User talk:MrMonroe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits in Andrew Bolt

Hi. Please remember to cite your sources, especially in controversial topics. Andjam 13:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Amdjam, I'm not sure which controversial topics you refer to. The things I've added tonight are all sourced, pretty well. I've deleted a few comments that did lack sources, so it all looks fine to me. Can you be specific? Thanks.MrMonroe 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, MrMonroe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from talk page

I've moved this from the article talk page because it seems ridiculous having the same conversation in two places. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversry

To user: Sarah Ewart: It is insufficient explanation to delete this entire -- and significant -- addition to Robson's entry, along with later edits, on the grounds that it has "long incited quotes and claims, unencyclopedic links". You have reinstated unncessary swearing quotes which are certainly "unencyclopedic".MrMonroe 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can identify potentially defamatory information, then remove that specifically. All material in my edits is fully sourced as per Wiki policy. You are repeatedly removing other, innocuous material that contributes to her biography and is not at all defamatory; in its place you are reinstating needless obscenities and unsourced claims about a perception that she is a diva.MrMonroe 05:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Cite your sources per WP:BLP and there will be no issue. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
All claims are sourced with publications and dates. Which specific parts do you feel require further sourcing?MrMonroe 05:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Naomi Robson

If you want to add all that potentially defamatory information to the Naomi Robson article, you are going to have reference it adequately per policy: WP:BLP. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can identify potentially defamatory information, then remove that specifically. All material in my edits is fully sourced as per Wiki policy. You are repeatedly removing other, innocuous material that contributes to her biography and is not at all defamatory; in its place you are reinstating needless obscenities and unsourced claims about a perception that she is a diva.MrMonroe 05:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are NOT sourced. You do not cite specific sources for quotes or claims. Please read the policy. The onus is on you to provide sources. The version I've reverted to is not my prefered version, it's merely maintaining the status quo. If you want your edits to remain, you're going to have to go and look up some sources. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I clearly state the sources, naming the publications and dates. Please be specific. What sources are you looking for? MrMonroe 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Links, specific article information which can be verified. Saying some article in The Australian on whatever date is not good enough. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki style on "Citing sources/example style" does not require this. The Australian, unlike The Age and SMH, does not leave its stories online, so this is clearly impossible, impractical and unhelpful. The examples in Wiki's style on sources gives the specific example of citing newspaper articles as I have done.MrMonroe 05:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
BLP is official policy which over-rides guidelines. In addition, despite what you claim, at least some sources are still available online and I know this because I just did quick Google and Google News searches. I would also suggest that this is precisely what Andjam is asking for above. You have to comply with WP:BLP. You really need to read it, WP:V and WP:RS before making any edits to biographies. I'm not objecting to your edits, I'm objecting to your lack of specific and adequate referencing. If you provide some direct and specific references, I won't revert you. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have provided online sources as far as this is possible, in line with WP:BLP and also trimmed the Meade article to remove the most contentious material.MrMonroe 06:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Hi. I think you might be getting confused between the general meaning of the word "source" (where something comes from) and the more specific meaning used here at Wikipedia and in journalism (what authority we have to say something). For instance, neither Andrew Bolt nor Alexander Downer decided that the Hezbollah claims (that Israeli jets fired two missiles at the red cross on top of two ambulances) because an anonymous website operator in America said so. Instead they read http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/ and were persuaded by the evidence on that web page. So zombietime is the "source" of that information in the general meaning, but not in the meaning used in journalism — which is also the meaning that Wikipedia readers will expect in an article about a journalist.

So to say that "[t]he source of both claims was subsequently revealed as a report at the web site zombietime.com" is quite wrong. The Age article doesn't make that mistake: it says that Downer "appears to have drawn his conclusions" from zombietime's report.

If you are going to edit articles about controversial Australians, you need to read WP:BLP very carefully. Your edits to Andrew Bolt have, IMO, violated WP:BLP repeatedly. For instance, that bit about Crikey saying Bolt echoing Ackerman is way out of bounds. (Also, the quote from Kevin Rudd is completely irrelevant to Bolt.) I've undone your reversion.

We don't expect new users to understand everything instantly, but this policy is one that you should get a firm grasp on before you do much more editing.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, Chris. I infer from your snide closing comment that you, by contrast, do "know everything". But I don't agree with you.
1. If both Bolt and Downer drew their information, and subsequent conclusions, from Zombietime, then that was their source. In journalism, a source is generally a person who provides information to a journalist, or a document from which a journalist draws their information. The source for the statements by both Bolt and Downer was, on evidence, (and as concluded by media reporting on the saga) Zombietime. The claims reflect Zombietime's statements and Bolt used pictures published on Zombietime.
2. You have inserted the words "as revealed on Zombietime". Zombietime's assertion is a claim and nothing more. Neither you nor I nor any other Wiki reader (apart, perhaps from certain Israeli soldiers if they exist) know whether the claim about the missiles hitting the ambulance is correct or not. "As revealed on" implies a statement of irrefutable fact, which of course it is not, and cannot be. This statement expresses a point of view, rather than being a verifiable fact, as required by Wikipedia. Your strident comments ("Zombietime was not, repeat not, in any way shape or form a "source".") in your edit summary suggests a passionate political agenda rather than a measured desire to provide accurate and impartial information.
3. By deleting the Rudd statement, you remove the link between Bolt and Downer, which makes that section meaningless. I added Rudd's comment because he, publicly, was drawing a connection between Bolt and Downer.
4. You removed the section heading "Bolt's sources". This section heading is relevant to the observations higher in the Bolt entry about criticism of his "rarely substantiated" claims and "highly questionable" evidence.
You may wish to revisit your edits. Thanks! MrMonroe 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I offended you, I certainly did not mean to. My closing comment was not intended to be snide. I saw that you'd only been editing for a few weeks. I've been editing here for a year, and there are huge amounts of stuff about Wikipedia that I don't understand (including some of the fine details of WP:BLP and WP:V). See WP:BITE, one of the keys to Wikipedia's success.
The source for Bolt and Downer was not the person who runs zombietown. His/her credibility comes from the argument he/she made, which was based on primary sources (photos and reports from newspapers etc).
Suppose a business journalist gets an anonymous email which quotes documents released by a certain company and points out that those quotes show that the company is preparing to take over a specific rival. The business journalist checks out the quotes, finds that they're accurate, checks that argument, decides that the anonymous emailer is right, and writes an article. Was the emailer the journalist's source? No, the documents from the company were the sources. Did the journalist rely on the emailer's integrity, insight etc? No, he/she relied on his/her own ability to examine primary source documents and draw conclusions from them ... as did Downer and Bolt.
To claim that a journalist relied purely on the say-so of some anonymous person with a website is an attack on their professional credibility, and Wikipedia must not do so unless citing a verifiable, reliable source.
OTOH, you're right about Zombietime "revealing" the hoax. I'll change it to "argued" or something.
My "strident" tone reflects not my politics but my desire to conform to Wikipedia's rules.
Actually, we do know whether the ambulances were hit by missiles. They weren't. The smallest missile the Israelis have would have blown one of those vehicles apart (literally); that's why the Hezbollah people changed their story to (among others) small arms fire[1].
My version still links Bolt to Downer on the ambulance hoax issue. (BTW, it's strange that the only hit from Googling for "Andrew Bolt or Zombietime" was a polemic by an IT journalist].)
Linking that incident to the Marr/Mayne statements would be a violation of WP:OR, yet another important policy. In fact, WP:BLP says we should either get citations for the Marr & Mayne statements or remove them.
Sorry that my comments here are so long. It takes me less time and effort to write at length than to be succint, but I know it's harder on my readers.
Best wishes, CWC(talk) 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not convincing, Chris. To return to my points:
1. Bolt himself names the Zombietime website (or blog, as he calls it) as a source. Repeatedly through the column he repeats its arguments, quotes the news stories it quotes and refers to "evidence" in the photos it uses. Zombietime is his primary source, as it clearly was Downer's. Whatever further comments or conclusions he makes does not change this. Bolt, it should be noted, did not see the ambulance himself; he is relying on the "evidence" of the photos at Zombietime.
2. Your strident tone does not reflect your "desire to conform to Wikipedia's rules". When your edit summary contains the line "note that Hezbollah keep changing their lies", it strongly suggests a partisan approach. Again, we do not know there was no missile attack. The evidence may be strong to back your obviously passionately-held belief, but it is not proof.
3. You miss the point on the Bolt-Downer connection. Kevin Rudd made an allegation in a public forum that linked Bolt's views and sources with those of Downer. This is very relevant to an article on Bolt's journalism and its reception in Australia.
4. I agree that the claim in the Bolt entry that Mayne, Marr etc allege Bolt makes unsubstantiated claims and cites highly questionable evidence needs citation or should be removed. To suggest that including the ambulance saga under a heading that reads "Bolt's sources" is original research is nonsense.
You have obviously made your mind up on the ambulance claims, and good on you. Me? I'm fascinated by the whole debate, but I don't know. But please don't let your opinion colour your edits on Wikipedia. MrMonroe 01:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Robson on YouTube

I viewed the clip. It's just a collection of bloopers, with a blatant advertising message at the end giving information on how to purchase the entire collection. Wikipedia policy would consider that spam. Besides, I also saw a number of other Robson clips at YouTube whilst I was there. Where do we draw the line? If we add that link, do we add them all? -- Longhair 03:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the so-called bloopers reel. No, I don't think all the YouTube Naomi clips are worth including. The vast majority are entertaining but irrelevant, but her grovelling apology is worth keeping as part of the record. I assumed you were suggesting a YouTube link per se is unencyclopedic; some may be the perfect proof/citation/source for a statement about an individual. MrMonroe 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
We've gotten our wires crossed here. Just minutes before your message to my talk page arrived, I removed a link to the bloopers video. I have no objection to including an apology video (which I haven't yet seen sorry). Feel free to add a link to the apology video - I won't remove it. -- Longhair 02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings, not enforced yet

[edit] 3RR

You've violated WP:3RR. Perhaps you were not aware of the policy?

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Andrew Bolt. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

I have not reported you for your fourth edit. I will report any subsequent violations, so please don't do that.

[edit] BLP

Those reverts added unreferenced negative information about two living persons. I strongly advise you to read WP:BLP carefully, because I see no evidence that you understand it and stark proof that you misunderstood at least one part of it. (Why not see if you can come up with a better 10-words-or-less summary than my 7-word attempt?)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Andrew Bolt. Thank you.

[edit] NPA

You have also repeatedly called me a liar.

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.
Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Andrew Bolt. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

I invite you to apologise.

I was relieved to see that you have read at least part of at least one of my comments. I was beginning to think that you were refusing to read them. Now, could we please see some evidence that you have understood my comments? Your own comments constitute a strong prima facie case that you are trolling me; please prove otherwise.

I'll also write a response to your recent comments at Talk:Andrew Bolt.

(BTW, wikipedia policy allows you to delete this comment from your talk page immediately after you've read it.)(Not quite true; see below.)

Sincerely, CWC(talk) 05:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong about it being OK to delete my preceding comment from this page. It is quite OK to delete normal messages, but "removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon" (quoting WP:Vandalism; you're not a vandal but that applies to all kinds of warnings).
Nevertheless, if you wish to remove this whole section from your talk page once you've read it, please do so. I will not 'frown' upon such a removal; in fact, I will defend it if anyone criticises you for it. I apologise for this additional confusion. Best wishes, CWC(talk) 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/r/m/User_talk%7EMrMonroe_666a.html"