User talk:JohnDoe0007/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WP:RSOPINION and William Connolley

Hi there. I noticed your edit here. First off, if you aren't aware of the policy already, I would like to let you know about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions. Second (though related of course), I would like you to explain how your above edit is acceptable as per our standards on the use of opinion pieces as a source in biographies of living persons. Best, NW (Talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how the sanctions apply to me or my edit. As for how my edit is acceptable, I don't see how it is unacceptable, as it states basic, undisputed facts. Is there something incorrect about what is stated? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The first paragraph of WP:RSOPINION states "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers" (emphasis mine). Also, you are citing The Wikipedia Signpost of all things as a source here.

Unless you explain to me why I am entirely misreading the situation, I am going to proceed under the conclusion that your edits are entirely unacceptable and that you do not properly understand the purpose behind WP:BLP (which is enforceable through special sanctions). Until you demonstrate that you do understand the policy, I am going to ask that you refrain from editing that article. NW (Talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In context my edits do comply with precisely what you quoted there. The article in question states: "Connolley received national press attention over several years for his involvement in editing Wikipedia articles relating to climate change." My edits expound on this and give an explanation of what some of this attention entailed. In context, it is obvious the information I added is from those sources cited, as my addition begins with "He was cited as...", illustrating that we are still talking about the "press attention" the subject received. This is exactly the kind of "inline qualifier" WP:RSOPINION is talking about. If you would prefer I add a more explicit statement such as the one given as an example there, I would be happy to do that. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at William Connolley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Specifically, the Wikipedia Signpost is not an acceptable source for negative material about a living person. Using it as such violates WP:BLP, and edit-warring to reinsert a BLP violation aggravates the problem. You may want to discuss the other opinion pieces at Talk:William Connolley, as a substitute for edit-warring to try to force them into articles. I'll presume you're already aware of the three-revert rule, but if not, please read the page in question as you're on the verge of violating that policy as well. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello MastCell. I reference you to the above conversation, as well as WP:CIRCULAR, which states: "Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources."

If you follow the link provided there, it leads to WP:PSTS, which in turn states "when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy." That policy states: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." [emphasis added]

As you can see, there are three different nationally-recognized secondary sources included along with the Wikipedia Signpost link. So in this case, the Wikipedia Signpost is being used as a primary source to augment the secondary sources, per WP policy.

I ask you the same question I asked above: Is there something incorrect about what is stated? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

When we deal with living people, we have an obligation to be not only technically "correct", but also fair. That's the essence of WP:BLP, but I suspect you already know that and are simply trying to re-frame the discussion.

The Wikipedia Signpost is not an acceptable source for contentious material about living people. There is no six-degrees-of-policy, wikilawyering way around that. It doesn't really do you any credit to try to connect the letter of various policies to circumvent their meanings.

As for the opinion pieces, their inclusion is a matter for discussion on the talk page. As the talk page and its archives will attest, a number of editors have raised a number of concerns about them over a number of months or even years. If you disagree with the results of those previous discussions, you can try to facilitate a new and different consensus on the inclusion of this material, but that needs to happen on the talk page - not by rapid-fire edit-warring, which is only going to get you (rightfully) blocked. This essay contains useful advice on the subject. MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "wikilawyering" or "six-degrees-of-policy". If a stated policy includes caveats that directly reference other policies, why are those caveats not relevant? Why are those further policy details not to be referenced? Are you suggesting that those cited policies are to be simply ignored? If that is the case, I ask you why they are explicitly mentioned and linked to in the WP policy in the first place. It sounds as though you're suggesting that stated Wikipedia Policy isn't really "policy" at all, but rather "recommendation" or just random content for informational purposes, and that when one policy states "[X] should follow the relevant policy for [Y]", [Y] policy isn't really important, and clicking the link and referencing what is stated there is "wikilawyering". I don't see how this could possibly be the case.

Is there some policy guideline that states the information in policies that are directly referenced and linked in other policies is to be ignored? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If WP:BLP means anything, it means that contentious material about living people should be carefully and scrupulously sourced—to independent, reliable sources with a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking, not to random Wikipedia pages, and ideally not to partisan opinion pieces either.

Wikilawyering means, among other things, twisting the letter of policy into contradiction with its spirit. You're making a contrived, legalistic argument which ignores the actual meaning of policy.

All of this applies to using the Signpost as a source; it's clearly not appropriate for contentious material about a living person. You didn't respond to my other concerns, about edit-warring, ignoring previous consensus, and shunning the talk page with regard to the opinion pieces. Is there some reason you're choosing to try to force this material into the article without any discussion on the talkpage? MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Better source request for File:The-Independent-Institute-Logo.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:The-Independent-Institute-Logo.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The-Independent-Institute-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:The-Independent-Institute-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4