User talk:Idlewild101/worksheet

Dear Mr. Connelly,

I'm sorry that you had to get involved in such a nasty business as this, but I guess that we're all just doing our little bit according to our best lights. I'm afraid I don't understand why you consider the current Wikipedia:BLPN#Michael_Wines discussion on this matter to be irrelevant, and that the 3RR BLP exception does not apply. Please note that User:Richard Cooke brought the matter up to BLPN, not me, in relation to the Michael Wines article. The first 2 BLPN contributors then said that the material should not be in the Michael Wines article, and that only a minimal mention in the eXile article would be permisable. User:Will Beback added that a fairly minimal one sentence summary might be acceptable.

The only other people to comment are Cooke and user:dsol who has an ownership problem with the eXile [1] and related articles.

Please also note that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia who are both editing the eXile article are almost certainly sockpuppets, based upon their common attack style of writing, their common articles, and edits such as [2]. Russavia seems to be claiming something else about 3rr on your pages.

Please also note that the eXile's editorial policy, as quoted by The Independent: "We shit on everybody equally." [3] and that it was a tabloid in all senses, but is now defunct. The reason that I do not engage in discussion with these people is that from experience, I've found that they simply do not discuss matters in good faith.

This shouldn't distract us from the basic question: How is the following

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. In each issue, they paired up the previous week's survivors, who were then compared and analysed. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. Jonathan Shainin of Salon.com confirmed the incident, after seeing photographs of the attack."

consistent with basic Wikipedia policy?

Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity "Basic human dignity Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Whereas, the version I've proposed based on discussions at the current WP:BLPN discussion is not considered acceptable?

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had pie flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. "

I'd personally leave out Wine's name, but in line with Will Bebacks more lient approach I've left it in.

I'll ask that you consider this basic question and edit based upon your consideration.

I know that this might take some time to check out everything, but I'd certainly appreciate it.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

Idlewild101 (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)