Talk:Aukai Collins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Excision of prisonplanet reference

I removed a link to www.prisonplanet.com, which is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't recognize your name.

Now I remember. When I respond to another wikipedian, I don't check to see if they are an administrator. I figure that if I do my best to be civil it shouldn't matter who my correspondent is.

I am going to try to express myself tactfully here, and ignore that you are an administrator.

To the best of my knowledge there is no official wikipedia blacklist, of sties that should never be used. If there is, my apologies. Please tell me where that page is, and I will go there and read it.

But if there is no official wikipedia blacklist of sites, I think that means every time a wikipedia editor cites a reference, they are making a judgment call, and the rest of us are supposed to assume they made that judgment call in good faith.

And I think that means every time a wikipedian has a concern that a reference is no good, and they excise it, they have an obligation to offer an explanation. The wikipedia is supposed to be transparent. Other editors are supposed to be able to look at edits, and figure out why they were made. It think it is best if the edits are sufficiently well explained that someone can figure out why it was made a month later, a year later, or ten years later. You, user:tom harrison, have the habit of removing references without providing an explanation.

I am not suggesting that, if you have the same objection to a dozen similar references, that you add a dozen identical explanations to a dozen talk pages. Have you considered writing a note -- something like: User:tom harrison/opinions/sites i excise on sight -- here's why. You could put that wikilink in your edit summaries. Then wikipedians who disagreed with your edit, or simply didn't understand your edit, could go to your opinion page to read your explanation.

I did a google search on "tom harrison" prisonplanet site:en.wikipedia.org. I was hoping that it would turn up your explanation for what is wrong with this site. Nothing obvious turned up. Among the earlier discussions I did come across one previous discussion, from over a year ago, where you tied the use of prisonplanet references to a guy named Alex Jones, and a wikipedian, User:Striver, who you thought admired him.

Alex Jones is a disambiguation page today. So I have to guess which Alex Jones is your nemesis.. Was it Alex Jones (journalist) -- the Pulitzer Prize winner? If so I fail to see his fingerprints on the link you excised.

User:tom harrison, I put it to you that your correspondents shouldn't be reduced to googling your posting history for explanations of your actions. I do my best to give a civil reply to all my civil correspondents, without regard to whether I disagree with them, or whether I thought they had ben uncivil to me in the past -- provided they are being civil to me today. And, frankly, I feel entitled to expect civil replies, civil meaningful replies, to my queries.

If you have been excising references to prisonplanet for over a year, surely there has been at least one occasion when you offered a meaningful explanation you could stand behind today?

Candidly Geo Swan 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio) is an American internet entrepreneur, radio host, and conspiracy theorist. If you think he or his sites are reliable sources for anything (other than primary sources for articles about conspiracy theories, and for his biography), then I guess we disagree. The citation does not look necessary in this case, and does nothing to enhance the credibility of the article - more the contrary. But, keep it if you think if gives our readers some useful insight. It would probably look better in External links than as one of a string of eight footnotes. You could bring it up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want to. Concerns about my conduct can be taken up by requesting a third opinion, or following some other avenue of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I took a closer look that site. Yes, it contains many links to conspiracy articles. Most of them look kooky, at first glance.

But the link you excised was a mirror of an ABC News article -- not a kooky conspiracy theory. Are we authorized to excise references to material we have a reasonable suspicion is hosted without getting the appropriate permission from the original copyright holders? Up until a week or so ago I didn't know this was wikipedia policy. I know it now.

But google brought me the link to that article. I didn't see any clues on that article that it was being hosted on the site of a kooky conspiracy theorist. Even if I had that suspicion, I know even small mom and pop sites write newspapers, and sometimes get permission to mirror their articles.

Maybe you have reason to suspect Andy Jones mirrors articles from the mainstream media, without getting permission? If so, in the interests of the overall polity of the wikipedia, I strongly encourage you to say so, in the edit summaries of your excisions to references to his sites -- something like: "removing reference to a mirror I suspect is unauthorized, as per wp:mumble". I strongly encourage you to paste a different, meaningful, explanation in your edit summary -- something like "removing reference to kooky conspiracy theorist -- see user:tom harrison/opinions/removing references to kooky conspiracy theories" -- when you are excising references to his sites that are links to kooky conspiracy theories. And if there are additional reasons you excise references to his sites I suggest you prepare an additional little note you can paste a link to in the edit summary for each additional reason.

Perhaps your advice about how to raise concerns about your edits was a hint my advice isn't welcome? If so, I am going to remind you that the dispute that arose over our first interaction was triggered by my concern that you were making excisions for which you didn't provide a meaningful explanation. Even Jimbo Wales can't make mysterious, unexplained edits without being prepared to have people question him.

It looks like you have meaningful explanations for your actions -- you just don't offer them up under normal circumstances.

Thanks for the suggestion I look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'll do so today. Geo Swan 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained edit...

Another wikipedian excised a reference -- without explanation. I have asked them to return here and explain their edit. I hope they find the time to do so.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox News?

This [1] says "Copyright 2002 Fox News Network, Inc.", but is hosted on Amazon.com's web storage service. Isn't this a copyright violation? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you concerned that a wikipedian has breached the wikipedia's {{copyvio}} policy by referencing that page?

Or are you concerned that some non-wikipedian is violating fox news copyright, by mirroring their material, without getting the proper permission first? Geo Swan 13:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works says we should not link to pages that violate someone's copyright. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)