This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amicaveritas (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 15 May 2009 (→Your exchange with Collect at RSN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:49, 15 May 2009 by Amicaveritas (talk | contribs) (→Your exchange with Collect at RSN)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Contents |
---|
|
Your comments and my replies:
Cookie
Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Your exchange with Collect at RSN
Hi Ratel... those of us who are regularly involved in working on policy and guideline pages havd lots of experience with Collect, and are familiar with his negative points. So you don't need to "warn" us about his behavior on other pages. In this case, he did exactly the correct thing... instead of edit warring and making a scene at the article, he looked for a neutral third party opinion by asking a question at RSN.
In fact, by immediately attacking the editor (Collect), instead of responding to his question (by commenting on the source and discussing whether you think it is reliable or not), you are the one that comes across as the stalker. I know you are pissed off at him, but I would suggest that you ignore Collect completely for a while. Let others deal with him if needed. Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ratel quite clear your comments are made in good faith, but I do think the question regarding the source is valid. Even should it be decided that the source is valid, I have concerns about a single source being used in these cases (allegations made involving BLP) and anything other than the barest factual coverage being written given BLP, Weight and NPV concerns - have you considered it from this angle? Amicaveritas (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)