User talk:82.35.76.75

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Asad Ahmad

Offline sources are generally okay, but we need to be extra careful with a living person, as incorrect claims can be considered libel. We need to balance the benefit of the information with the probability of the source being unreliable. The idea that a single entertainment rag got the scoop on a major media figure being charged for assault just isn't worth the risk. Please read WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you can find a corroborating reference, then I'd be more willing to see it go in. Mark Chovain 00:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please be careful that you don't take out other information while reverting. You can't really use a revert to get your stuff back in if other edits have gone in since you were reverted. Mark Chovain 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The London Paper isn't an entertainment rag - it is one of London's main evening newspapers. The incident was also reported in the Daily Mail, but I don't have the paper so can't quote from it.

The information I have removed is that which is not contained in the sources stated.

Yep - I do have a track record for reverting edits on a regular basis, but it's not random. I revert edits in which editors are using WP as their personal soapbox. Not being in wiki style is not a basis for exclusion on WP. Unverifiability is certainly grounds for exclusion, but I'd rather see the part that is incorrect excluded than have the whole lot go. I'll leave your version as is for now (at least we have a version that doesn't breach WP:BLP, but we need to continue this discussion on Talk:Asad Ahmad so we can get the correct details in. BTW, it would be great if you'd create an account so other editors can actually have meaningful discussions with you. Please also sign your comments on talk pages with 4 tildes - if you want to be part of the WP process, you need to try and work with other editors constructively. Random fly-by-night comments don't really achieve much. Mark Chovain 23:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asad Ahmad harassment charge wording

You and User:Hollinsc are so close to reaching a compromise on Asad Ahmad's harassment charges, but you're never going to get there if you both keep edit warring the way you are. Would you please consider discussing the wording on the talk page?

Also, would you consider creating an account? You don't need to provide any personal info (not even an email address), and it makes it easier for others to communicate with you (and your contributions will tend to be taken more seriously). Mark Chovain 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. Sorry mate, don't know what you're on about? He wrote something, I edited it, he changed it to something else which was even better. Where's the edit war? Isn't that how wikipedia is meant to work?

Also there's no rule that says anyone has to create an account. I don't care to do so. If that isn't ok with you, I suggest you take it up with the owners of the site - though I'd imagine they have bigger fish to fry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Oh I misunderstood. There's been a lot of toing-and-froing on the Asad Ahmad article, from IP addresses similar to yours, so I assumed it was the same user.
You've taken my comment about creating an account the wrong way: It was just a suggestion, not a request. I have no problem with you editing anonymously - I was only pointing out the benefits of registering. Mark Chovain 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)