User talk:Mecanismo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there. It seems that you wish to contact me. Feel free to do so but please sign your message and leave a small link to your talk page. Cheers! --Mecanismo | Talk 15:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Aboriginal Deaths in custody 2 Something else ;-) 3 Nice class 4 List of Nine Inch Nails covers 5 Jonathan Williams Page Deletion 6 14K triad?? 7 Be careful of WP:BLP

[edit] Aboriginal Deaths in custody

Hi Mecanismo

You marked the article I've written on Aboriginal deaths in custody as being in need of a clean-up. What do you feel needs cleaning up?

Cheers, Ray

Rayd8 05:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - no it wasn't copied from anywhere else - I wrote that myself after researching it! But I'll try to clean up as you suggest - I'd appreciate any further suggestions on style etc.

Is there a quick way to insert a link to one's talk page rather than having to type it out?

Cheers, Ray Rayd8 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something else ;-)

Why do you try to quell the spirits of those of us who appreciate important band articles?--Lopalope 19:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice class

Hi, I just wondered if you had a cite for nice class, I've never heard the term before. Ibroadfo 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there

I don't have a cite for the "nice class" concept. To be frank, the only place where I saw people reffering to that concept (and also the "very nice class" concept) was in a couple of C++-related Usenet groups, where the concept is usually used as a general guideline for class creation.

On the other hand, my only interest in object-oriented programming is purely recreational (it's a small hobby) and therefore I feel that I'm not in a position to make big academic statements on this subject.

So thanks to your message I realized that not only the references to the subject are scarse but also that it isn't widelly used. Therefore I believe that this article may be entitled to a "original research" label.

If you decide to mark the article for deletion it will be fine by me and I will not object.

Hope this helps --Mecanismo | Talk 19:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi

First off, I don't want the article deleted: I lean towards the 'leave-it-be' tendency.

Second, I think the concept has merit: it feels related to fowler's advice about classes having lots of small methods etc. My query was just that. :)

cheers,

Ibroadfo 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nine Inch Nails covers

On the List of Nine Inch Nails covers AfD discussion, you voted, "Merge relevant information, delete article." However, each article on individual songs already contains a list of groups who have covered that song (see Head Like a Hole, Closer To God, etc.). Since the relevant information is readily available in other articles, would you consider changing your vote to just delete? - Rynne 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Williams Page Deletion

Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Williams_%28pastor%29_%282nd_nomination%29 you said delete last time hopefully this time we can make it stick.

[edit] 14K triad??

I don't get it. What exactly have you done? The article looks the same as when I made it...

Nicknackrussian 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be careful of WP:BLP

Your recent addition to the talk page of Disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been removed as per WP:BLP. While your questions may be legitimate, your edit included several unsourced allegations. These must always be removed when dealing with living people. If you can find a way of raising your issues without making the allegations, or you can source them acceptably, they can be discussed. Thanks. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am correct. From the policy:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply to its removal. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.

These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Please bear this in mind. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry is correct, SqueakBox 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-English sources are not acceptable. I don't believe the sources that you have added are acceptable either, under the very strict provisions of WP:BLP. They merely repeat rumour and hearsay from original sources that are not necessarily reliable. They are also highly qualified, and are not actually making the allegations you claim. But I have already reverted you three times, so I will leave it to others to say how they feel. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Harry is referring to in the preceding, but if a non-English source is a reliable source as described by WP:RS it is as acceptable as an English source. It is just a little harder for the rest of us to evaluate it. Please do not state as facts allegations of parental violence toward children or of sedative administration when your sources call them "unsubstantiated suggestions" and "speculative fragments," when the attribution is "sources say." Some sources say they are anonymous and illegal leaks from the Portuguese police. If there is an indictment, then the article can say "the indictment said thus and such" again not assuming it is a fact. There seems to be a lot of spin being done at this point, and Wikipedia needs more definitive sourcing when people are accused of killing someone. Time often has a way of making these content disputes moot, by someone being tried. But in the meantime Wikipedia should not be a site for "trial in the press" by anonymous spin doctors. Wait for a prosecutor or police spokesman to make a statement. Sometimes the accused makes a statement denying the accusations, and that is attributable and usable, thereby bringing in the accusation. Wikipedia is not after a prize for quick reporting of harmful or derogatory information. To the contrary, our policy WP:BLP says "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." Edison 19:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually non-Engluish sources are fine as we are writing about verifiabkle knowledge not verifiable knowledge in English, this is unquestionably the case but any sources does need to be reliable whether in portuguese or English. I'll check on any sources you add tot he talk page in abit, I cant speak Portuguese but I have no problems reading it, SqueakBox 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was referring to the difficulty of evaluating non-English sources in terms of WP:BLP issues, not that they are generally unacceptable. The English sources did not support the allegations being made, and I have no idea whether the Portuguese source does, or whether it is in fact a reliable source. That's why I left it to others to determone whether the section should be removed, as has in fact been done. Harry was a white dog with black spots 10:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

THe reason why things like the sightings are added is because they present no issues under libel laws. Speculation about living people is an entirely different matter, and repeating claims without proof about drink and drugs relating to living people are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Unless the people involved admit to the behaviour, or there are charges and/or convictions, the allegations should not be repeated. I trust this is clear enough for you, and that you will stop adding these allegations to Wikipedia unless and until they can be shown to be true, not just speculation. Thank you. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not "censoring", I am abiding by WP:BLP and yu should too. Anyone can say somebody said something. It is called "hearsay" and not admssible as eveidence. Until the parents either admit these things or there is concrete evidence and there are formal allegations, or they are convicted, you cannot make these claims. It really is as simple as that. Please stop. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)