Talk:Robert Black (advocate)

message: In my view, there is no need to move/disambiguate Prof Black's article. If there is any argumentation in favour or against, perhaps we could rehearse it here!Phase1 21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Image:ProfBlack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ProfBlack.jpg

message: I have removed the links to his blog which attempted to reveal details about an editor. See ARBCOM ruling.--Privacyisall 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please share with the wider Wikipedia community what this ARBCOM ruling is all about.Phase4 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blog

message: You have an odd definition of 1rr:
. 3 reverts in 26 hours is borderline 3rr, not borderline 1rr. How pleasant. MOASPN 05:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on the content, not on the contributor please. --Alecmconroy 06:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1rr 

message: User:Privacyisall has removed the link stating that's it's unreliable, and pushes conspiracy theories.
Per the above, WP:EL and WP:RS are quite clear that the blog is a sensible source for the notable claim that a blog exists. I will return the link, and encourage editors to engage here. Privatemusings 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1rr must be really stretched at this point. Are you waiting till exactly 24 hours from your last revert? MOASPN 00:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I simply allow myself one revert each day to an edit made that day. Sorry if this is confusing - I won't revert again today. PS - Let's take great care to remain civil, and collegial. Privatemusings 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're basically not abiding by 1rr? Got it! MOASPN 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll take your 'must try harder' on the chin, and though we may disagree from time to time about when a revert is a revert, I will try and improve, and still believe that 1RR is a sensible goal and yardstick for editors to stick to. Would you mind moving on from this subject now? Privatemusings 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another removal of link 

message: For the sake of transparency, and for future editors' information, I wanted to be clear that many of the recent editors to this page have arrived here as interested participants in a much larger wiki-wide discussion, and specifically through a posting to Wikipedia's 'No Personal Attacks' policy talkpage.
At that policy page, and in other places throughout wikipedia, editors have been debating, amongst other things, how to deal with external links that mention wikipedians personal details (and what constitutes harassment, which we have all agreed is unacceptable). Many editors are supportive of a fairly restrictive approach which severely curtails the publishing of links which may reveal such information (like the real world name of a particular user). 
Several of the editors above have already taken fairly firm positions on whether or not links should be 'allowed' or not - and our biases are perhaps not only easy to spot, but colouring the discussion above. Very few of the above editors, despite good faith and intentions, are discussing this case solely on its particular merits, but rather through the prism of a more developed opinion on the bigger picture. I'm as subject to this as any other editor.
Hence the importance of attracting neutral comments through the RfC (thanks for commenting all), and getting the attention of the editors who have developed the article to its current state (thanks for your work.) This note is intended simply to let those editors, and future editors who may engage here, know a little more about the background to the recent edits, and current discussion. Privatemusings 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some transparency re : the blog issue 

message: Today, on Prof. Black's blog, an anonymous contributor offered the following inspired comment: ... 
::comment unrelated to content of our article removed; please don't restore--AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, Phase4. Although I agree this is an interesting topic, I would rather keep this page focused on the article about Professor Robert Black, rather than Black's views or things tangentially related. If you need help finding a place to discuss this, let me know and we'll figure something out. Thanks, William Pietri 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. I was just about to strike the whole section, but WP's comment seems to cover it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor Black's blog: ''Heat'' versus ''Light''

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060113080254/http://www.law.ed.ac.uk:80/staff/robertblack.asp to http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/staff/robertblack.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829212847/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1847961,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1847961,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090129073546/http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2481827.0.Secret_talks_on_deal_to_return_Megrahi_to_Libya.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Black (lawyer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211003911/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2486999.0.Expert_devises_changes_in_law_to_speed_Lockerbie_appeal_verdict.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified