Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Contributor clean-up/Qworty/Edits 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Contributor clean-up‎ | Qworty

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightspeedx (talk | contribs) at 00:28, 1 June 2013 (→‎Articles 1461 through 1480). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles 1001 through 1020

Articles 1021 through 1040

Articles 1041 through 1060

Articles 1061 through 1080

Articles 1081 through 1100

Section complete
Possibly ok at the time. I would add it back, but it is now moot. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits, but ok. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid edit. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid edits. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit harder. Unexplained removal of a non-redlink. I would put it back, but it is in part of a direct quote, in a way that suggests that it might be best leaving it out. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some questionable removals, but all since repaired. - Bilby (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redlink removal, although link was possibly valid for a different target. Seems ok as a removal, though. -Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate removal of content, since fixed. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid removal. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. No problems. - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 1101 through 1120

Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed wikilink. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I returned some of the content that was removed - edit summaries were questionable, and some of the content was viable, if a bit too promotional. Trimmed back and removed promotional language. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit, removed extra external links. All seemed ok. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valid redlink removal, although questionable approach. - Bilby (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed wikilink. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 1121 through 1140

Articles 1141 through 1160

Articles 1161 through 1180

Articles 1181 through 1200

Articles 1201 through 1220

Articles 1221 through 1240

Articles 1241 through 1260

Articles 1261 through 1280

Articles 1281 through 1300

Articles 1301 through 1320

Articles 1321 through 1340

Articles 1341 through 1360

Articles 1361 through 1380

Articles 1381 through 1400

Articles 1401 through 1420

Articles 1421 through 1440

Articles 1441 through 1460

Articles 1461 through 1480

Restored Andrews' career information that was deleted primarily by Qworty and also by Little Green Rosetta. The removed material is true, verifiable (even if sometimes the sources are not mainstream publications), and useful. This suggests that we should restore it. I also added new information about Andrews' last movie, as well as additional citation sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs)
Information added by Lightspeedx has been removed by Howicus citing the original dispute resolution case where Lightspeedx was told by two three different editors, unrelated to the dispute, that those edits violated BLP guidelines. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits did not violate BLP guidelines. All the edits are sourced information. Explain in detail as to how her pageant titles which are well sourced, well documented, occurred in real life and earned by the late Ms Andrews violated BLP? Explain how mentioning her last film which she acted in violated BLP? Explain how mention of her stage work violates BLP? Explain how mentioning her pageant titles violates BLP. The dispute resolution I filed was so extremely contaminated by Qworty and Little Green Rosetta's views. Both of those were banned for doing exactly what they did on the Andrews article on others. So far no editor can back up with sourced evidence as to why the information should be deleted. All I keep hearing is people parroting Qworty that it should be deleted. If there is a content limit rule of x words on a page and the article violates that rule, then say so and at least we can finally agree on something. If you say it is contentious, then prove it with source that it is contentious or libelous. For example, if I placed information that Andrews acted in a particular film or won a particular pageant title, prove that I am making up lies because she did not win nor acted in any of it. You can never find that the information is contentious because she really did act in the film and she really did win the titles. They are not lies. What's damaging is your constant assertion that it's contentious but cannot prove it. Lightspeedx (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Articles 1481 through 1500

Articles 1501 through 1520

Articles 1521 through 1540

Articles 1541 through 1560

Articles 1561 through 1580

Articles 1581 through 1600

Articles 1601 through 1620

Articles 1621 through 1640

Articles 1641 through 1660

Articles 1661 through 1680

Articles 1681 through 1700

Articles 1701 through 1720

Articles 1721 through 1740

Articles 1741 through 1760

Articles 1761 through 1780

Articles 1781 through 1800

Articles 1801 through 1820

Articles 1821 through 1840

Articles 1841 through 1860

Articles 1861 through 1880

Articles 1881 through 1900

Articles 1901 through 1920

Articles 1921 through 1940

Articles 1941 through 1960

Articles 1961 through 1980

Articles 1981 through 2000

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contributor_clean-up/Qworty/Edits_2&oldid=557760614"