Jump to content

User talk:Nssdfdsfds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lobster blogster (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 7 March 2007 (rv same section twice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

moo


Hello Nssdfdsfds! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Speedy deletion nomination of Neil Woodford

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Neil Woodford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mytildebang 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously don't see eye to eye on the edits for the Center for Consumer Freedom page. I have created a discussion topic (topic no. 26 on the Center for Consumer Freedom talk page) to address my concern with the recent edits to the article. Arthurberkhardt 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users

I got your note and left a warning on Arthurberkhardt's page. -Will Beback · † · 10:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have no affiliation with terryfilene22. Administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP address to be absolutely sure of this. A lot of people find the Center for Consumer Freedom to be a controversial group (particularly animal rights people), so it's not surprising that people would feel strongly about these edits. Arthurberkhardt 02:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AfD

1. AfD is not a "vote". It is a discussion. 2. Calling people spammers serves no purpose other than to bite the newbies. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third revert

I'm counting. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is one supposed to cite a personal letter from the BBC

Please discuss before you revert an article again which contains information people want to know. Goatchurch 16:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's published by the BBC you can't. There's no way of verifying whether it actually did come from the BBC. It just can't go in the article. There's plenty in blogs that people 'want to know', but doesn't mean it should go in wikipedia. Nssdfdsfds 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton

See [1]. There is more rambling but Jzg was pretty much a lone voice arguing for its removal. The version of the article that was settled on and sat happily for 2 months is here - [2], the location of the blog is given. Catchpole 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistalking

You have nominated an article of mine for deletion, and are systematically reverting my edits. This is wikistalking and is seriously objectionable. Desist immediately. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you learned? You've just been banned for persistent insults of me, and instead of coming back to work productively, you're now coming out with ridiculous allegations of wikistalking? This kind of behaviour is unproductive and antagonistic. I make no apologies for watching the interrelated articles on Anne Milton, Paul Staines, Tim Ireland, etc., as these are subjects of interest to any UK political blog watcher, and I think you're flattering yourself if you think my AFD of some days ago was motivated by your involvement: I have nominated half-a-dozen or more articles for deletion recently. I'm not going to back off from removing your POV from articles because of your threats. Nssdfdsfds 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to make more informative articles by adding relevant content which is perfectly well-sourced. You are systematically reverting and instead of arguing based on the merits of the situation, you make a baseless allegation of POV. For what it's worth I am on record as saying I don't believe the accusation against Paul Staines, dislike Tim Ireland, and have no personal feelings over Anne Milton. To top it all you then flaunt irrelevant previous bans. Whether I was insulting you or not does not mean that you were correct in what you were doing. Now argue the merits of the issue and don't revert war. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. I have argued the merits of the issues. I responded on Talk. Your 'source' appear to be the attack blog of Tim Ireland, someone who apparently deluged 18 Doughty Street with emails, and has left dozens of repetitive comments on Mr Staines' blog. This is not a reliable source. Regardless of what you're saying here, you've linked to Ireland's vituperative attacks on two different pages. You have also edited Mr Ireland's page to remove the clear truth that his targets have been right-wing. I am not sure why. We obviously have different opinions on these matters. I have made mine clear. Telling me not to revert war is advice you should follow yourself, as these things take two. Nssdfdsfds 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well and you've just made a questionable allegation against Tim Ireland. Whatever he may have done, though, is irrelevant. The issue is whether it's reasonable to source an email sent by Paul Staines to Tim Ireland to its publication on Tim Ireland's weblog: the answer can only be "yes". Paul Staines is not disputing it. If your objection to my copyedit on Tim Ireland was that it didn't include "right-wing", why did you not just add that rather than reverting entirely? And are you forgetting Tim Ireland's attacks on Tony Blair? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, questionable allegations? Mr Ireland has said that "Manic learned during his extended probing of Staines' comments that often all you have to do is keep plugging away until enough people see your pre-deletion comments for 'Guido' to think that there are perhaps too many witnesses to brush the matter under the carpet. " [3] He also made multiple responses (as Guido 2.0) to a post from a blogger commenting on his deluge of emails to 18 Doughty Street. The emails weren't disputed. [4] Commenting on this in a talk page is very different from commenting on that which most definitely *is* libellous, as shown by the multiple takedowns on these blogs.
Tim Ireland's blog is not a reliable source for any article other than Tim Ireland. That is very clear. I reject your initial thesis, that this stuff should be reported at all, and moreover reject that Ireland, who has the rather stalkerish ID of "Guido 2.0", and operates a dedicated attack blog is a reliable source, nor indeed that blogs in general are reliable sources for anything other than the blogger themselves. Re the attacks on Blair, these are rather different in kind from creating "Iain Dale is a liar" buttons and pursuing ongoing long-winded vendettas against Staines, Dale and Milton. They are already addressed separately in the article via the Backing Blair article. They should not be grouped together. The blog attack targets are right-wing figures. Fact. Nssdfdsfds 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reverse order: You haven't answered the question. If you thought it should be stated that Tim Ireland criticisms are targeted at right-wingers, why did you not simply add that, rather than reverting? Yes, the attacks on Blair are different: they are much more extreme. There's a fundamental difference between demanding someone apologise and that they resign, and between calling someone a liar, and calling them a murderer. Then, as a very great admirer of chutzpah, I may say I like the way you observe that a blog is not a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of its blogger, while simultaneously sourcing a controversial assertion to a random blogger's observation of what he saw over someone's shoulder. I still do not see the relevance, though, of your opinions of Tim Ireland's modus operandi. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there was no other content change in your edit. There was nothing lost in my revert, yes you moved some words around, but I didn't see that your rearrangement edit was a particular improvement to care either way. Secondly, the attacks on Blair are fundamentally different, and should not be grouped together. It was a serious attack. This involves alter egos called "Manic", "Guido 2.0", and petty squabbles. My sourcing the random blogger's observation is irrelevant - I could quite happily remove the allegations from my talk pages, because there's plenty else to prove my point, namely that Ireland has pursued a deeply dedicated vendetta against Staines, and that blogs are not a WP:RS. I don't care about whether or not he sends lots of emails or not. It matters not. I am not asking for it to be included in an article and sourcing it to a blog. You are. The difference is clear. I am happy for you to remove the link to a blog from this page, and then you can remove it from the Paul Staines article. Fair? Nssdfdsfds 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in a straw man argument. I'm not taking issue with your views here of Tim Ireland (not endorsing them either). I'm disputing your (third) revert which uses the emotive and pejorative word "attack" rather than the neutral and descriptive word "criticism". In relation to Paul Staines, the general principle applying is that if the subject of an article is notable, then reasonable criticism is notable and should be reported. The fact that Staines flaunts his defiance of the libel laws but then attempts to use them is notable. The fact that he has been criticised for hypocrisy for so doing is notable. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reverse order: Mr Staines has in fact removed many libellous claims from his site following legal threats, as a few months reading his site would show (or even a google search). As you have argued yourself, in removing it from the article on him, his claims of not being subject to libel by being based in Nevis are wrong. The criticism of him, entirely by bloggers, is not something we can discuss as it is without reliable sourcing and has no place in the article. I don't think that criticism blog is a word in common currency, and does not correctly characterise the blog. A criticism blog would be one such as Biased BBC [5]. There is a clear difference in tenor between that and Mr. Ireland's blogs. Blogs inviting people to download "Iain Dale is a liar" buttons and mocking the format of their subject are attack blogs. I am not sure why you are trying to incorrectly characterise it as merely "critical". Nssdfdsfds 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the easy stages. 1) You accept that criticism can be acceptable if sourced. 2) You accept that blogs are sources for what is said on the blog. 3) Paul Staines has been criticised on some blogs. 4) It is reasonable to mention that criticism and source it to the blogs making it. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making it easy for me to repudiate your claims. 1) Yes, to a reliable source. (2) No, I didn't say that. I said "Tim Ireland's blog is not a reliable source for any article other than Tim Ireland. " Blogs are not a reliable source for information on anyone other than their own author. I think this fact is blindingly obvious (3) We don't report this, not a WP:RS. (4) Fails because of 2 and 3. Nssdfdsfds 17:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're agreed on 1. On 2, whatever you may have said, the interpretation is the same: Blogs are sources for what is contained on the blog. On 3, your response is nonsense. It is manifestly a correct observation about what is said on some blogs. On 4 you deliberately don't engage with the argument. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milton

Be aware of the WP:3RR rule, you did 4 reverts in 24 hour which is a breach of the rules. Catchpole 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that you can count this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&diff=108428760&oldid=108335528, which you are counting as the first revert as one of four reverts with this edit, made 23 hours 48 minutes later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_Milton&diff=108823860&oldid=108691083
see [6]. Catchpole 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring my response explaining that the first revert was not the same. Please don't engage in this time-wasting any more. Nssdfdsfds 18:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Read the policy: "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted." Catchpole 19:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I'm sorry if that was the case. There were so many edits between the first and the fourth, 23 hours 48 minutes later that I didn't even notice the first one. I'm not sure that 3RR is intended for people turning up forty hours after the first edit to use as a stick with which to beat the other user.Nssdfdsfds 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just to let you know, you should avoid reverting Paul Staines any further or risk breaching the three revert rule. Clearly the dispute resolution process is more appropriate now. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to get involved any further myself. Cheers, DWaterson 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"exceptions to the rule include:"
"Reverting clear copyright violations or clearly libellous material;" So if it's libellous I'll remove it. Nssdfdsfds 20:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which material is libellous?--Lobster blogster 03:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Betfred

A good day to you...I've restored the article, but I still think that it doesn't establish the notability of the subject. As the only links provided are the pages of the subject of the article, it isn't verified either. Also, it is not compulsory to inform others about a speedy deletion, as you dont own an article. I shall watch the article. Regards. Lectonar 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's *compulsory*, but if we are all trying to produce better articles, then informing people is better than just deleting their work, especially when they have plenty of edits to other articles and are obviously not spammers. In this case I see now it was actually listed by somebody else, and so I'd have been better directing this at them, so I guess you were following up, but I didn't notice this speedy deletion listing since it wasn't added till it was three days old by this time and already edited by somebody else, and I wasn't watching it, and it's unfortunately not possible to see who actually tagged it after the page had been deleted. Incidentally there is actually one link to a third party, not the subject of the article, and I think the notability of a billion pound company with >600 outlets is obvious. Nssdfdsfds 14:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet vandal

I can't stop you referring to me as a "blocked sockpuppet vandal" but clearly it is a tautology. Trying to find something constructive to say about Staines, I have now located quoted material on the Altered State book for instance, and this could be used to give "balance" to Staines' biography. --Lobster blogster 08:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nssdfdsfds&oldid=113273790"