User talk:Noosphere/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 .

I'm sure you and I have a similar view of the SCV, based on your comments on the SCV talk page. I'm going to try to rewrite the article today (or at least a portion of it) in such a way that it will seem acceptable to everyone involved in the conflict at the moment. Obviously, the article must contain criticism of the SCV. However, we're not going to do anything but piss off the pro-SCV people if we cite everything to the Nation, TNR, and SPLC. I welcome your comments on talk if you don't like anything I do. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against using other sources. What I am against is deleting The Nation or SPLC sources, no matter who gets pissed off. They're both valid, reliable sources, and fully admittable under Wikipedia policy. -- noosphere 16:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree; those are valid sources. I rewrote portions of the article and reorganized some of the material already there. I hope to find a comprehensive, non-partisan source, however, as it would be extremely difficult to criticize anything referenced to that source. So, yeah, while I agree that TNR or the SPLC are acceptable sources per Wikipedia policy, they're open to criticism because they are partisan, so I usually find it's better to use inassailable sources if we can. I think we have the same goal here. · j e r s y k o talk · 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any such thing as a non-partisan source. However, there are more mainstream sources, such as the NYT and WP that are much less likely to be challenged on Wikipedia, so we should use those whenever possible. -- noosphere 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because it didn't appear to meet any of the requirements criteria listed in

It seems to meet criteria 4, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article". -- noosphere 00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until you read the rest of that criteria. There aren't any copyright criteria that would prevent inclusion of the topic in the article itself. The criteria is also to sites, not articles. --Bobblehead 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that the Washington Post article must be included in the Wikipedia article itself. It just says, "ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article". So, if you want to integrate it in to the main article, be my guest. But don't delete it just because it could be integrated but isn't. And again, I see nothing in the rest of the criteria that would prohibit the inclsion of the article, and it meets one of the criteria for inclusion. There's nothing that says that all or even more than one of the criteria must be met. -- noosphere 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading pleasure, the newest

Hi - thought I'd drop you a note, to perhaps help avert an edit war or a lot of wasted motion: but the consensus seems pretty clear (three different editors have reverted your posting on the George Allen page) that this incident belongs in the campaign article. It's being discussed on the talk page there; you might want to join in. In general, incidents that purely campaign-related, such as controversies over the accuracy of ads, are best covered in some detail on the campaign article and with a sentence or two (if major) or no mention at all (if minor) in the campaign section of the bio article. John Broughton | Talk 13:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated my views on the talk page and in my edit summary. -- noosphere 05:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your reading pleasure, the newest

Hi, noosphere. I noticed that you've had some contact with User:Fix Bayonets! in the past at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. I recently started a user conduct Rfc regarding Fix Bayonets! conduct at Sons of Confederate Veterans and elsewhere, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. I would appreciate any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger) deals with a user you've had some contact with, as mentioned in the RFC. Comments would be welcome. ←Hob 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbcom elections. i almost forgot. thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]