgr#Mobil 1]
It's not disputed, the material being inserted into the Mobil 1 entry is contradicted. Read the discussion.
You are inadvertently preventing the article from remaining a reference-quality encyclopedia entry due to hijacking by members of an internet forum.
Again, read the discussions.
--Eblem 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- How am I preventing the article from "remaining a reference-quality encyclopedia entry" just by placing a {{disputed}} tag on it? It was reverted way more than it should have, thus there obviously is a dispute, whatever the reasons or motivation. If you think the article was vandalized, you should proceed with appropriate processes, not wage an edit war, or complain to me about it.
- And speaking of quality, the article doesn't even cite one single reference, so there is no way to verify its content. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. -- intgr 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[cross-posted from User talk:Intgr]
1 - By not even bothering to acquaint yourself with the discussion, which made it clear that the material being posted was scurrilous twaddle sourced from www.bobistheoilguy.com where some sort of quasi-vendetta is being waged against ExxonMobil/Mobil 1. By your reasoning, if I post "the Roman Pontiff is a Sugar Plum Fairy" enough times in the entry on the "Roman Catholic Church", and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy).
2 - Yes, the article needs references. The original article, "Mobil", also needs references. Those references can be assembled and inserted just as soon as the text settles down. Until you took it upon yourself to reinsert the material, there seemed to be a consensus that unreferenced material should no longer be inserted.
3 - I'll tell you what, if you and the other Wikipediasts want to do the research and get the "Mobil" and "Mobil 1" articles into good shape instead of intervening without the slightest notion of what either is about or what's going on, be my guest.
Otherwise I'm ready to let Wikipedia degenerate into the quasi-debate forum it's becoming. Numerous school systems have prohibited using Wikipedia as a reference, and this kind of nonsense is why.
But who am I to complain? A 40-year veteran of the automotive industry with four degrees? Actually, yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eblem (talk • contribs).
- Perhaps you would like to blame me for cancer, world hunger and global warming, too? :)
- I honestly cannot see how my placing the tag there would stop school kids from using Wikipedia as a reference. Sounds like you're just in a grumpy mood due to the "forum attacking this article", I don't know. But you're not being civil.
- In any case, edit warring or attacking people is not the way to solve problems; as already pointed out, there are several methods for dealing with vandalism, including requesting a temporary protection for the article, or administrative intervention to vandalism. Or if you see someone reverting more than three times, they can eligible for an immediate block per the three-revert rule.
- "and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy)."
- I am not going to address this straw man.
- "Until you took it upon yourself to reinsert the material, there seemed to be a consensus that unreferenced material should no longer be inserted."
- I did not initially reinsert anything, I merely added the tag after the section was re-added; refer to this diff, or see for yourself from the article history.
- "40-year veteran of the automotive industry with four degrees?"
- Or maybe your arrogance is just a result of your overblown ego. One would seriously expect a man of your credentials to be more civil. -- intgr 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
One of us knows about synthetic motor oils. If you aren't the one, then my arrogance hardly enters into it, does it? --Eblem 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Intgr is responsible for cancer, among other things .....
"Perhaps you would like to blame me for cancer, world hunger and global warming, too? :)"
If the shoe fits .....
Stupidity, in general, is both incurable and boundless.
"I honestly cannot see how my placing the tag there would stop school kids from using Wikipedia as a reference."
I honestly believe you cannot see it. That, of course, is my point.
"In any case, edit warring or attacking people is not the way to solve problems;"
At this point all three entries are not improved. At no cost to you, but hours of costs to me.
So, maybe the way to solve problems is for you and Petr to remove your fingers from the keyboards?
"'and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy).'"
"I am not going to address this straw man."
Do you know what, in logic, a "straw man argument" is? I thought not.
It is not a straw man argument. Neither you nor Petr have, to this point, identified a *single* fact in contention. No, without the slightest understanding of the topic, and without bothering to read the discussion, the two of you have added about four hours of work to my efforts without anything to show for it. That’s because I’m doing the work and you’re doing ..... well, nothing that adds to the entries.
"Or maybe your arrogance is just a result of your overblown ego. One would seriously expect a man of your credentials to be more civil. -- intgr 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC) "
For the first six hours of dealing with Wikepediasts like yourself, I think I did a pretty good job of controlling it.
I figured, since I was intimately involved in the period (1970-82) and have an extensive reference library, I could do a fair job of cleaning up and referencing "synthetic oil". But then the attacks from the www.bobistheoilguy.com Luddites began. And spread to the "Mobil" entry, and thence to "Mobil 1". Between reading the interminable posts at www.bobistheoilguy.com, and responding to Wikepediasts like yourself, Petr, and others, and undoing the vandalism of unsupported claptrap, at my normal billing rate for consulting I’ve shot over $1,500 and have not one bad entry but three.
So, I quit. I will, by e-mail, share with Petr this exchange. If one, or both of you, can point to me the *facts* that are actually in dispute, I’ll take this one last shot at providing you the *facts* that should dispel any notion of "controversy".
If one, or both of you, can’t provide a simple short list in simple English of the *facts* that are in dispute - and let us be clear that if there are *not* opposing *facts* that support *mutually* *exclusive* conclusions, there is *no* dispute, that answers the question as to why the tag and reversed edits are inappropriate.
This won’t even require that either of you read the discussions, which you clearly haven’t.
If neither of you respond, but you continue this annoying behavior, I’ll consider it an invitation to let Wikipedia continue to deteriorate into the internet equivalent of a graffiti wall, and wash my hands of it.
Put up, or shut up.
--Eblem 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
