User talk:KazakhPol: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Beren== |
==Beren== |
||
I added the info based on the only source already cited, since there was more information there that was not included. --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
I added the info based on the only source already cited, since there was more information there that was not included. --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
||
Thank you for the welcome and the extremely helpful links! So far I'm mostly into proofreading; I only add information when it's easy to find like in this case or when I actually have a clue about the topic! --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:18, 14 April 2007
What is KazakhPol up to? What are the critics saying?
As of this posting I have made 17, 279 edits to the English Wikipedia, 7497 of which I made with this account. KazakhPol 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi
In response to your note on my talk page - I doubt they would try to block you for pursuing an Arbitration case, and you shouldn't have any trouble getting unblocked if there isn't some sort of justification for the block. That said, I'd suggest discussing the matter with them or pursuing a request for comment first. The arbitration committee generally rejects cases unless there have been extensive efforts to resolve the dispute previously. On the BLP issue, the prohibition against unsourced info actually does extend to talk pages, but it seems clear that is in the sense that you can't say 'It has been proven that this kid is alive' on the talk page any more than you can in the article unless you've got reliable sources to back it up. I agree that extending it to suppress statements of personal opinion is a stretch. If they actually were concerned that the statements were BLP violations (that is, instances where Wikipedia, rather than you personally, was claiming something unsubstantiated) the proper course would be to remove them. That being said, the statements they are objecting to were deliberately inflammatory and that's a bad thing. When you call the kid and his mother fakes or the other user keeps comparing a source on the page to different holocaust deniers you know that these are things which the 'other side' is going to find intensely distasteful. It's deliberate provocation and you shouldn't be doing it... any more than Jayjg should be pulling that snide nonsense about being too horrified to believe you are a native english speaker. Nobody comes out of it looking particularly good. State your case, cite your sources, and just stay away from the nastiness. There is no need for it. You can do everything you need to do here without calling the kid and his mother fakes. Doing that serves no purpose except to annoy other people - and any time you find yourself doing that you're working against the goals of the project. --CBD 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Beren
I added the info based on the only source already cited, since there was more information there that was not included. --otherlleft 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome and the extremely helpful links! So far I'm mostly into proofreading; I only add information when it's easy to find like in this case or when I actually have a clue about the topic! --otherlleft 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)