User talk:86.0.205.189

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your comments on the Bennie Railplane article have been removed again. Comments like this can be classed as libellious. If you have a source for your information, please provide it, as this is important. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The comments have been removed again. Look, I'm not saying that what you are putting is wrong, but you have to be able to provide sources on Wikipedia to back it up because you can get libel warnings. While not exactly the same thing, JK Rowling has had conflicts with people accusing them of copying Harry Potter. Whatever the merits or lack of, of these, in the Harry Potter pages there are links to news articles on the web, sources from books, and so on where this can be backed up. This is really primarily to stop people with a chip on their shoulder about certain people posting anything which can be classed as wrong. If you have a source you can cite, whether published or on the internet that's great, but I'm sure you can appreciate Wiki's position. Hell, their position on images is difficult enough, but something like this can be really bad. This isn't meant as any sort of personal attack on you, but Wiki is pretty strict on a number of thing. Douglasnicol 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear 86.0.205.189, please give up this campaign on the Bennie Railplane, which is tantamount to vandalism. I don't know or care about the rights and wrongs of this plagiarism accusation but Wikipedia is not the place for it. It sheds no light on the subject of the article and has no place in any encyclopaedia. Your edits will simply be reverted each time and if you keep vandalising the article your account is likely to be blocked. Why not spend the time adding some constructive edits to Wikipedia instead? Best wishes Flapdragon 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

To better explain Wiki's policy on such things, look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research

Again, I'm not saying you're edits are incorrect, but Wiki has a number of rules that people must follow, I was trying to clear things up Douglasnicol 00:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again I've got to say, what real relevance does this have to the Railplane itself. However, the reason the OR rules are there can be frustrating in a case like this. They are also there to protect Wiki from any lawsuits. I'm not aware if any of the parties involved have any living family, but this is the reason why they are there. Also, if you look at the page of any living person and check the discussion page there will be a warning that any material has to be truthful, verifiable etc. You might know where this letter is, and if there is something published in a book about it thats different, or on a website, but stuff has to be non point of view and truthful. I'm not arguing about IP rights here but what Wiki's position on it is. Douglasnicol 02:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Flapdragon and Douglasnicol

This page in a nutshell: • Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable • Facts must be backed by citations to reliable sources that contain these facts • Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses

Vandalism – the deliberate destruction… or an instance of such destruction. Collins Concise Dictionary.

The annotation is neither vandalism or a point of view but verifiable fact backed. as requested, by citations to reliable sources. The claim that ‘It sheds no light on the subject of the article and has no place in any encyclopaedia’ however ARE points of view. There is nothing in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research that suggests that such an annotation is unacceptable. Moreover, since you don’t appear to have read both publications, you are hardly in a position to claim that it ‘…sheds no light on the subject…’, much less assume the self-appointed role of Wikepedia censors. The letter cited is in the William B. Black research file on the Bennie Railplane at the William Patrick Library and is available for consultation to members of the general public.