Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hi there, I have a question about this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions

This article is often edited by the same person, and many of the references that are cited are not public, verifiable sources. For example, references numbered as follows:

19, 36, 39, 42, 46, 47, 59, 60, 97, 98

Those above numbered references as cited in the above article are "letters" written from one party to another. While these may be "authoritative" to the parties involved, they do not constitute publicly verifiable third party facts, so I feel they should not be included. Thus, by extension, the information that these letters support should also be removed, as they would then be without citation and would by default become the opinion of the editor, and nothing more. Just as a reminder, the wikipedia guidelines state:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

So, I find the reference to the "letters" inappropriate.

As a side point, the person involved in adding these references is known online as someone who is a former member of Jehovah's Witnesses and does not agree with Watchtower and Jehovah's Witness teachings, therefore I feel it is not appropriate for this person to be allowed to continue editing articles on JWs and the Watchtower. I personally made a few edits to some of the material in that article because it was distorted and biased compared to what was stated in the actual cited references. (As an even further side point, I have reason to believe that the person involved in making those edits is in actual fact the same person that the Watchtower wrote to in citation #46 -- but I realize that could be irrelevant.)

Thank you for your assistance and any further information you can provide on this issue and how we can ensure that this article is not being edited by biased, self-serving individuals.

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already consulted an admin so I hope for you your warning will not turn into a boomerang code.

This issue has always been debatable as you can see and it was heavily discussed on several talk pages, including the FAC and the article talk page (where it was perfectly proved that the images do NOT violate the criteria and they are NOT replaceable). You left the discussions with the last words being ours (of Blofeld and mine), you have to fight all those who supported the inclusion of these images at FAC, and the other discussions it had. Then you have to remove such images from such articles as Diane Keaton, Cillian Murphy etc.

You did not explain why these images violate WP:NFCC, while I did explain why they don't and how they make it fulfilled. The last word i not yours. You are literally nobody to take the decisions. And therefore I warn you here:

Please stop! If you continue to remove images against consensus and policies, without discussing it properly, you will be blocked from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to make a particular report about an editor under restriction who is making personal attacks, so I figured I should just come to you. User:Meowy has been posting to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Mehmed Talat, making attacks against Ibrahim4048, as well as me. Also, I have small suspicion that he used User:onlyoneanswer as a sockpuppet, but I don't think there is enough evidence to be close to sure, as it was a single-purpose account. I'm not sure of the proper route in this case, so I'd appreciate it if you'd look into it. Tealwisp (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]