User talk:ReportingRover

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ReportingRover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Page is on a major crime case and is properly referenced, uses sources from Newsweek and hardcopies of news transcripts, somehow these are 'bollocks' to administrator Makemi, who refuses to discuss the matter in e-mail. Requesting a review of the source material by another administrator and a definite answer on how news transcripts can be considered "false sources" page is now deleted, was formerly titled "Jeremy Lacey"

Decline reason:

Page not properly referenced, as explained below. -- Yamla 16:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Could you please provide a link to what page you are talking about? --May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the deletion log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jeremy_Lacey

Ok, take a look at WP:RS. I see in the references two links to MySpace - not a reliable source, anyone can edit and put any old misinformation up. Similarly Xanga.com, might be the person might be someone completely different, not a reliable source. The "newsweek" links are actually links to someones personal webspace on an ISP, this gives two problems (1) They may or maynot be accurate representations of Newsweek content (2) They would be copyright violations and shouldn't be link per WP:EL. Two links to wcax.com which both lead to the main page of the site which mentions nothing on the subject, and search isn't working for me to find if there is anything useful there. One working link mentioning an award given, supports none of the rest of the story. So yes, the references as they stand do not support the article. --pgk 07:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I haven't read the sources to see if they would back up the article if they were considered reliable. --pgk 07:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the Myspace and Xanga pages, I will concede that since anyone could have written them, they are not reliable and should be omitted. However, this does not dispell the fact that this was a major criminal case and has been written about and discussed in several different sources. As for the Newsweek article, I can assure you this is a verbatim transcript of an article from the Newsweek edition who's cover is shown on the website, the name of the work is actually "The Web's Dark Secret" by authors Rod Nordland and Jeffrey Bartholet, and is referenced on several different web pages, including this one at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/VAW02/mod2-2.htm I was under the impression that editing Wikipedia was like writing any research paper, in that while using whole paragraphs or blocks of text from a copyrighted work was forbidden, paraphrasing passages while giving proper credit to the original authors was permitted. I guess I will need further clarification on Wikipedia's policies on quoting from copyrighted material, as it would be nearly impossible to write a sufficiently researched article without referencing other works. In regard to the WCAX links, when I tried them in my browser before posting the article it led back to the hard copies I had used, and not to the WCAX main page as it does now. I will try to find some way to link directly to the hard copies, but until then they can be found in the transcript archives of the news site under the appropriate dates. In any event, I think it should be readily apparent that this was not an attack page using 'false sources' but an attempt at a first article that needs some bugs ironed out. I would really like to write this article and if nothing else, I think my user account should be unblocked.

Unfortunately your assurance that the pages are correct copies of newsweek is also insufficient, since you don't count as a reliable source either. You need to read no original research, neutral point of view, verifiability, biographies of living people and some of the stuff they point to such as cite your sources and reliable sources at a minimum. notability requirements will also be of interest, as will what wikipedia is not. If you are willing to agree not to recreate the article without proper sourcing and in line with the above policies, then I can't see why the original blocker would object to the block being raised. I'll leave a note for them now. --pgk 10:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully willing to not recreate this article without finding sources that are up to Wikipedia's standards. Indeed, I see it as a challenge to find source that could corrorboate my article. Obviously, since I have so many restrictions on my sources for this article, it will be a challenge that I look forward too.

I have read the above named articles, and I still believe the Newsweek article that can be reference on Harvard Law School's webpage should fit the criteria of being from a reliable source. In looking at other crime cases, I notice several links in the Scott Peterson case are from a website known as "www.scottisinnocent.com". Can anyone explain to me why these links are allowed from such an obviously biases source but an article reference on Harvard Law's site is not?

Sorry for not getting back here sooner. I've lifted the block. Regarding your points a Newsweek article is a reasonable source, pointing to a copy made on someone elses website isn't, as already mentioned it may have been altered and/or is a copyright violation which we cannot link to. The Harvard Law School's page at a glance looks ok, but remember for living people we require a high standard which almost certainly will mean multiple sources for such a serious claim. With regards the Scott Peterson case, I haven't looked but generally such links shouldn't be used (almost certainly not a reliable source for many things as it is likely somewhat partisan), however things do get sourced and referenced badly, people clean them up as they find them, but do not assume that because you can find something on some page of wikipedia that it is acceptable and within wikipedia's policies. You may feel you've been treated harshly in this (we do take WP:BLP seriously), but you will find most editors are pretty friendly and helpful, if in doubt ask someone or use the {{helpme}} system to get some input. I've put a boilerplate welcome message below. --pgk 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, ReportingRover, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --pgk 20:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]