User talk:85.250.159.127

Bloggers opinion
Please stop adding the blog post. Some guys opinion is not appropriate. This blog has no reputation and the only time other websites link to it is when the blogger himself spams his links in the comment section.  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Deseret News is a reputable newspaper. Your post is some guy blogging.  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that your opinion is not appropriate. A section headed "Critical Reception" in Wikipedia is exactly the place for this kind of opinion. I have never heard of the Deseret News. I live in the Middle East. It has no reputation as far as I am concerned. It feels like a local US newspaper with a poorly paid hack commenting on a soon-to-be-cancelled TV show because he is paid to do so. I would much rather read the opinion of a passionate blogger who has no financial interest in giving his opinion one way or the other. I read GuiltyFeat.com on a regular basis and thought the observation about Rubicon to be well-written and a useful addition to this page.


 * I would argue that "some guy blogging" is more valuable and trustworthy than the hack reviews that appear in local newspapers surrounded by paid ads for the shows they are reviewing.


 * Furthermore, you are unnecessarily depriving readers of perfectly well expressed facts which add to the content of the page without jeopardizing its integrity or breaching any Wikipedia guidelines. You are being heavy-handed, dogmatic and interfering.


 * I wholeheartedly agree that this kind of source is not appropriate for presenting new facts, but you must either remove the section headed "Critical Reception" or allow contributors to post useful, well-crafted examples of the show's critical reception. I do not believe this is your call to make.


 * Cheers 85.250.159.127 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That you have never heard of the Deseret News is not germane to the issue. It is a perfectly reputable newspaper with a national reputation in the US, which is more than sufficient for inclusion of its review of an American television show.  Likewise, your opinion of the quality of the writing of a blog, particularly coupled as it is to your obvious hostility to commercial media reviews, is not a criterion for inclusion of a source.  Wikipedia has a long-standing, well-known and clearly articulated position on the inclusion of blog sources.  Frankly, I'd be far more concerned about the agenda of a blogger who writes such a vehement review of this piece, for good or for ill, than I would for a commercial media critic.  Drmargi (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That you haven't heard of Deseret News is irrelevant, I hadn't either, but it is a published newspaper. The guiltyfeat blog has no editorial oversight and is not run by a professional journalist or reviewer and is thus not acceptable. Everybody can create a blog. The fact that the author of the blog goes around and spams his stories in the comments section at other sites, makes this even less reputable, and quite desperate.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One man's "desperate" is another man's enterprising distribution. Why is this more desperate than so-called reputable news agencies buying Google ad placements for their stories? You're making a great case for removing GuiltyFeat as a source, but the same case calls for the removal of your other sources as well.

You have failed to answer the point that a section called Critical Reception, which was already in existence, calls for exactly this kind of contribution. Furthermore, when I first added the quote and attribution, all the existing entries were positive towards the show indicating that they had all been entered by paid hacks working for the PR company representing AMC. By removing the entry I suggest, you are creating a lack of balance and misrepresenting the critical reception of the show. You are ruining this page. Until you are prepared to go out and find an alternative to the blog I propose, I think you should leave it alone. Your edits are detrimental to the usefulness of the page which is the opposite of your mandate as an editor.


 * First of all, I (and Drmargi) already answered the point. Secondly, there is no "mandate", and if there would be such thing, removing information from unreliable sources would be part of it. Don't add blogs without editorial oversight or reputation.  X  eworlebi (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rubicon (TV series). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  X  eworlebi (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Rubicon (TV series). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.