This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Karelin7 (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 17 May 2009 (→Edit warring: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:22, 17 May 2009 by Karelin7 (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| Contents |
|---|
|
Your comments and my replies:
Cookie
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Your exchange with Collect at RSN
Hi Ratel... those of us who are regularly involved in working on policy and guideline pages havd lots of experience with Collect, and are familiar with his negative points. So you don't need to "warn" us about his behavior on other pages. In this case, he did exactly the correct thing... instead of edit warring and making a scene at the article, he looked for a neutral third party opinion by asking a question at RSN.
In fact, by immediately attacking the editor (Collect), instead of responding to his question (by commenting on the source and discussing whether you think it is reliable or not), you are the one that comes across as the stalker. I know you are pissed off at him, but I would suggest that you ignore Collect completely for a while. Let others deal with him if needed. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ratel quite clear your comments are made in good faith, but I do think the question regarding the source is valid. Even should it be decided that the source is valid, I have concerns about a single source being used in these cases (allegations made involving BLP) and anything other than the barest factual coverage being written given BLP, Weight and NPV concerns - have you considered it from this angle? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- The National Enquirer and TMZ are obviously not the most reliable of sources, but here is my argument: when these sources print stories about an individual who has enormous resources to respond legally in the event that he is justified in responding (remember that Copperfield earned about $60million a year for a long time), and the alleged facts are reprinted in numerous places (newspapers, websites, blogs), and yet the individual fails to respond to the reports (even with a denial in some cases), and so the allegations/reports pass into the general currency about the individual, why then is wp not allowed to mention that these allegations are now part of the prevailing global consciousness concerning the individual? WP still remains a tertiary source; we still merely report on what others are saying, apparently without challenge from the subject. The BLP policy is not so much to protect people from what other people are printing about them as it is to protect wp from lawsuits, and clearly no lawsuit will be forthcoming on these facts, printed as they are in so many other places. Incidentally, the allegations/facts have been part of wp for years without any threats from the subject. Of course they'll be part of some future biography of this person, and then perhaps they'll be allowed in to the encyclopedia. Or maybe not. I've had people challenge me on material printed in books and biographies too.
- As regards Collect — I shall try to ignore him from now on as advised, but I find it a pity that wp cannot slough off editors like this, who make sport of pursuing other editors to pages they habitually edit in order to provoke unpleasantness. He's done it before to me. My prediction: he'll go through any page I've recently edited and pick as many holes in the sources as he can, not to improve the page, but to irritate me. His history of this sort of confrontation-seeking is clear, yet no-one at wp takes any action to ban him indefinitely. He's very skilled at walking the line of what is allowable and wikilawyers every point skilfully ... really the most disruptive editor I've come across here in several years. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit warring
Will report you for edit warring on the David Copperfield page. While you claim that you are seeking to report factual content, you are emphasizing the plaintiffs' allegations and minimizing or ignoring Copperfield's. Additionally, you have continually cited press releases from the plaintiffs' lawyer. And, if I'm not mistaken, you have listed directions for the public to find its way to a home where you claim Copperfield's children live--if this is so, that is a gross misuse of wikipedia. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.