User talk:PaulinSaudi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful.

I am now resident in Saudi Arabia again.

Lynching victims in Maryland[edit]

Hi Paul, It seems we share an interest in writing about the victims of lynchings in Maryland. I've written most of the articles in Category:Lynching_deaths_in_Maryland and plan to write articles about all of the victims listed in the Maryland State Archives project. I could use some help - join me?

BTW, be careful about the accuracy of the write-ups at the MSA site. I've found errors - specifically James Allen - not lynched, but legally executed. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Allen_(murder_victim). I've been careful to use secondary sources for sure. The Dissident Aggressor 03:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

References in "List of law enforcement agencies" articles[edit]

Do you have an axe to grind with law enforcement? This diff is entirely inappropriate. Clearly coatracking.--v/r - TP 06:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Examples: List of law enforcement agencies in Virginia, List of law enforcement agencies in Rhode Island, List of law enforcement agencies in Kansas, List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio.

It is a cite from a reputable newspaper. The reason for doing away with the "Official Website" cite is that it is improperly formed. It does not link the website in question because when I wrote it I did not know how. So now when I read the papers I make better cites. If you like, provide a cite more to your liking. I cannot help but think deleting cites is not productive. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Big ol negative on that. You're not just adding cites, your adding specifically negative ones. Indiscriminately adding links and negative information is a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Specifically Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. You apparently know how to link to other websites, linking to an official website is the same. You can use {{cite web}} or you can use {{official site}} in the reference tag. But having no link, or "removing content" is certainly better than violating our policy on neutral points of view. Please refrain from doing this in the future and, what you should do, is go back and correct your previous mistakes here.--v/r - TP 06:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am hurt you do not assume good faith. If you would like some other sort of cite, please feel free. (These are fairly minimal cites, "This police department exists.") Some of the news stories I run across cast the police department in a bad light; others do not. In any case, there is no rule that only happy news sources can be cited. Again, if you do not like my cites, please feel free to do better. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is a rule. I've already linked to it. You cannot slant an article in a entirely negative light if the overall subject is not negative. When you add a single negative source for a single subject like this, you've given that subject 100% negative coverage. That violates WP:NPOV. If you persist in this activity, I'll have to raise it at the neutral point of view noticeboard. At the very least, you need to stop what you're doing.--v/r - TP 07:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do raise it. I would welcome someone else commenting on my work. Please keep me informed. (I just looked at all the cites for several of these "List of Law Enforcement Agencies in..." pages and I am not seeing the negative slant you are seeing. This presumes I am the only one providing cites.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You just left a citation that represents the entire Woonsocket Police Department (Rhode Island) as "former-woonsocket-cop-charged-with-child-molestation" and you don't see how you've slanted the representation of that department?--v/r - TP 08:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Kindly pass it along to people who handle this sort of thing. Seems to me to be a valid indication the department exists. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

For what ever reason, you are abusing the reference concept in LIST articles. In list articles, the ONLY reference that should exist for items in the list is links to official websites. Instead you are turning list articles into a news article link dumping ground (aka LINKFARM) to further your agenda. • SbmeirowTalk • 15:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are failing to assume good faith. This is an important concept as we work together to make an encyclopedia. THis is the only agenda I have. Please give me some time to look at your links. I am unaware that some parts of the Wikipedia do not require cites. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I am back from reading your links, and I thank you for them. What choice do we have? If each item on the list does not have a cite, we have no way of keeping ourselves honest. Please advise me on how you think we ought to proceed. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A reference is used as a source for sentences that you added. In your case, you didn't added any text about the subject matter of the newspaper articles. Since these are LIST articles, then it's the wrong place for it, instead these types of links should ONLY be used in specific law enforcement articles. SUMMARY: In link articles, 1) if an "item" has a wiki article, then a reference shouldn't exist after the "item". 2) If an "item" doesn't have a wiki article, then a reference to official website(s) should be added. 3) list articles aren't the place to dump links to newspaper articles, instead they belong in the specific "item" article. 4) just because you have a newspaper link, doesn't mean that its subject matter is automatically notable enough to be discussed or drop in any wiki article. • SbmeirowTalk • 16:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Sbmeirow here. Even if this is not POV-pushing, this is not how you reference lists. utcursch | talk 20:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
To add, if your concern is providing references for verification, you can use a single link, instead of cluttering up the article with news links:
utcursch | talk 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Good Morning.

Thank you all for your comments. They represent a wide range of thought as to why my cites are not good. Frankly, I am not sure where to begin. Perhaps it would be good to review the comments to date.

“TP” points out that I have an axe to grind and that this is indicated by my citing news stories he objects to. He notes out that if I cite one negative headline, I ought to balance it with a second, positive one. He has proposed sending all this to something called the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, but it is unclear if he has done so.

“Sbmeirow” says that I may only cite official government sources. He goes on to point out that the name of a department need not be cited if it is not notable. Further he observes that only complete sentences require cites. That is to say that lists are the exception to the general rule that everything needs a cite. I hope I have condensed his comments correctly.

“Utcursch” has provided some useful official government sources that would satisfy Sbmeirow’s new requirement that we may only cite official government documents. I appreciate his links and will use them. Checking the links he provides against other sources would seem to be a good way to ensure those links are correct and complete.

Now my dear colleagues, how shall we proceed? I fear I must insist on maintaining the clarity, completeness and accuracy of lists by adding cites. Long lists will require many cites. (I must however get better at using one cite for multiple entries.)

Is there some impartial person or group we could ask for review and guidance? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Every person, in various ways, has asked you to either quit adding references to news articles and/or asked you to removed these same references, so it's pretty clear from consensus. • SbmeirowTalk • 04:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I'd suggest linking to official websites and/or use one single reference as I've done here. I do appreciate the efforts you (PaulinSaudi) are putting into referencing the lists, but a news link for every list item isn't the right way to do this. utcursch | talk 04:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, it is also the hard way to do it! I just did a couple of sheriff's offices in Mississippi. Making the official links was fast and easy (now that I know how). Take a look. On the other hand, In just the first half-dozen SOs in the state, at least two have no official web site. How can that be in this day and age? I propose to make more official links in the future. However this does not solve the problem of a list 100 departments having a list of 100 cites. Further, agencies with no web site will have to be cited some other way. Your thoughts? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Using links that refer to the living people are those departments in a derogatory way with no context and no balance is not an appropriate way to do it. It would be more appropriate to simply delete those than to source them poorly. Furthermore, WP:V only says that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." It doesn't require it to be verifiable easily. The fact that someone can find these police stations make them verifiable. They do not need to be sourced so well. What WP:V says on inline citations is this: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The fact that these police stations exist is not really that controversial and inline citations are really not necessary.--v/r - TP 07:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been doing this (adding cites to police lists) for some time. My earlier work is worse, my more recent work is better. I am afraid I cannot get on board with the idea that items on a list do not need cites. While it is true my work has added a number of minor police departments, I am most proud of the listed departments I deleted as there was no proof anywhere they existed. Again, requiring cites keeps us honest. unless there is a policy saying that only sentences must be cited, I think I will try to continue and improve my work. I think it is important. At least some states do not have any sort of list of all law enforcement agencies. These lists here are unique and should be of the highest quality. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Monex Precious Metals[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Monex Precious Metals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond a single LA Times article on their misdeeds.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)