User talk:Mikaey/Archives/2011/October
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks
Thanks for this [1]. I have no love for Gaddafi, but the "scoop mentality" that seems to exist on Wikipedia when it comes to current events can be very frustrating. So thanks for cooling it out. Erikeltic (Talk) 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. What a mess. :-) Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Gaddafi revert
I think most of that was actually good information. -- tariqabjotu 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Moammar Gaddafi
Hi,
I think the full protect needs to be put back in place. Despite who's right, there's multiple parties that are edit warring over the article -- if there's consensus on what the content of the article should be, an admin can make those changes, but right now that consensus doesn't exist. Additionally, when reversing another admin's actions, could you please consult that admin before you reverse it? Thanks, Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the unprotection, I'll restore it. If you don't, I don't see the point of this complaint. Your reason for the protection was, in part, lack of independent confirmation. Because that now exists, it seems like the original reason for full protection was broken. -- tariqabjotu 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you would, please -- the fact is, there's an edit war in progress. There's bound to be more details to come in that people are going to argue over. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then cross that bridge when we get to it, but you protected the article because his death was unconfirmed and because people were edit-warring over whether he was dead. But it's reasonably confirmed, with pictures, and he's dead, so there's no reason you presented that still is valid now. Fully protecting articles that are bound to get updates due to current events is uncommon, and, in my opinion, a bad idea. -- tariqabjotu 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but until he's confirmed dead by reliable sources, it's still a BLP, and "reasonably confirmed" isn't good enough. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then cross that bridge when we get to it, but you protected the article because his death was unconfirmed and because people were edit-warring over whether he was dead. But it's reasonably confirmed, with pictures, and he's dead, so there's no reason you presented that still is valid now. Fully protecting articles that are bound to get updates due to current events is uncommon, and, in my opinion, a bad idea. -- tariqabjotu 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If you would, please -- the fact is, there's an edit war in progress. There's bound to be more details to come in that people are going to argue over. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Muammar Gaddafi
I'm not sure the rollback was the best way to deal with the article's problems. My edit was to clean up the refs and it was also rolled back in the process. Unfortunately, now I have to try to add it back in, in between the edit conflicts. I'm also concerned that some important refs and changes got rolled back, and those editors are not yet aware of it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies -- edits were happening so quickly that it was difficult to determine what was part of the edit war and what was a legitimate edit. I'll see if there's anything I can do from my end to help. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)