Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elektrik Fanne (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 8 July 2016 (→AN/I). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for standing up against the obvious trolls (re-awarded for historical clarity) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Misplaced Pages has a policy on what constitutes a reliable source. The Guardian clearly is one regardless of its stands on an issue. Ground Zero | t 14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: No. The Guardian is no more a reliable source than the pro-Brexit Daily Mail is (which it certainly isn't). --Elektrik Fanne 14:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, The Guardian is (always) considered a reliable source, regardless of your personal opinion on the newspaper. --Tataral (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: You forgot to add a link to where this is specifically stated. I am free to regard any newspaper that adds a specific bias to its reporting as unreliable precisely because of that bias. --Elektrik Fanne 14:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Both papers would be considered reliable sources if the citation refers to a news article, as opposed to an opinion piece, column or editorial. You are free to think what you want, but your complaint against the Guardian is not supported by Misplaced Pages policy, so other editors do not have to take your complaint seriously. I provided a link to Misplaced Pages's policy. I encourage you to read it. Here it is again: WP:RS. Ground Zero | t 14:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: The piece in the Guardian is written as an opinion piece by Haroon Siddique. He does not cite any sources from which his view of the situation is derived and is therefore presented as his opinion. Since you are determined to insist that the Daily Mail is also a reliable source, the Daily Mail this morning contained a statement that because the referendum had returned a result in favour of leave, that the government were committed to withdrawing the UK from membership of the EU. How would you feel if I reverted a non binding claim based on that article (which is resolutely wrong)? This must be regarded as academic now as a better source has been provided. --Elektrik Fanne 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Improving sources is always a good thing. I have no concerns there. The problem was that you dismissed The Guardian merely because of its editorial stance on the issue. Doing so is not supported by Misplaced Pages policy. Newspapers can be wrong, as WP:RS notes, so when that happens we find sources that aren't willing. But we don't presume a source is wrong because of its editorial stance on an issue. Ground Zero | t 14:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: So you are concurring that I could legitimately claim that the result of the referendum is binding because the Daily Mail said so? This is a circular argument and demonstrates why news media claims need to be treated with care. A claim by a contributor is not reliable unless he is a recognised expert in his field or he cites some other reliable source. I haven't a clue who or what Haroon Siddique is beyond the fact that he is a 'news reporter ... and was a commodity trader', neither of which makes him an expert in constitutional law. And my reading of WP:RS confirms my opinion. --Elektrik Fanne 15:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The article was not an "opinion piece by Haroon Siddique," but a normal article written by a journalist employed by the newspaper (which you oddly referred to as a "pro-remain rag"). "Reliable source" is a term with a specific meaning on Misplaced Pages, and The Guardian as such is always considered a reliable source, in fact it is generally regarded as a reliable source of particularly high quality. --Tataral (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EF, yes, you could make that claim based on what the Mail wrote, and it would be up to other editors to provide references to show that the Mail is wrong. WP:RS says, since I don't think you have read it,

"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors).

So your dismissal of the Guardian as not being a reliable source is not supported by Misplaced Pages policy. Other types of sources can be wrong, too, and sometimes have to be corrected by providing other sources to show that. If you disagree with Misplaced Pages policy, or think that you can improve it, I encourage you to propose changes on the policy's talk page. That would be more effective than arguing against it with the two editors who are reading your talk page. Ground Zero | t 00:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Sig

• Hi Elektrik Fanne, your sig is missing the closing brackets. Widefox; talk 19:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Where do you believe them to be missing, because they appear to be there as far as I can see. ] 12:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC) </nowiki> --Elektrik Fanne 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Better but still not correct - bracket is there now, but you can see from my this edit the matching tags are misplaced. It was previously this fix. Widefox; talk 13:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: You say better - but I haven't changed it. Your refactoring at Talk:United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union has merely added a superfluous pair of brackets after my name that should not be there. --Elektrik Fanne 13:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Ah! I see what's happened. The brackets are not missing, they're just in the wrong place. --Elektrik Fanne 13:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't changed it, then yes it's the same and I maybe should have just moved them before, just like I did above. Done. I use an XML based editor so it messes up the page if not all matching, so easy to see when it matches. Widefox; talk 14:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

As per this, will you be? _Muffled 15:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I await Bbb23's clarification as to why he won't. There is evidence, just not a lot of it. --Elektrik Fanne 15:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI _Muffled 15:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Spotted it before the sign post. I am pondering this further to evaluate the evidence. If you have reached any conclusions already, I shall not have any problems if you beat me to an SPI complaint (but a note would be appreciated so that no duplication of effort takes place - the reverse will apply as well). At least I am not the only one suffering from the odour of unlaundered footwear! Unfortunately, I have little experience of these things, neither having raised an SPI before nor having been accused. --Elektrik Fanne 16:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have now pondered and had a closer look at the evidence. My conclusion is here. However, your mileage may vary. --Elektrik Fanne 16:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello! I'm starting to think something funny is indeed going on with those accounts. See the new ANI. there is possibly some off-wiki collusion going in, IMHO. Is that meatpuppeting? I suspect email coordination of activities.ANI Here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@HappyValleyEditor: There's a post near the bottom of my TP that may interest you. _Muffled 07:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Please report that ont he current ANI. I think the admins might be tired of hearing from me. Need I mention that you are god-like in your perceptual and analytic abilities. ALso, be careful not to out anyone if reporting.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@HappyValleyEditor: Thank you for the celestial elevation, but I hope I have a few more years before taking my place there. As for raising an SPI complaint: go ahead if you believe that there is a good case. Include all relevant evidence and diffs, but don't overburden it with the frivolous. As I have already observed, I have never raised one myself, but have participated in a few before I created my account. SPI complaints are not looked at by administrators, but by SPI clerks and users who have checkuser privileges (and there are not many who do). There are a very few administrators who are also checkusers, and they appear to be very reasonable when it comes to evaluating cases. Administrators generally apply blocks as required once the evidence has been judged by the SPI clerk or checkuser confirms the connection. I have not had time to look at the latest ANI in detail, but my gut instinct is that my original feelings were spot on (they usually are <polishes halo>), and the latest ANI (of what I did skim over has only reinforced my perception). Good luck. --Elektrik Fanne 14:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)