User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 12

external links

With this edit you returned a blog to the External links section. Blogs are generally links to avoid, is there a reason that this should be included? -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nope. That happened because of an edit conflict. I've taken it out. Sorry about that. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK

Alright, Ground Zero, & thanks, I was not previously aware of these guidelines. I'd try to be more careful the next time. Regards: --Bugnot (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking

OK, Ground Zero, I'll keep that in mind. But please take care that well-referenced information is not deleted. Unreferenced material may be deleted as per discretion. Thanks. --Bugnot (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well-referenced material may be deleted if:

1. it is not well-referenced, e.g., it is referenced only through blogs and other invalid sources;
2. it is not directly relevant to the subject of the article, and
3. if it is trivial -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is referenced, it does not necessarily belong in Wikipedia. I could reference the weather on the day Roman Abramovich was born (from Wunderground) for example, but it would not be worthy of inclusion. Ground Zero | t 02:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoration

Dear Ground Zero: I've seen that some of the the referenced info has been restored by you, though some of it's still missing and much betterment can be done. I will update the article soon too, and I wonder if full or semi-protection for this article would be helpful. Anyway, thank you for your help and really appreciable work. Best regards. --Bugnot (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

References

You can not call sources like "The Times", "The Observer" and "The Sun" creditable sources.

As such the section on Roman Ambranovich which claims he made his money illegally through "Black Market" transactions can not support your claim that it is well support and referenced.

The claims made in that paragraph are false, unproven and libeous and should be removed - hence the reason why people keep removing them

Your objections is not based on valid reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.101.76 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your view that The Times and The Observer are not credible sources is a fringe view. Of course they are. The Sun, of course, is not. Ground Zero | t 14:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am from the UK as well and feel certain that that vast majority of people would agree with him all of them are poor references for Encylopedias. In fact I challenge you to find one single reference in any published Encylopedia that relies on one of those sources as its primary supporting source. I am certain you will not be able to find even one reference and the reason is obvious, they are not credible sources, TruthWay (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

WP:SOURCES says (emphasis added):

Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by, magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Wikipedia does accepot newspapers as a valid source, although other sources are clearly preferred. Wikipedia does not reject mainstream newspapers as a credible source. Ground Zero | t 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the part I put in Bold. All of those sources are widely known for having a reputation exactly the oppposite and the mutlitude of court cases against them every single year supports that reputation.

Since when did Wiki start supporting tabaliod/newspaper editorals as the main source of reference? If it has began to do that then it is no longer an encyclopedia at all. I believe you are mistaken in this matter and I have never seen anything in Wiki to suggest otherwise.

If all it takes for a soucre to be credible is put "Author so an so" afterward and throw it in a drama-rag then there is little point in citing references at all.

Sky and The BBC are mainstream UK news sources and are the source every single British person respects, rewrites or paraphrases of their work in daily papers is a legit source. Personal opinion columns and "editorals" from Sensationalist newspapers such as the "The Sun", "The Observer" are not now and never will be valid sources for reference. That is the point that was made to you are you arguing against it for seemingly no reason since you yourself agreed in the talk page in question

I challenged you to name one reference from a respected Encyclopedia and I stand by it. Just one. Until you can do that there is little point in further discussion

TruthWay (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just quoting Wikipedia policy, which is what Wikipedia goes by. If you don't agree with it, you can lobby to have it changed. The fact is that Wikipedia is not like other encyclopaedias. It does, for better or for worse, report on much more current events than other encyclopaedias that take years to prepare and publish. I don't have a problem with Sky and the BBC, but lumping the Observer and the Sun together isn't realistic. There is an ocean between them. The references used in the Abramovich article are form news stories, not editorials as you claim. There is a big difference between the two.

"All of those sources are widely known for having a reputation exactly the oppposite". Really? Do you have evidence to suppor this claim, or should I just accept your say-so? Other editors here do not seem to share your dim view of the Times, Guardian and Observer.

Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Read what I said and then reply. I clearly said quoting Wiki's guidelines and then not applying them is useless, that is exactly what you are doing. The guidelines do not need to be changed, the admins need to enforce them

You point about the sources is circle logic I could ask you to prove there are reputable. You of course could not nor could I, however if you live in the society then it is easy to understand what people respect and what they do not. It is obvious have not respect for those sources in the UK. Yes people enjoying reading them and sometimes get useful information from them but they do not respsect them. I mentioned one obvious clue to that - the amount of court cases they face each year. If you compare that to Sky or the BBC it is not close and yet both the two later sources publish far more and to a wider audience.

The Sun and The Observer are exactly the same kind of publication, with almost identical content and possibly even the same owner. Murdoch I belive. You are right about one thing though - there is a difference between a newstory and an editorial and you need to learn what it is to be an admin here successfully. You clearly do not know now. Excuse the fact that is a personal attack but you did provoke a response there and in the fairness of debate it needed to be pointed out.

Definition of an editorial : "an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors." As I already told you, when the author stops citing sources or using evidence for his statements then his statements become opinions. In both those sources the author had absolutely no supporting evidence or and does not mention any kind of evidence which means that we have to assume it was his opinion. Once that becomes the only option the article becomes an Editorial by definition.

Definition of News or News Story : Plural of New Things, translated to Tidings. Modernized to "information about recent and important events;" A news story can for a fact be an editorial and as explained above the difference is important when reviewing Encyclopedia articles, as Editorials are never acceptable as main sources.

So you are qualified to determine what other editors think? And are you even considering this discussion in context? Or is it that you are just arguing for the sake of it?

I again challenge you to find just one, one little reference. You had days and still nothing? And are you still not asking yourself why? The guidelines for Wiki and other Encyclopedia's are fact very similiar. The quick changes and current topics are irrelevant to sources. A source is either solid for a main source or not. Absolutely nothing happens that should end up in Wiki without a valid, solid and respected source and those papers are not it. For supporting evidence they can be fine but other than that not a chance. If Wiki's editors/admins are willing to accept them then Wiki will continue to have the bad reputation it already suffers from and it will be deserved TruthWay (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply not convinced by your interpretation of WP:SOURCES, by your arguments about what is and what isn't a newspaper article, or by your representation of common views of the quality daily newspapers in the UK. I understand that you have very strongly-held beliefs, and I do not think that I could possibly convince you. I do not think that further discussion on these points is going to be anything but frustrating for you and for me. I actually do not want to argue with you.

I plan to clean up the article as I have mentioned by removing all of the "fact"-tagged statements tomorrow. It will then be easier to review the article from the start, and to have discussions on the article talk page about issues like acceptable sources. I think we will need the views of other editors to resolve these issues. Ground Zero | t 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true that is my opinion about the UK news sources and in that I could of course be wrong. The rest is not opinion, the way I list what is a news source and what is editoral is fact. I even listed you definitions directly from the dictionary.

As far as the article goes, I have given up. Me and just about everyone posting in that talk page, except Bugnot, said the exact same thing. Our comments were simply ignored, so go ahead edit however you think works, you are the one making all the decisions on it anyway you it obvious you do not care what the majority think is right nor do you care about the quality and neutrality of the page. What is worse is you have been able to find three "admins" that will agree with you. Wiki if fundamentally flawed when that happens.

And you are right the conversation has ran on far too long TruthWay (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for proving the fact I was right in the Roman Abramovich article at least someone is on my side xDAlexnia (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Right?

He and you are anything but right. You both should be reviewing your actions and he should be ashamed

There should never be sides on Wiki but you have summed that up correctly, he took your side simply because you are an admin - that is obvious, and he is wrong to do so

You two should both be looking to correct your actions not giving each other warm and fuzzies, and when you are done correcting your actions you should be looking into doing something about the article in question

I assume you are both grown so I leave you to your own conscience and actions..

TruthWay (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

As you are new to Wikipedia, I won't address these personal attacks. I have left a standard welcome message on your talk page. this has linked to many useful resources that will help you learn about how to be a Wikipedia editor. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not new to Wiki, in fact I was probably editing the site before you, but because of poor admin responses to incidents like the one mentioned I left. I felt compelled by your personal attacks to make a new account after a long absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthWay (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you have decided to register. This makes discussion much easier for all involved.

I am not clear though: you imply above that you are the anon editor whose edits I reverted, while elsewhere you claim to be a different person. Not that this matters.

More importantly, I am confused by the stridency of your respoinse and your accusations of personal attacks and insults. I called your views "interesting and unique" and "unusual". I do not think that these go beyond the bounds or ordinary discourse on Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 17:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you now trying to imply something to discredit me also? I never claimed to be the poster in question and let me clear it up for you - I'm not. My "stridency" is born of your responses, I really wanted to have my say and be done with it, but if you insist

You called the other persons views "Unique, Interesting and Unusual" and that most defintely was an attack on him/her. You were very clearly implying that they are odd and their view were not inline with the norm. Do you deny it? Do you not see that as an attack? From my perspective you were clearly attempting to discredit that person in order to re-enforce your point and encourage others to discount them. That persons views are valid and it is not your place to provide opinionated insults against them. Those comments go "far beyond the bounds or ordinary discourse on Wikipedia" no matter how polite you want to word your refuttal. They got the posters attention didn't they? The poster commented on them didn't he/she?

TruthWay (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I accept at face value your statement that you and the anon editor are not the same person.

With respect to your belief that "interesting", "unique" and "uusual" are insults, I disagree with you. Ground Zero | t 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you accept it? Why did you even imply it? I can think of no other reason other than the one I stated.

Semantics, you know exactly what I am saying and will not admit your fault. The words themselves are not insults no more than the individual words stupid, you, are - but when ordered correctly with the right intent they are insulting. The words above, were in fact worded with intent. It is blantantly obvious. It appears to me you spend a lot of time working up this sort of debate and I am clearly not motivated or practiced enough to continue with you. You can either admit and accept your actions or deny them, but you can not change them and I have little doubt others will see it the same way I have.

TruthWay (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote was: "I am not clear though: you imply above that you are the anon editor whose edits I reverted, while elsewhere you claim to be a different person. Not that this matters." I was stating that I was unclear. I was not implying anything. You have incorrectly inferred something. You have now cleared the matter up, i.e., that you and the anon editror are different people. Ground Zero | t 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ouch seems like someone took my note too seriously sorry Ground Zero Alexnia (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Abramovich

Apologies for the late reply. I've reviewed the Abramovich article talk page, and can see nothing problematic about your stance. Broadsheets like the Times, Observer etc are indeed regarded as reliable sources, since they are fact-checked, and the information in the article meets WP:ATT. I'd also agree that the Sun, as a tabloid, is perhaps less reliable... although still useful, particularly if its stories are mirrored in other newspapers. Our standard is "verifiability, not truth" (from WP:V) - if something has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, it generally meets our inclusion criteria. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, as long as we write in a neutral way, source information, and observe the strictures of WP:BIO. I think the only time we run into problems is when undue weight is given to controversy and an article becomes an attack piece, but I see no evidence of this on the article in question. In your position, I would have taken the same view.

Hope this helps ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Baytona,_Newfoundland_and_Labrador

Hi. As you did a tiny bit of work on this article back in 2007 and I've only recently come across it I was hoping you'd review it some. The reason being that the one reference provided in the article appears to be a student's school report (which may or may not be based on the information from "The Community Council of Baytona"). IAlthough, I can find some evidence of it's existence I'm having real trouble proving that the place ever had a different name. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Piping

Hey, while I appreciate 75% of your piping (on my articles it's chiefly RCMP and CSIS, it seems awkward that you say "Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP}" when no later mention of the acronym is even used. Could we agree to just pipe to [[Royal Canadian Mounted Police|RCMP]] since readers of the articles should be assumed to know the acronym, just like we often use "USA", or refer to "an FBI investigation..." rather than "a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation..." Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

SAVE POK ARTICLE

please save POK article from deletion Pakistan occupied Kashmir article has been posted for deletion..i have made the following appeal there:

• do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as "azad k ONLY" or "northern areas ONLY" as pok also includes trans karakoram tract, gilgit and baltistan (from 1947 till now)...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like "trans-Karakoram tract" or "Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETEKashmircloud (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

if you can improve this article or if you believe that the article can be improved by removing the edit ban(say, exampple: semiprotect) and if you also concur that pok not equal to ajk, please help in saving this article from deleters with nationalistic (pakistani)/ religious(islamist?) motives for POK article removal(example: User:paharisahib is pakistani)..please save the POKarticle...Kashmircloud (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This user is canvassing and has been warned 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Federal elections tables

Thanks for pointing out the bug in Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel - it is corrected. Actually, solution was to use "Union Populaire" instead of "BQ" as the party parameter. However, there's a distracting italic from the Union Populaire template chain, so will try to fix that when time permits. Template:Canadian politics/party colours is a handy reference list of party colours and parameters, but needs a bit of expansion. Dl2000 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Did a run through all the U.P. candidates - one or two more ridings corrected, but the party of the Union Populaire candidates should now be correctly identified in all riding articles, based on this listing (following the various riding naming twists along the way): [1]. Dl2000 (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• On a seperate note, I noticed that you took only the "big four" candidates in Sudbury and in Nickel Belt, and in some order of incumbency/preference. I decided to add the missing names and alphabetize the names, as per Elections Canada standard. -- Zblewski|talk  14:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)(Note: Just 2008).

Ellastone article

Since you are the last previous person on the history page for Ellastone, just a quick courtesy note to say I have done some extensive editing. The main thing, apart from some additions, is to revise the overall layout to what I think is more in line with Wikipedia preferences by generating a Contents table. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ellastone

Thanks for the tidy-up. I put in the date links because I thought, from information 6 months ago, that date linking was a preferred Wiki practice. I have not done much on Wiki over the summer, so I guess things have changed, and I have not picked that up.

I will, however, restore the link to the Ramsor article, because this relates to the Ramshorn in the text. Ramsor is the standard Methodist spelling, following the pronunciation. (And some time I need to work out how to get the Wiki link working if someone types in Ramshorn for the article. Except for Methodist history, and the mention of Ramshorn in the Domesday Book, I am not aware of any significance to the place that is relevant here. The fact that some of my ancestors were from there is not something to add to a Wikipedia article - it just gives me a specific interest leading to a certain body of knowledge. So I may add a photo of some of the earliest ORPE family grave stones near the door of Ellastone Church, but only as an illustration of the antiquity, and also of the re-use of the burial plot since the graves have far too many stones for the usual number of people.) Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I deleted only the second link to Ramsor -- it is linked in the section just above. Regards, Ground Zero | t 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Babylon the Great financial meltdown

Ground Zero,

This is just a friendly advisory since you involved yourself in the discussion and decimation of my autobiography in Wikipedia. I concede it had to be cleaned up. Seeking help. it was I who brought it to attention of the few experienced administrators for their advice, suggestions and contributions to make it better and encyclopedic. To say I am unhappy and disappointed with the result would be an understatement.

Finding my biography in Wikipedia two years after it was online, was a great and joyous surprise for me as it would be for you or anyone else. It is in fact my first foray into the Public Domain in 11 years, since my last attempt at elective office. Everything I have contributed to this site, all the discussions with all the Administrators, is self published material in a public forum.

The mainline media, CNN in particular, is portraying the current economic crisis in Apocalyptic terms and totally unexpected. The record bares witness that on July 3, I made this statement in your talk page:

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.................

This is precisely what the current financial crisis is all about. Your talk page on July 3rd is an historical record and marker in time, whether you recognise it as such or not.

The role of Administrator in Wikipedia is both a prestigeous honour and great responsibility. It is to the Administrators, aspiring editors and contributors look for guidance. Read this, read that, is the constant demand placed on them. Accepting each one acts in good faith to do the best he or she can to help, I can only imagine that after a while, words could become a blur unless the Administrator had an intense personal interest in the subject and gave it some serious thought.

Not many basic members have involved themselves in the discussions I´ve had with the 4 or 5 Administrators. Perhaps the help I need is not direct involvement in building the article, but recommendations of basic members Administrators have noticed with talent in developing a BLP or skills in researching links.

In the meantime, my appeal here is still going out.

User_talk:Jade_Knight#You_saw_it_here_first

Peace Ray

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Ritz

Could you please have a look at Gerry Ritz? I've twice removed recent additions that seem biased and promotional to me and been reverted. I'd appreciate a third opinion. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it was POV, but I think the way to avoid the edit war is to keep the content and remove the POV, rather than removing the POV. I hope that the version I've done works for both of you. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks GZ. I agree but I didn't have any sources or personal knowledge to re-write it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Will Sohn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Will Sohn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Sohn. Thank you. JakeZ (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Big error in early Canadian political history

Hi, I have been reading through the Parliamentary Companion 1873 to 1875 editions, looking for information to bring the Temporary North-West council up to date. I have noticed a lot of information, on a Reform Party that does not seem to exist in Wikipedia or the Parliament website for that matter.

For the most part it seems to be whats recognized as the Liberals For example the Companion entry for Cyril Archibald MP for Stormont lists him as being a strong Reformer and supporter of the current Reform government.[2]

This other page from the 1875 compainion is interesting, because it lists a couple Liberal associations separate from the Reform associations. Example Liberal Association of South Essex and above it West Elgin Reform Association [3]

I just wanted to see what you think of this --Cloveious (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Reform Party did not exist until 1986. It became the Canadian Alliance who merged with the Progressive Conservative Party to become just the Conservative Party. They now have their 2nd minority government. Hope this helps. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)