User talk:Nightingale0
David J. Tholen[edit]
Usually, heavy vandalism is needed for a page protection - generally a few vandalism contributions per day on average or sudden heavy burst of vandalism. However, right now there isn't not quite enough vandalism activity although in this case it may be more like a content dispute. Maybe if you can discuss the issue with the parties on the article's talk page, maybe it can be settled although in the talk page, the actor in question doesn't seem to respect WP:CIVIL. If the dispute continues or intensifies, then a semi or a full protection will be warranted for a period in order to settle the dispute once in for all so maybe I will wait for a little bit more activity before semi-protecting although you can always try to make a protection request. I've warned the user for his revert warring and any next act without discussing it significantly at the talk will get an automatic block (since it was been doing this like once a week or two on average so to probably get away from been blocked) and eventually the semi-protection of the article. The 12.xxx account from AT&T has a lenghty history of edit warring or undoing contributions on various articles. I will add this article in my watchlist for good measure as well. Thanks for this report. --JForget 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh gosh you are a moron, look down the history of the david tholen page, I'm not the only one reverting this moron's edits. Harping on past edits is ad hominem circumstantial, and is irrelevant to whether or not the information this moron is reverting out is even factual, but of course, you can't possibly see things that way.
- See my comments on the talk page. I will keep removing the comments until I see something that looks like a reliable source. If you want to discuss it, learn to be civil, but if you are just going to call people names, I don't see any point in trying to talk to you. Have a nice day.Nightingale0 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that there is a lack of reliable sources on Tholen on the Net, lots of the sources are from Groups.Google which are probably not the best sources. I don't know if anyone has non-Net articles on him, but maybe that would help. But as I say discuss for a compromise, if there is a compromise and that respects WP:BLP and WP:V, info with good sources will be kept. Soon I will have to be forced to lock the page (and that would be fully protection) and all parties may be blocked for 24 hours (for edit warring) if it persists. --JForget 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to comment about the blocking due to edit warring, but I see that the article is now protected, so it doesn't seem relevant. Relevant references for the science-related information should not be hard to find - I meant to do that when somebody added "This article does not cite any references or sources", but got busy with other things. I'll try to get to it soon, and post to the talk page. Thanks for your help.
- The problem is that there is a lack of reliable sources on Tholen on the Net, lots of the sources are from Groups.Google which are probably not the best sources. I don't know if anyone has non-Net articles on him, but maybe that would help. But as I say discuss for a compromise, if there is a compromise and that respects WP:BLP and WP:V, info with good sources will be kept. Soon I will have to be forced to lock the page (and that would be fully protection) and all parties may be blocked for 24 hours (for edit warring) if it persists. --JForget 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- See my comments on the talk page. I will keep removing the comments until I see something that looks like a reliable source. If you want to discuss it, learn to be civil, but if you are just going to call people names, I don't see any point in trying to talk to you. Have a nice day.Nightingale0 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh gosh you are a moron, look down the history of the david tholen page, I'm not the only one reverting this moron's edits. Harping on past edits is ad hominem circumstantial, and is irrelevant to whether or not the information this moron is reverting out is even factual, but of course, you can't possibly see things that way.