User talk:Hcobb/Archives/2011/October
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hcobb. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
October 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:Rick Perry, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which sources were improper? Hcobb (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The source in question is a blog, not a reliable source. Since removing that, I've also removed a murder claim, supported by a single article. Biographies of living persons are not a place to casually make strong claims on weak sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- The source is a NEWSPAPER. See: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion.
- The source in question is a blog, not a reliable source. Since removing that, I've also removed a murder claim, supported by a single article. Biographies of living persons are not a place to casually make strong claims on weak sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." Hcobb (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gee, as a "new editor" (I've only been here 5 years), why did you stop your quote there? You know, the next bit, "There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. seems pretty important. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- It ain't "self-published", it's a fnording NEWSPAPER. (Only Murdoc's "news" outlets would qualify as "self-published".) Hcobb (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck is a fnording NEWSPAPER? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- If I can be forgiven for chiming in with a third-party comment: On one hand, the material is sourced to an anti-Perry blog, which is not an appropriate source. If this story was actually formally published in a newspaper, that would be relevant information. But the other aspect of this is that we are dealing with a talk page here. The threshold for removing information -- in this case a mere link -- from a talk page is considerably higher than for the article itself, and doing so should be avoided, because it is impossible to even discuss whether material is appropriate if any mention of it is instantly removed from the talk page. In my view, the answer to the question Hcobb asked is "No, unless a better source is provided", but it was not appropriate to remove Hcobb's query from the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck is a fnording NEWSPAPER? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- It ain't "self-published", it's a fnording NEWSPAPER. (Only Murdoc's "news" outlets would qualify as "self-published".) Hcobb (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Todd Ackermanm is anti-Perry? See http://blog.chron.com/medblog/2009/08/most-texas-doctors-dont-follow-cancer-vaccine-advice/ He's the Chron's medical expert and not a hack. Hcobb (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most Wikipedia editors are not in a good position to judge the credentials of a particular writer -- it is more reliable to judge the credentials of a source. In this case the source is a blog that accumulates stories from a variety of sources -- some are newspaper stories, others appear not to be. Longstanding Wikipedia policy is that blogs should not be cited as sources for derogatory information in articles about living people. The fact that the blog is associated with a reputable newspaper does not change that -- even at reputable newspapers, blog posting do not receive the same degree of fact-checking as regular published stories do. Looie496 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If you can point to an error Mr. Ackermanm has made then point it out. Not to me, send it in to the paper and get him fired. If you don't, then why should you have a problem with the facts? Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- @Hcobb: Actually, its not the fact we are denying, its the silly way of you cherrypicking them to suit your interest on a variety of Wikipedia article pages that has us up in arms about you so many freakin' time, which I've told you repeatedly before, use some common sense (and a bit of competency while you are at it!) please! And if you're not sure, ASK! (See → WP:Questions~!) FWIW, you get into more trouble with other editors and banging your heads on walls that way than an ant might find herself stranded at the fingertip of an adult human being. Best and out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 08:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
If you have refs that are not blogs, use them. Don't use the blog. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fnord is your problem with the official blogs of newspapers and magazines? If you do not like the policies of this wikistan, feel free to go start your own. Hcobb (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The policies of Wikipedia (dropping the snarkiness and trying some etiquette would behoove you) state that blogs are frowned upon, and even from official newspapers only sometimes acceptable. You had the sources that are not blogs. Furthermore, please try to have some civility in your talk page behavior. Thinly veiled profanity is well outside the bounds of civility. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
So why didn't you zap Cox's other blog ref in the same fnording article? (Which I think I added some time ago also.) Hcobb (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot find an editor to that article within the last 500 edits, or going more than seven months, with that name. Thus, I do not even know what addition you are speaking of. Again, please obey Wikipedia's civility policies and stop using stand-ins for offensive language. In the spirit of communication, it is no different than using the offensive language, you are still communicating with hostility rather than civility. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)