User talk:Volunteer Marek/Archives/2009/January

Joseph Stalin comments
I agree with your assessment. Dealing with the mass edit wipeouts and political rants is getting tiresome.

By the way, there is a section started here on the Administrator Noticeboard if you want to comment.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like the admin is about to restore the version before Valeofruin's mass wipeout and open the article again. You may want to comment on the Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Contact info?
Is it possible to contact you any other way besides Wikipedia? I ask since Wikipedia talk pages during edit debates and such are generally inefficient. --Mrdie (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP
Which part of WP:BLP does a sourced section reporting that there has been speculation in the media contravene? Black Kite 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I would generally agree with you, though I think that at least a mention of the controversy is reasonable given Kaczynski's public pronouncements on homosexuality. I won't restore it now, but may look for more reliable sources for a trimmed-down version as you have suggested (more primary Polish sources may be regarded as more reliable, perhaps). Black Kite 22:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good and I agree that there is SOME way to mention the controversy without being tabloidy about it.radek (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Radeksz, but I have given the BLP guidelines on the talk page of Jaroslaw Kaczynski and if you keep misapplying them willfully, I will be forced to report you. As I have said, allegations can be included in WP if there are multiple reliable sources. That you call them 'gossip' is neither here nor there, they are sourced and are allowed. Please respect WP rules. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: your points on my page:
 * Be very firm about the use of high quality references.

"Here, in particular, this would mean that newspapers might not qualify. Maybe if you found a scholarly reference." -- Excuse me, newspapers aren't 'high quality'? That's patently absurd. Next I'll be told that a scholarly reference isn't as good as it could be...


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

"This one very much applies here." -- Why? WP isn't the primary vehicle here - the media have covered it extensively first. Besides, we're not saying he's gay, we're saying "others have alleged he's gay". That's neutral.


 * Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

"The emphasis here is on 'conservatively'. The spread of this kind of gossip, whether true or not, can be damaging and hurtful. Here conservatively means it should be avoided." -- It's not spreading gossip - it's saying others have talked about it.


 * Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections.

"The parts with Walesa and Palikot were essentially trivia." -- The media didn't think they were trivial. Hell, they were instrumental in bringing the allegations to the public's attention.

And please re-read this part:
 * The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

-- I feel I've done that. All your points are misapplications of the rules. Even Jacurek agreed that the SB stuff could be included (and hey, I'll ask again, why can't the quote be included? The info is hopelessly vague without it!) Malick78 (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)