Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

message: Wikipedia defines reputable sources as:
Wikipedia:Reliable sources define prohibited sources as:
Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet
Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
Because there is no way we can know for certain who has written them.
Personal websites as primary sources
A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.
Personal websites as secondary sources
Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.
Unattributed material
Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them.
It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?" If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.
For advice about dealing with unattributed material when you find it, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which are policy, and Wikipedia:Cite sources, which is a style guide.
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence
Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Surprising or important facts which are not widely known.
Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media.
Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them.
Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).
Based upon these definitions, weblog content, emails on LKML, websites which are "mirrors" of disputed content, blogs, and other publications are not reputable sources are do not constitute verifiable information.  in fact, the information is specially barred and characterized as without enclyclopedic merit.  Waya sahoni 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The LKML does not fall into any of the above categories. Further, the fact that Merkey posted extensively and verifiably makes it pertinent to the Merkey article.Vigilant 07:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion by [[User:Waya sahoni|Waya sahoni]] 

message: Is this a real RFC, or not?  It's not listed anywhere at WP:RFC, that I can find. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed under the policies section from the main RFC page, and yes, its a valid RFC.  Waya sahoni 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see it there now.  But as to its validity, were the two opposing positions written by two different editors, as required? —Steve Summit (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they were both authored by User:Waya sahoni. This RfC is bogus. --BWD (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I want to see Waya's answer to this question! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry. :-) --BWD (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: At this point, I'd like to introduce the archetypal <cricket_chirp.wav> as Waya sahoni's silence during these intervening four days is deafening. As is usually the case when Merkey "Waya sahoni" doesn't want to talk about something... -- talks_to_birds 06:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, the opposing sides were written by each side.  I will adjust the RFC accordingly. Waya sahoni 09:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on.  Do you honestly believe that pasting in the "Outside view" as "Position 2" is a valid thing to do, or are you just playing games?  At any rate, this RfC is obsolete now. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Waya, you seem confused. The position has to actually be placed there by the other party. You cannot copy/paste something authored by another editor into Position 2. I'm reverting it to the prior version since the other editor is not aware that his own comments have been placed somewhere where he may not want them to be. The editor in question may place them back if he wants them there. Thanks. --BWD (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I've rearranged it with both "versions", and some explanations. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you do (in the hypothetical case) when someone has had little or no positive contibutions, and the most of their public life has been as a net.kook? --Vryl 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Waya sahoni proposed adding mention of yet another lawsuit to the article, although he failed to cite any source.  Suing and threatening to sue people may not be the only thing Merkey does, but it is difficult to find public record of much else.  Merkey has repeatedly stated that he has been in constant litigation for many years.  — MediaMangler 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  valid RFC? 

message: "Thanks, but I want to see Waya's answer to this question! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the opposing sides were written by each side.  I will adjust the RFC accordingly. Waya sahoni 09:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on.  Do you honestly believe that pasting in the "Outside view" as "Position 2" is a valid thing to do, or are you just playing games?  At any rate, this RfC is obsolete now. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Waya, you seem confused. The position has to actually be placed there by the other party. You cannot copy/paste something authored by another editor into Position 2. I'm reverting it to the prior version since the other editor is not aware that his own comments have been placed somewhere where he may not want them to be. The editor in question may place them back if he wants them there. Thanks. --BWD (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, I've rearranged it with both "versions", and some explanations. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  13th hour fiddling 

message: Isn't it the case that articles on living persons need to present a balanced view of the subject, ensuring that criticism does not overwhelm positive comment? WP:BLP Anyone reading this article would think all this guy ever did was sue people. Perhaps someone other than the subject of the article could rewrite all the criticism into a much shorter and more consise account.  Engjs 12:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you do (in the hypothetical case) when someone has had little or no positive contibutions, and the most of their public life has been as a net.kook? --Vryl 14:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Waya sahoni proposed adding mention of yet another lawsuit to the article, although he failed to cite any source.  Suing and threatening to sue people may not be the only thing Merkey does, but it is difficult to find public record of much else.  Merkey has repeatedly stated that he has been in constant litigation for many years.  — MediaMangler 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance