This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bucketsofg(talk | contribs) at 13:38, 8 March 2006(check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' = 'Mark Bourrie'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:38, 8 March 2006 by Bucketsofg(talk | contribs)(check user confirms 'Isotelus' = 'Ceraurus' = 'Mark Bourrie')
Hi, Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Anyone who reverts an article more than 3 times in 24 hours is subject to a one day ban. You have reverted Rachel Marsden three times in one day so far, please don't do it a fourth time. Homey04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. (I am assuming that you and Isotelus are the same; if that is so, the 3RR covers you both.) Bucketsofg22:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Bourrie replies:
I put a very thorough reasoning of my edits in the "discussion" section. I, unlike you, also signed my name. It is easy to do anonymous postings that are obviously targetted at someone's professional and personal reputation, using the thinnest of sources (one article in a conservative fringe magazine, some stories from the Sun tabloid chain, an unreferenced Frank magazine, and two blogs) when you do not have the courage to sign your name. In Canada, where, I suspect you people are from, none of these sources would hold up in a libel trial. Libel laws exist for a reason: to protect the reputation of all people from anonymous smears.
(signed by Mark Bourrie)
Hi Mark. I googled your user name and found that, if you really are Mark Bourrie, you certainly have some recent experience with libel, so I'm sure you know that in order for libel to be proved you have to show that the information was false. I have already asked you to provide supporting links in the discussion page. Could you do so? Thanks! Wiederaufbau19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the writer must show the information is true. The plaintiff can walk into court, say nothing, and make the author prove the allegation. It's the same in Britain, Canada and the US. Most of my Master's research was on this stuff, and I know I'm on firm ground. I think everything's covered in my version of Marsden. I don't believe there's direct libel in the old version, but if she sued in Quebec, for instance, she's win. Even truth, when it's a collection of damning facts used to support innuendo, is no defence in libel. For instance, the stuff about Marsden's father is true, but it's a stretch to say she's a "public person" and then toss her dad in. Woody Harrelson's dad's in jail for murder. Would anyone argue there's a "pattern" there?
I don't have a great stake in the Marsden stuff. I just had it pointed out to me by a student who used it to slag Wikipedia's integrity. Wikipedia is more yours than mine, so do what you like.
In my recent case (I am what I am, to quote the Great Man), I'm not worried because the Kinsella-Guite stuff is so well documented. He's indulging in libel chill.
If you want to know if I am me, leave a message on my blog and I'll send you a PM.
Hi Mark. As User:Pasboudin has already pointed out in the discussion page, the writers have shown that their information is true with links. Have any of the sources used in the links retracted their statements? Otherwise, please do not blank sourced content without providing proof that sources are false. Thanks. Wiederaufbau17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is sourced with a link does not necessarily make it true. Many "truths" can be strung together to form innuendo. I find the stuff about Marsden's father to be utterly loathsome, and I'd fail you if you were one of my students and included that. You ignore the points I make, then go running back to the line that "links" are "proof". Links to blogs and one article do not form a proof. You obviously are unfamiliar with what is accepted as "proof" in academia and in law. Wikipedia suffers from this kind of "scholarship".
3RR applies regardless of article quality. My 3 reverts were actually reverts of changes made to my work... ermm yes, thats usually the way. But you have miscounted them William M. Connolley10:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
carleton
Conrad Black did not take journalism and he did in fact graduate with a B.A. in History.
Please check your facts in the future.
About your page
Hello, Mark. Wikipedia has policies about writing one's own page (Wikipedia:Autobiography). If you would like further details about issues put in, please pass it through the talk page if you could. This isn't an accusation that you've done anything wrong, just the policy. Thanks.Habsfannova23:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Signing your posts
On talk: pages, including article and user talk pages, could you sign your comments with four tildes? ~~~~ automatically stamps your username, linked, and the date and time, and it can even - how much time have you got? :) - be customized a bit, as described on Wikipedia:Signature. It the way every experienced Wikipedian does it, and it makes everything a lot easier to follow. Thanks! Samaritan21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
