User talk:Jeremystalked

This is my talk page. When starting new topics, don't forget to create a new section.

Sources

If you continue to delete sources from articles I will block this account to stop the disruption. Will Beback talk 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is skeptictank.org an acceptable source or convenience link? Take a look at that site and tell me what you think.Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 22:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already discussed this issue on this talk page. If there is a link in a citation that you object to then delete the link, not the entire citation. Just because the link for a Time magazine article goes to skeptictank doesn't mean that Time is no longer a reliable source. Will Beback talk 22:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if I am unable to verify that the cited Time magazine article even exists, or if I'm unable to verify that it supports the claims made in the Wikipedia entry?Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 22:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What steps have you taken to verify these sources? Will Beback talk 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for online references to the alleged articles from reliable sources, or looking for copies of the alleged articles at the source's web site. What additional steps would you recommend?Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in future when removing sources should I state how I attempted to verify the source, for each individual removal? Just trying to get clarification here.Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going to the library, placing requests at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, and using the article talk pages to ask for input or help from other editors are all steps that you can take to try to verify the citations. And yes, you should describe at least briefly, your verification efforts if you finally delete a citation. Something like "Failed verification, no trace of this publication of Worldcat or through Google". Note also that there is a template that you can use as an intermediate step before deleting a citation: template:Failed verification. Will Beback talk 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF & The Anome

WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia policy. I've noticed that you seem to be singling out user:The Anome, and making inappropriate comments about him.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Please stop doing that. There is also an appearance of you may be following his editing.[8] See WP:HARASS. Will Beback talk 09:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I appear to be "singling out" The Anome is because he's "singling out" my field of interest (discrediting individuals by way of false diagnoses of mental illness). So in the course of my research, I have been repeatedly finding that articles I'm interested in have been edited by him to smear me by association. But Wikipedia doesn't have a policy handy for smears by association, so The Anome is allowed to run wild and is protected by Wikipedia's anonymity policy. I can't comment on the intersection of his edits and mine except to point out his "interests" happen to overlap mine, with him taking one side, and me taking the other.Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 18:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the cause, please stop talking about him and imputing bad motives to him. If you have complaints about his editing then raise those directly in a proper forum. Article talk pages and edit summaries are not the appropriate places. Editors do get blocked or topic banned for repeated failures to assume good faith. The simplest solution is to follow the Golden Rule by treating him the same way that you'd want to be treated. Another rule on article talk pages is to comment on the edit, but not the editor. Will Beback talk 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say an editor has repeatedly edited pages about an entire class of people - blacks, just as an example - to include references which mention criminal activity, low IQ test scores, sexual promiscuity, and so on - and let's also say that he added a couple of articles which support a POV that the explanation for any such observed behaviors or outcomes is the most unflattering one possible - and suppose a person who happened to be a member of that class of people objected to the edits, it would be Wikipedia's policy to attack the member of that class who found the edits objectionable, even threatening to ban him because he wasn't "assuming good faith"? Just getting some more clarification here.Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 23:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]