This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Shopping Centers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of enclosed shopping malls, outdoor shopping centers, and dead malls on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Shopping CentersWikipedia:WikiProject Shopping CentersTemplate:WikiProject Shopping CentersShopping center articles
stable version of article restored due to 2nd edit conflict in the context of unsourced additions citing WP:BURDEN[edit]
I've been trying to edit the article tonight, but another editor has been reacting to my edits without sufficient explanation. So I'm starting this talk page discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If you do a Google search on ["Chris Savard" Cornwell square], the fourth link from the top is [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already discussed this with you at length on your talk page. You have repeatedly violated wp:burden. Even with blp info. You have ignored and failed to respond to all warnings. See [2] and [3] and [4] referring to this, and here. And all edit summaries that accorded with them. And just continued to violate wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think people realize that templates are not "at length" discussion. In fact, templating my talk page as you have done (five times now) is considered to be uncivil. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your definition of something "discussed at length". It is two templates without any discussion. There are additional templates on my talk page, but they postdate the statement, "talk page is next". I hope you will reconsider your idea of "at length" discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I documented a similar situation recently in which you removed sourced information claiming WP:V as a justification. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something that people want to know here is what it is that you think is uncited. One of your edits changed the tenant count from 70 to 60, which is new information, yet you did not add a source. Meanwhile the edit comment for that edit talks about removals for WP:V. People don't know what you are trying to do. And then when I come along and start to clean up the confusion, you go manic. You need to use Template:CN tags instead of just removing material that you don't like, and templating the worker bees, in the hopes of improving your chances of winning at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree (one can hope that we are able to agree about something), that the section "Stores and Services", and the last sentence of the lede that only lists tenants can be removed as per WP:TENANTS. Do you agree? Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the remaining sourcing concerns that you have, do you agree to add Template:CN tags? Unscintillating (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The material that you restored, which was uncited, and which violated wp:burden and/or wp:TENANTS, should per wp:burden never have been re-added by you. Let alone repeatedly. In the face of repeated warnings that the additions violate wp:burden. You should self-revert, as your additions clearly repeatedly violated wp:burden. A sysop has already done half of your work for you, by deleting half the material in question. Also -- do not revert that delete, as you have repeatedly in the past. Epeefleche (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, I deleted that wearing my "just some guy who edits" hat, not my admin hat. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, I challenge you to exactly specify what it is that you claim is material that is unsourced as per WP:BURDEN, and what criteria you used to satisfy the WP:BURDEN clause, "Whether...this should happen depends..." Also please explain why you did not use {{cn}} tags. Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Un -- this is a stupid conversation. The material that you restored in violation of wp:burden has has now been deleted, yet again, this time by other editors. But, you can easily enough yourself find the material that you restored that had been deleted. Nobody believes you are unaware of it -- as you participated in the complaint against you at the edit warring noticeboard. You seem to be having a conversation with yourself here -- and a nonsensical one at that, as you are aware of the information you seek, and there is no longer an article to discuss. You were reported for restoring the text in question on the edit warring page. Please take this as (yet another) warning: If you continue to violate wp:burden, you will again be violating wp:v. I understand you wish to continue to engage editors on this, but I'm not sure what purpose it serves. Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that you think this is a stupid discussion, but this is the system that we have for resolving disputes. I came to this article to add eleven sources, and in preparation restored 15% of the material you had removed. IMO, there is no need for dispute, except your insistence that there be one. There was no action required by you when I began to edit this article. The problem IMO started when you thought it a good idea to "help out" the editors at the AfD by removing material. Instead of adding CN tags, you implied you had an "urgent" removal using WP:BURDEN. However, such urgency is constrained by a conditional, which says, "Whether...this should happen depends...", as well as by the policy WP:PRESERVE. The only thing that could conceivably have applied here as urgent was the name of the mall manager. Had you limited your "urgent" removal to the one name, and you had cited "WP:BLP" in the removal's edit summary, your purpose would have been clear, even during an AfD. But that is not what you did. Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to my challenge is that you are avoiding an answer, and the record is too confounded for anyone else to know. There are four confounded edits #1, #2, #3, #4. #1 confounds WP:BURDEN and WP:TENANTS. #2 adds uncited material, while the edit summary confounds WP:BURDEN and "ce". The edit summary of #3 mentions WP:BURDEN removal; but #3 restores uncited material from #2, and from #1 removes a TBD amount of material as per WP:TENANTS. #4, without explanation, changes your WP:BURDEN claim to two pieces of information, 12 words in length.
The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. It should go without saying that problems that have not been identified cannot be addressed.
@Epeefleche: Do you agree that in the future, when you see "restore stable version of the article", your next related edit will be to the talk page of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
