User talk:Knowitall639

Welcome!

Hello, Knowitall639, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the welcome!
   Knowitall639 (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP revert[edit]

Hi Knowitall639. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires us to use the highest quality sources to avoid possibly defaming a living person. NGO-Monitor is not a reliable source at all much less in a BLP. This isnt about politics, it is about policy. Thanks, nableezy - 17:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGO Monitor is fully as reliable as Human Rights Watch Historicist (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually isnt. nableezy - 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some evidence for the statement that "NGO Monitor is not a reliable source at all." If it's not about politics but policy, please indicate who made the policy, when and where.Knowitall639 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS lays out the requirements. NGO Monitor is not a scholarly source, not a major news media source, is not published by a high quality publishing house. It does not meet the requirements, and in any case is used here as a primary source to smear a living person. That is not allowed under WP:BLP. nableezy - 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements are "reliable, third-party, published sources" which fits NGO Monitor. As to the proper use of the material, yes, criticism should be slotted appropriately within the entry, but that's a different question. By your failure to answer the question I posed to you, I take it you have no evidence for your statements that "NGO Monitor is not a reliable source at all" and that there is no policy you can point to requiring not using NGO Monitor statements.Knowitall639 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: Human Rights Watch is not a "a scholarly source, not a major news media source, is not published by a high quality publishing house." Are you now going to argue that it is not usable?Knowitall639 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRW is used by reliable source on a regular basis and the RS/N has affirmed that it is a reliable source. NGO Monitor is not given that type of attention. You wish to take this to RS noticeboard feel free. But you have not given any evidence that it meets the requirements of RS. nableezy - 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clever. You assert that NGO Monitor is not reliable, and on that basis wipe out someone else's edits. You get asked for evidence and provide none. Instead you invent a rule that would also eliminate sources you like. So you drop that made-up rule and are now asking me for evidence that it fits the requirements of RS? Again: you claim that "NGO-Monitor is not a reliable source at all much less in a BLP." What is your evidence for this?Knowitall639 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it does not meet WP:RS. That is why, do you have a reason to say it does? nableezy - 20:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not evidence. That is restating the claim in different words. What is your evidence? Do you have any?Knowitall639 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not presumptively reliable, you have to show how it meets the requirements of WP:RS. And have you ever had another Wikipedia account, perhaps one that is currently topic banned or banned from Wikipedia? nableezy - 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated note, have you ever had another Wikipedia account? nableezy - 19:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HRW is not generally a RS, but can be tolerated in non-controversial things, or unless specifically quoted, though this might not be notable enough for most good quality articles. --Shuki (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wrong again. nableezy - 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bad example, looked like a ganging up on one editor. Whatever, I know where this discussion is going... --Shuki (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your method? Make unsupportable claims and then graduate to personal accusations? In answer to your accusations: no, I have not had a previous account nor been banned. Now, back to the question that you have been avoiding. You stated "NGO-Monitor is not a reliable source at all." What basis is there for this statement other than your politics? I'm sorry I caught you engaging in political censorship and that you have been caught making unsupportable statements. I am sorry that I have caught you making up rules and playing word games in an attempt to intimidate people into accepting your political POV edits. Please don't turn this into a personal attack on me. That is simply unacceptable.Knowitall639 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear here: I didn't make the NGO Monitor edits in the first place, and have no axe to grind on that score. I don't like politically edited censorship of the kind you practice and especially don't like it when people attempt to intimidate me as you are doing. If you have nothing productive to add, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from contacting me again.Knowitall639 (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt "catch" me doing anything. You are trying to use a source that does not meet WP:RS. Why dont you try to demonstrate how it is reliable? Sources are not presumptively reliable. And again, have you ever had another Wikipedia account? One that is banned from Wikipedia or topic banned? nableezy - 01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question/accusation and will answer it for the second and last time: No, I have not. You have not answered my question. It is clear that you will not and cannot. When you have something productive to post, please do so. In the meantime, I will reiterate my request that you resist from further harassing me.Knowitall639 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I missed your no earlier and I should not have asked again. But again, I have said why I say it is not a reliable source, because it does not meet the requirements that WP:RS lays out. If you would like to prove me wrong feel free. nableezy - 01:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

It is nice to have editors who stand up to the bullies who work to keep valid information off Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Knowitall639 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]