User talk:DarknessShines2/Archive 3

The reverting user is correct in that block notices are usually left up while the block is active. However, I went looking for the page on this; WP:BLANKING is what you want, but for some reason it forgets to mention block notices. It says "[d]eclined unblock requests, ban, validly-imposed edit restrictions and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices (while any sanctions are still in effect) [may not be removed]." It seems strange to me that it would say unblock requests should stay but block notices can implicitly be removed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine it can be removed as it is kind of a badge of shame, thanks for looking into it for me, much appreciated mark nutley (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the convention is that it should stay up while the block is in effect, but can be removed after the block expires. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not against policy? The thing is if Bluerobe removes it (due to it being reverted back in by an editor he is in conflict with) will he get in further trouble? mark nutley (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it isn't set in stone anywhere, no. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I would suggest we really ought to propose that as an addition to WP:BLANKING; it is reasonable for the notice to remain until the block expires imo. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but like i said some may see it as a badge of shame :) If a user is not asking to be unblocked then there is no real reason for the block notice to sit there is there? I would appreciate if you requested [1] Yworo to refrain from posting on Blue`s talkpage as it will only fan the flames and is unhelpful to all concerned, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped Yworo a line. Although we disagree on if this should be policy, I daresay we can all agree we ought to look at discussing the issue, since it does seem to crop up repeatedly. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i reckon a RFC on WP:BLANKING is the best course of action, would you like to set it up? mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it this evening BST. Right now I'm going to do some mainspace work on en.Wikinews, then I'm gonna eat and exercise my dog. After that I'll look at getting things going. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you exercise your dog after you`ve eaten him :) Can you give me a shout whe nthe rfc is up, thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Dogs are what puppies grow into if you don't eat them before they go all stringy. I'll give you a buzz when it's sorted. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia talk:User pages#Block notices and BLANKING is set up and ready to go. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, i have commented there, thanks mark nutley (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist with putting warnings on my talk page. I do not agree with either your analysis nor your suggestions. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a warning, it was a request. Sorry if you feel it was a warning mark nutley (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, there are comments on my talk page that are really important for you to see so I am just notifying you of this in case you haven't returned to my talk page since your last response. Feel free to respond there if you have something to add so that the discussion stays together. I'm pretty lacks with my talk page. I only stop things when it gets uncivil or other rules are being broke. I think it's important that you see what TS has to say because of the reasons he shares why copyright and plagerism is so sensitive right now. I think even you will be shocked at what he shares with us, I know I was/am. I also try to give you a clearer suggestion about how to add things to an article than my previous one which I feel you starting a subpage was possibly particially because of my earlier suggestion which I feel a bit bad about so I would like you to see my better answer. I hope I'm making sense here. ;) Let's make this the easiest way to do this, please drop by my talk page and see what is written there for you. Please make a little response, even if it's just an OK with your signature. Woo! :) Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment that I think you should consider on my talk page if you don't mind. Thanks for the nice conversation we've had. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that's it's considered to polite when you start a discussion on a board (BLPN) to point the other people involved to that discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i got sidetracked then had to go pick my son up from school, i`ll post it on the talk page of the article mark nutley (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was just *added* by North8000 without consensus. I removed it as he had not discussed it. Please look at the history before making knee-jerk accusations and please self-revert. Yworo (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? [2] this has been in the article ages, i added refs to it the other day mark nutley (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Could you please link to a time prior to September 26 when it was in the article, as that would dispositvely show Yworo to be wrong. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What like this you mean? [3] welcome back btw mark nutley (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I missed Carol's recent removal of it. Further reply at article talk page. Yworo (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the article moves so fast it is easy to make mistakes :) mark nutley (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

"This will obviously go nowhere, you seem set on having obviously anarchist groups in the article".

This article is about all forms of libertarianism (including left-libertarianism) so I think it's not in the spirit of that to purge all left-libertarian groups from the article. If in future a consensus is reached to make the article have a narrower focus then that would be different.

I think a RfC is premature, because only the two of us have so far expressed an opinion on this particular group (CNT) and there are lots of other knowledgeable contributors. But I'm happy to go ahead if that's what you want.

Question: I'm not entirely familiar with the procedure for a Request for Comment. Would the discussion be hosted on Talk:Libertarianism, but a notice put up elsewhere for outsiders to contribute to the discussion? Iota (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you post your reasons for inclusion were Argument For - {{Iota please put your argument here}} is, once you have done this i shall copy it over to the article talk page, the following notice boards will get notified about it history|media| religion |politics which i think covers the article. mark nutley (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please bear with me till I get a spare moment. Iota (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not involved in this article, but TFD is correct. Opinion pieces (op-eds) are not considered to be reliable sources for criticism in BLPs. Essentially, they are primary sources. If a reliable independent third-party source then reports on these opinions, that could be used. Yworo (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Do you mean like the three book references he just reverted out? And op-eds are fine to use if attributed TFD is wrong mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about the op-eds. Yworo (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No i`m not Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author mark nutley (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that page doesn't apply to BLPs, or rather addition restrictions on sources are specified at WP:BLP. It requires that editorial pieces be under the full editorial control of the publisher, which they frequently are not. It's hard to establish whether they are or not, as certain writers are given fairly free rein in their commentaries and op-eds. Yworo (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in general we never use a source that permits user comments on BLPs, as there is no way to predict what future comments might be made which might conceivable by libelous. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`m guessing you just made that last one up. Comments have no bearing on a source unless someone is trying to use them as a source. No idea were you got that from. The policy is clear and has been pointed out to you, they can be used if attributed. That`s all i got to say on the matter mark nutley (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the relevant discussion on the first issue: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_25#op-eds. End result: "OK, if Prof. Nableezy writes an op-ed, it's effectively a published (non-peer reviewed) paper, or a book. If some editor uses this opinion as a source in an article (with in-text attribution), it would be acceptable assuming the prof is an expert in the subject matter, per my above comments." Note that the opinion has to be sourced in another article. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread that. "Expert in the field" is the relevant qualification. Random opinions by newspaper columnists would be out, expert opinions from a person in a relevant field are ok. Yworo (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the op-ed sources, I'd call the one by Abraham H. Foxman in the Washington Post acceptable. Since the material was added by a sock of a banned user, I'd be very dubious about the book sources unless I'd verfied them myself. Yworo (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Decided to move this here - more of a tangent discussion) You'd asked if I read the discussions and, as you'd probably guessed, not really. I skimmed them briefly, as Libertarianism and Chavez are both on my watch list for various reasons. I've been skimming them for a while, but haven't dove in too deep. In the areas where you get involved in a dispute, you tend to really stick to your views, no matter what. You aren't always able to convince others of your view, and when that happens you tend to dig in pretty hard. Sometimes, even if you're right, that backfires (see most of CC). It's not always the source, but how you use the source that's problematic. And that is a big chunk of why you ended up on the probation. You tend to push sources too far, using not enough source to say too much. I think the comment from The Four Dueces is pretty accurate both in the specific case and in general. I think you WANT the source to say something, and when you find something close, that's good enough for you! And everyone else bedamned! Ravensfire (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mark, you search for sources confirming your preconceived opinion. Instead of this you should look at a representative sample to form your opinion, or, if not your opinion, at least your Wikipedia contributions. As I said before: Unreliable sources are unreliable because they are frequently false or misleading. Using reliable sources and rejecting unreliable ones is not something we do just for the heck of it. We do it to improve the quality of the coverage, not the quality of the references. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i looked for sources based on what had been reverted out when i got to the article. I had no preconceived notions at all. I was told the sources (Boston Globe) were not good enough so went to find others which i did in spades. The only source which contradicted the quote btw was presented by TFD, you know the guy who demands peer reviewed sources? he pointed me to common dreams a left wing website. Thats it that is all he presented against the sources i provided which he said were fringe, give me a break here mark nutley (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"i looked for sources based on what had been reverted out", i.e. you tried to find source to be able to restore the statement. Yet you had "no preconceived notions at all"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what i said? Who has the preconceived notions here? I looked at what was reverted out, went to talk was told better sources were needed for that edit (was not mine btw) so looked for better sourcing like we are meant to do, that is not having a preconceived notion, that is abiding by policy mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]