User talk:Harry the Dirty Dog/Archive 1(counter)d

Clayderman
I think you are interpreting the biographies of living persons policy too broadly. I do not interpret what was on talk:Richard Clayderman as defamation - just very strongly held opinions that could have been expressed more civilly. The discussions on the page were related to the article, if only tangentially; the page needed to be refactored, not blanked up to an arbitrary cut-off point. Graham 87 09:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of my refactoring? I have removed all opinionated messages and added a message about my actions to the end of the page for transparency. Part of the problem was that some people had added their opinions to unrelated threads of the talk page. Graham 87 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My concern about your username
Hello, Harry was a white dog with black spots, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:
 * If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
 * If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
 * You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. — N96 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC) 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the photo on my userpage. It is a reference to the books Harry the Dirty Dog! It is the opening line from the book. Harry was a white dog with black spots 17:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Username OK
Hello, Harry was a white dog with black spots. While there had been some discussion here about whether your username met Wikipedia policy on what usernames editors can use, the result was to allow it, and that discussion has now been closed. If you would like to see what concerns were raised, you can still find that discussion in the page history&#32;(was a white dog with black spots here). You do not need to change your username. Thank you. -- -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC) -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
With respect to your message on my talk page, I have to say that I take issue with a couple of your remarks. I don't have an agenda, and I don't think my sources are particularly 'tenuous', or that Alex Thomson is a 'minor' journalist, as you put it, certainly not within the context of others cited on the article concerned. Furthermore, I do not agree with your assertion that the parents of Madeleine McCann have actually acknowledged their 'mistake'. To point this out may seem harsh to you, but it is a point upon which most observers of this case seem to agree. Snowbunni 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To suggest that I have 'no business editing this page' simply because I disagree with your position is frankly preposterous. I have indeed read the referenced articles you mention, the same articles from which you have chosen to quote so selectively. Gerry McCann's response to the question of whether he felt guilty was as follows; "Whether we were in the bedroom next door we would still feel as guilty." He said the restaurant had a direct line of sight to the apartment and was "not dissimilar to having dinner in your garden". And he insisted their half-hourly checks on the children were just as "rigorous" as any official babysitting service.

Leaving three small children in an unlocked appartment is not akin to leaving them in a bedroom next door. The restaurant did not have a direct line of sight to the appartment, as he claimed, and the supposed half-hourly checks were by no means rigorous.

Having said that, I'm happy enough to let this one go. No doubt the full facts will emerge eventually. I have merely attempted to give a more rounded perspective to the case, as it seems more complicated than the McCann's would like us to believe. Snowbunni 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi Harry, how do you feel about the 'compromise' scrolling refs that have been added? If you are comfortable with the format I shall add it to the 'Response' article for consistency. TerriersFan 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Harry was a white dog with black spots 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial aviation category
Hi, just noticed your edits to Skytrax. Just wanted to inform you that the category is up for deletion and is empty (apart from Skytrax). Cheers. → AA (talk) — 09:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling reference lists
These are about to be outlawed in the policy discussions so I think that we may as well admit defeat and change them ourselves - do you agree? TerriersFan 04:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Might as well. Harry was a white dog with black spots 06:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maddy
Hey, someone has attempted to help by adding a huge list of chronology - not good. Thought you'd probably want to do something about it as all the info in the list is already in the prose. The Rambling Man 10:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. TerriersFan 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
If you went to bed at a sensible time last night you will have missed all the excitement here. TerriersFan 00:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Name calling
User:Sparrowman980 is not a vandal. Please refrain from name-calling just because you disagree with him. I know from experiance that such name-calling will not get you anywhere. Thanks. - BillCJ 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine McCann
Hello. Why did you revert my edit? It is a defining relative clause & shouldn't have commas. Rothorpe 17:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I thought it might have been that. Rothorpe 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi, I'm out now until about 7 pm so I should be grateful if you could watch the detail, please> TerriersFan 10:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi... Virtually all the information that's come out over the last few days has been from McCann family friends or spokespeople, as the police are withholding comment, so unless you're planning to remove all of that as well, I'll ask you not to revert my contributions based on a misunderstanding of Verifiability and Reliable sources. The source in this case is Philomena McCann, Gerry McCann's sister, who told reporters:


 * "They are suggesting that Kate has in some way accidentally killed Madeleine, then kept her body, then got rid of it."

This is not speculation, it's a newspaper report quoting a source closely-connected to the case, who presumably got her information from the principals. The report that she said that is not speculation, it's fact. That fact is highly relevant to the case, and it appears in a respected newspaper with a reputation for scrupulous fact-checking. It satisifies Attribution, Verifiability and Reliable sources: there is no basis for removing it, nor have you cited a credible one.

Moreover, your reversion renders the section unintelligible, and so damages the article: the fact that police have focused attention on supposed blood evidence in a car not rented until 25 days after the girl's disappearance makes little sense unless coupled with the police theory that the evidence got there when the couple supposedly moved the body. --Rrburke(talk) 16:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's entirely untrue: people cannot "say anything they like": they can only include material attributable to a reliable, verifiable, published source. You appear confused about the threshold for inclusion: it's "verifiability, not truth."  The material doesn't have to be "true," and editors do not have to wait until "the truth is known [before] it can be added."  The fact of it having been reported in reliable source meets this threshold for inclusion, and calling the actual substance of the quote "speculation" is no basis for excluding it, provided it satisfies Attribution, Verifiability and Reliable sources -- which this amply does.  If it were a basis for exclusion, no quote from anybody could be included unless the truth of what they say could be conclusively proven.  Wikipedia doesn't work like that.


 * "What place does presumption have in an encyclopedia?"
 * It has the same place it has in a reliable newspaper with a high reputation for fact-checking. But if you'd prefer, I can quote Ms McCann directly.


 * As well, it appears you may be attempting to police the article. You may wish to take a moment to review Ownership of articles.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will. Cheers.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are confused if you think verifiable in this context mean anything except that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  That's all it means.  It doesn't mean that the facts have to be firmly proven, only that the fact they've been published in a reliable source.


 * I don't have to prove "that what's reported in the newspaper is true"; no contributor does. I have to prove that it's true that they reported it.  The standard is "verifiability, not truth": and that's not verifiability that the facts are proven, but verifiability that the material was published in a reliable source.


 * "What is verifiable is that the Aunt said this to the newspaper."
 * And this is precisely what Verifiability requires. --Rrburke(talk) 19:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But what the Aunt says is not. And because it is third hand it fails verifibility. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't mean to go on repeating myself, but I don't know how to put this any more clearly: "verifiable," as it's used on Wikipedia, doesn't refer to being able to verify the facts; it refers only to being able to verify the prior publication of the material being added. Readers must be able to verify that the material has previously been published, not that the facts are accurate.  In this instance, it means readers must be able to go to the source and verify that Ms McCann actually said what she's quoted as saying.  It absolutely does not mean that the truth of what Ms McCann says has to be verified before it can be included.  It has never meant that, as a quick look at Verifiability will confirm.  When editors on Wikipedia say that something fails verifiability, they mean, in contrast to the way you used the phrase above, only that a verifiable source for the prior publication of the material in question is absent.  It has nothing to do with whether the fact are accurate -- and never has.  --Rrburke(talk) 19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Because there is no basis for your accusation, I would relish to opportunity to respond and put the entire record on the table for admin scrutiny. --Rrburke(talk) 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "I have told Rrburke I will report him for harassment if this continues."


 * The basis for my "accusation" is here and here. People can judge for themselves. If anything I say is untrue, Rrburke can pursue it officially. Failing that, I am not going to waste any further time on this. 06:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've responded point-by-point here --Rrburke(talk) 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Disappearence of Madeleine McCann
Why do you keep undoing my edits, and what gives you the idea that you have the moral authority to call other people's edits 'vandalism'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkydexy (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bolding
I don't know why it's not simply called "Madeleine McCann." It's no more or less a bio than other articles that detail with notable crimes under a personal name. I would guess a large majority of internal searches are simply the name and, of course, virtually every Wiki page has a bold in its first line. Marskell 15:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

McCann LEAD
I altered first sentence per the link you provided and filled it out more generally. I'll immodestly say it's much better now. Marskell 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)