User talk:Endosentric

Welcome!

Hello Endosentric, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cordoba House, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received your note. Have you previously edited under another name, or as an IP? Many thanks. You can respond here, to keep the conversation in one location.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Cordoba House, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not remove RS-supported comment, that is at the core of the article, has been abbreviated greatly, and is at the core of the dispute discussed in the article. Please note that inappropriate deletions of RS-supported relevant material is considered vandalism by the relevant guideline. I have opened discussion up on both the talk page and here. I also note that you have all of 2 edits before engaging in this controversy -- please answer my above question. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep restoring your bulk load of quotes? Or is there something special about these random people you are quoting that I don't know about?--Endosentric (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained it above, and on the article's talk page. Please answer my question, which I am now asking for a third time. Have you previously edited under another name, or as an IP? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is RS supported, just because a quote is from a reliable source, it doesn't mean it has to be in the article. Quotes by random people are the 'core' of the article, what? Read WP:NOTNEWS & WP:MOSQUOTE. Do you believe this article to be exempt from Wikipedia guidelines and policies?--Endosentric (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't quotes from "random people" that you are deleting. That is manifestly clear from the article. These are quotes from family members of 9/11 victims, whose statements are at the core of the controversy described in the article.

For the fourth time -- Have you previously edited under another name, or as an IP? Many thanks.

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Cordoba House, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You continue to remove RS-supported relevant content, and refs, from the article. Such as, this time, the rationale that the builders have supporting the project. Please desist. Removals of appropriate RS content without appropriate reason constitute vandalism under wp guidelines. Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you feel the need to quote every single one of them you possibly can? And why have you put the people promoting it in the support section? That's like saying McDonalds supports opening more of their fast-food restaurants. Wait, are you one of those people of who think it's smart to put 'May contain nuts' on a packet of nuts? Cleaning up articles isn't vandalism btw.--Endosentric (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles reflect the views of the people who are key to the controversy. The RSs have reported their views, no doubt for the same reason. These are not random views as you suggest; in no way "man-on-the-street" views. As to the para re the views of the builders, their views on why their building the mosque in that location is also highly relevant to the controversy. That is manifestly clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what is so key about those particular quotes? The RS report their views because it's news, wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The builders comments may be relevant but it's on the wrong section. Support/Opposition sections are about outside views on the subject, the builders are not outsiders.--Endosentric (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you haven't answered my questions. Asking you now for the fifth time -- inasmuch as you have the trappings of a sock -- Have you previously edited under another name, or as an IP? Second, we measure notability by reporting in RSs. Notthenews is reason to AfD an article -- clearly, this article would not be deleted, given the depth and scope of RS coverage. And the RS-supported quotes you continue to delete, disruptively, are as has been indicated highly relevant to the article. Please stop.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to tell me what is significant about those particular quotes, then I'll just have to report you for ignoring wikipedias guidelines and policies. I've pointed them to you, but i'll be more specific for you.

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Comments from one the many thousands of victims is notable in the long term is it?
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations You have been unable to tell me why these victims are any more notable than other victims, so you are turning in to a huge directory of quotes.

And also stop asking questions about me, see WP:PERSONAL.--Endosentric (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]