User talk:58.175.153.88

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is completely unsourced. You may also want to look at our policy regarding biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Please find sources, otherwise the material will be removed. Recurring dreams 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So I'll find sources then. Do blog entries count? There are as legitimate as whatever is usually featured in tabloids.

No, blog sources are not reliable. See WP:RS. As for double standards, I was reverting back to the version before your change. The points that you raised are legitimate, and I removed the material. Recurring dreams 10:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.

Thanks for your responses, but all your references were blogs. Nor do they really support the material. The Greenslade reference doesn't mention Grattan, the Sheriden reference is about Iraq and the Age newspaper. Please find some reliable sources. Recurring dreams 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those blogs, or call them whatever you will, are written by regular columnists and were featured in Herald Sun and The Australian - the editorial/opinion section. How about "Grattan has been spun too much by Rudd's spin" (Bolt's)?
What if I were to use citation needed?

1) "Citation needed" is not a replacement or a way around finding proper sources. 2) Please read WP:RS again; these blogs do not qualify. 3) The references simply don't support the material you are adding. 4) "Michelle Grattan has attracted criticism for the bias which filters through her articles[5]." The article is not even about her, and has one line about her: "The Age‘s Michelle Grattan is too spun by Rudd’s spin to notice she’s attacking the wrong man." How does that support your addition (even ignoring the blog reference)? 5) The other line is even more tenuous. The references do not even mention Grattan or her "editorial bent". If you really want to add material about the Age newspaper, add it to The Age page.

I'm sorry for having to revert, but the added material simply violates WP:BLP. I would be happy to have a criticism section, as long as it followed Wikipedia's policies. Recurring dreams 12:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As for other articles about Australian journalists, I agree with you that they aren't all cited and up to scratch. However you should put your effort into fixing them, not dragging the Grattan page down to their standard. Cheers. Recurring dreams 12:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ethical Implictions of WorkChoices, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ethical Implictions of WorkChoices was changed by 58.175.153.88 (c) (t) blanking the page on 2007-10-25T12:22:44+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I can't delete articles myself

But any registered user can nominate an article for deletion. I'm no good at writing up rationales for why something should be deleted, so I usually leave that up to other people. --Closedmouth 12:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)