Updatethis12
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Loyola2L, by Anomie, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Loyola2L seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Loyola2L, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Loyola2L itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Reverting talk page comments
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Loyola Law School, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anomie 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Loyola Law School. Thank you. Continued bad faith and argumentative behaviour on your part may result in further action. Please modify your attitude towards other editors who are acting in good faith and respect civility policy. Adrian M. H. 22:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- The chain of posts, quoted below, speak for themselves. --Updatethis12 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to request a new set of third opinions. Two editors, anomie and Adrian M.H. provided an opinion before listening to both sides, as is shown by the timestamp of their opinion.
This is in violation of Wikipedia rules regarding third opinions. These rules are described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Providing_third_opinions . Specifically the requirement that no opinion be given without "Read[ing] the arguments of the disputants" and "Do not provide third opinions recklessly."
Imagine the absurdity of a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of the trial defending their decision against the other side. Anomie formed her opinion before listening to both sides of the dispute. She is no longer neutral.
For these reasons I think the third opinions should be reset. It's unfortunate that Anomie and Adrian M.H. will not simply delete their opinions. Wikipedia has thousands of editors willing to provide unbiased opinions who could take their place. --Updatethis12 19:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the appropriate way to do things, instead of just deleting comments! Go ahead and add your new request to the bottom of WP:3O to attract a new third opinion. Anomie 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've already tainted the third opinion process as I described above. In the future, please follow the rules and wait to hear both sides before forming a conclusion. Please also consider your opinion so it's not impulsive and reckless. --Updatethis12 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Updatethis12, I request that you assume good faith and consider the fact that I – and Anomie, no doubt – did the necessary detective work prior to providing our opinions. That means checking the article history, talk page history, user talk history, IP history and relevant external links. OK? You have thus far failed to assume good faith and have made unwarranted and misjudged criticisms of two editors of good standing based on what I can only attribute to paranoia or a resentment of protocol. Our opinions are rooted in the key policies and guidelines that all editors should follow. Any attempt to refactor or delete comments from any talk page will be answered with the appropriate warnings. That the opinions offered by other experienced editors do not tally with your own is not a valid reason to behave like this, and it fails to respect 3O protocol and Wikipedia's conduct guidelines. You have every right to discuss your dispute, as long as it is done in a civil and reasoned manner. Adrian M. H. 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't even have the patience to wait a few hours for a response. Impatience is recklessness. Having jumped to a conclusion, you are now forced to defend it, regardless of the response. Rather than delete your opinions and let unbiased 3rd parties resolve the dispute, you insist on continuing to shamelessly taint the process. --Updatethis12 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is not customary to sit around waiting when a 3O request is posted, and we certainly do not need to wait for your attempt at justification in order to assess such an incredibly simple little dispute! The history reveals all that one needs to know to see that the material was in clear violation of WP:V and, by extension, WP:RS. And once again, comments are not deleted unless they constitute vandalism or unmitigated personal attacks. Read the policy. Adrian M. H. 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- The rules clearly state you're supposed to wait to hear both sides before providing an opinion, and you're supposed to provide a thoughtful, not reckless, opinion. I quoted the text above. You read one side and impulsively posted the first thought that came into your mind. Having come to your conclusion, you have no choice but to defend it, regardless of what I write. As if ruining the first request for opinion wasn't enough, you have now ruined the second request. --Updatethis12 22:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is not customary to sit around waiting when a 3O request is posted, and we certainly do not need to wait for your attempt at justification in order to assess such an incredibly simple little dispute! The history reveals all that one needs to know to see that the material was in clear violation of WP:V and, by extension, WP:RS. And once again, comments are not deleted unless they constitute vandalism or unmitigated personal attacks. Read the policy. Adrian M. H. 22:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't even have the patience to wait a few hours for a response. Impatience is recklessness. Having jumped to a conclusion, you are now forced to defend it, regardless of the response. Rather than delete your opinions and let unbiased 3rd parties resolve the dispute, you insist on continuing to shamelessly taint the process. --Updatethis12 22:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Updatethis12, I request that you assume good faith and consider the fact that I – and Anomie, no doubt – did the necessary detective work prior to providing our opinions. That means checking the article history, talk page history, user talk history, IP history and relevant external links. OK? You have thus far failed to assume good faith and have made unwarranted and misjudged criticisms of two editors of good standing based on what I can only attribute to paranoia or a resentment of protocol. Our opinions are rooted in the key policies and guidelines that all editors should follow. Any attempt to refactor or delete comments from any talk page will be answered with the appropriate warnings. That the opinions offered by other experienced editors do not tally with your own is not a valid reason to behave like this, and it fails to respect 3O protocol and Wikipedia's conduct guidelines. You have every right to discuss your dispute, as long as it is done in a civil and reasoned manner. Adrian M. H. 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've already tainted the third opinion process as I described above. In the future, please follow the rules and wait to hear both sides before forming a conclusion. Please also consider your opinion so it's not impulsive and reckless. --Updatethis12 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The