On Mr. Hands
Actually, right before your edit, I had also added in the reference, but the exclusionists like User:Delicious_carbuncle as always want to keep the site "Family Friendly" and it was removed. --TIB (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Odd. At least there's a link now. —Kodiologist (t) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Luc(as) de Groot
- Nice, thanks! I spent a few minutes searching before leaving the template, but clearly, I wasn't persistent enough. —Kodiologist (t) 13:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Your inclusion of the journalist's name in the Mark Taibbi article is a blp violation. It's clear that the exile article on the incident was not a reliable source, but rather an attempt to shame the journalist. The Vanity Fair article mentions the horse sperm but clearly did not verify it - how could they? This is right after VF described the exile folks as "children, louts, misogynists, madmen, pigs, hypocrites, anarchists, fascists, racists, and fiends." VF also say that they went too far, with taibbi agreeing. VF also describes MT as "a full time heroin addict" and describes an attack by MT on the VF writer. In short the VT article gives no validation to the "facts" reported - quite the opposite. So how can we repeat the exile's victimization of the journalist without violating WP:BLP. Please leave that nonsense out of Wikipedia, or I'll take it to BLPN. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that we do not require a reliable source to have done some kind of extra verification, only that it be a reliable source, which I think Vanity Fair is. Please create a BLPN entry so we can get some outside comments. —Kodiologist (t) 15:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's not that I'm trying to require that VF do extra verification, it is that VF does *not verify* the claim - rather they cast considerable doubt upon it. Your citing them is essentially cherry-picking. BLP does not allow cherry-picking. I'll remind you the WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:
- is unsourced or poorly sourced
- is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)
- relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below), or,
- relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."
and that the 3-revert rule does not apply.