92.12.105.187 (talk) No edit summary |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
:Many thanks! [[User:ISTB351|ISTB351]] ([[User talk:ISTB351#top|talk]]) 07:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
:Many thanks! [[User:ISTB351|ISTB351]] ([[User talk:ISTB351#top|talk]]) 07:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
DON'T UNDO MY EDITS OR ELSE I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND STAB YOU. |
Revision as of 18:32, 5 March 2012
If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Thank you!
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Meany! You took my revert. You've earned it. Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 01:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
KKK=
Sorry, but the article content in no way supports the claim that this is a neo-nazi outfit. Throwing all right-wing groups together in one big heap is a perilous enterprise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sections 5.1, 5.5 and 5.6 in fact suggest that Nazism has considerable currency within the contemporary KKK. It is not a question about "[t]hrowing all right-wing groups together in one big heap", but about the lede reflecting the article, and implicitly the sources. ISTB351 (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Potential misuse of 'Huggle'
Looking at the page for Sophie Winkleman I was having a peek at the recent edits and saw that you had reverted an edit as vandalism and warned the user on the grounds of 'addition of unsourced negative content to a biographical article'. Having looked at the edit I do not think that your revert or warning was appropriate. None of it was in the slightest bit 'negative' - the first half of the edit was a helpful clarification and the second half could easily be conceived as not contentious enough to merit the need for a source. However, you would be quite right to point out that it is always better to be safe than sorry - and so the best approach would have been to add a 'citation needed' and certainly not to pursue the policy which ultimately has led to the harassment of User:66.41.26.63 in a clear violation of not only wp:agf but all the guidelines accompanying both Huggle and Rollback. Of course I myself do not wish to be hypocritical and so assume good faith on your part as well but please do bear this in mind and be more careful in future. Reichsfurst (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- WP:BLP is clear on this: a source is required for all material on such articles. That was the reason for the reversion. Perhaps I could have selected 'Addition of unsourced content' as the edit summary rather than the one I gave. But in the grand scheme of things, policy dictated that the edit was reverted. ISTB351 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Guildford four
The reason the Guildford four are notable is because if the miscarriage of justice. Sentences of prisoners are often quashed and that is not enough to write an articl ein an encyclopedia. The introduction to this article, in order to be NPOV, has to mention this aspect of it. In addition, if the Prime Minister of a country officially apologizes to someone for their wrongful imprisonment, the term "miscarriage of justice" applied to this person is no longer an opinion, but a fact, since the Prime Minister is responsible for the application of judicial principles in the country. So, let's find a wording which is acceptable to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.86.209 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Eric Joyce house price
I do not understand what your query is with relation to the price for which Eric Joyce's house was bought and sold. The price paid in 2001 is clearly noted on the Find a Property house prices page, as is the price at which it was sold in 2007. This is a public web site. How is this an unpublished synthesis? The actual address is known to me personally and is not a subject of "research". The house was also clearly shown in an article in the Mail on Sunday about this very subject. Hoovering (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You need a reliable secondary source to demonstrate the notability of the material. At the moment, all you have is a primary source and policy dictates that the material can't be included. Merely because you know things personally does not mean that your additions do not constitute original research and in fact demonstrate precisely the need for independent third party sourcing. The Mail on Sunday article may be adequate, put you need more than what you have provided so far. ISTB351 (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such as? Do not understand what more you can want. After all, even a newspaper article is only as valid as the person who writes it. Being a neighbour and therefore eyewitness does not constitute sufficient information? His and his wife's name also appeared in the electoral register for that period. Being an eyewitness is valid in a court of law. unsigned comment by: Hoovering (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:RS. Unless you can find an independent third party reliable and verifiable source which demonstrates the notability of the information, it cannot be included. Wikipedia is not a court of law, but an encyclopedia. These concerns are particularly acute because the article under consideration is a biography of a living person. ISTB351 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- What constitutes a verifiable third party source in this case? You have the Mail on Sunday, the electoral register and the property price site. What else do you want?
- Hoovering (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Hoovering
- The electoral register and "the property price site" are primary sources and do not demonstrate notability. You have yet to provide the MoS article. ISTB351 (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You need to read WP:RS. Unless you can find an independent third party reliable and verifiable source which demonstrates the notability of the information, it cannot be included. Wikipedia is not a court of law, but an encyclopedia. These concerns are particularly acute because the article under consideration is a biography of a living person. ISTB351 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Such as? Do not understand what more you can want. After all, even a newspaper article is only as valid as the person who writes it. Being a neighbour and therefore eyewitness does not constitute sufficient information? His and his wife's name also appeared in the electoral register for that period. Being an eyewitness is valid in a court of law. unsigned comment by: Hoovering (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
hi
this is not my first time in wikipedia... :P i have always wondered if people like you take the time to see what the article says or what the edit i or anyone else did means to the article... well, apparently, not. 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know not everyone is smart, but, if you care to actually read the article you'll find that the members of International Steering Group for Kosovo are indeed 25 and portugal and malta are not among them. Stop using automated software like huggle and read between edits. :P Btw, if you threaten me with being blocked, i will log on and report you about your abuse of huggle... :P 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am not abusing Huggle or other automated software. Please make a report against me to ANI if you feel that that is the case. You have been removing content without explanation, or citing additional sources. We cannot simply take your word for matters of fact. In addition, your comments here are in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV and the fact that you claim that you have an another account is suggestive of issues of sockpuppetry. ISTB351 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know not everyone is smart, but, if you care to actually read the article you'll find that the members of International Steering Group for Kosovo are indeed 25 and portugal and malta are not among them. Stop using automated software like huggle and read between edits. :P Btw, if you threaten me with being blocked, i will log on and report you about your abuse of huggle... :P 46.177.91.74 (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Hello ISTB351, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) |
DON'T UNDO MY EDITS OR ELSE I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND STAB YOU.