Talk:Binghamton Review

message: EDIT DISPUTE WARNING
NO PERSONAL INFORMATION
Stating personal information, e.g. real name,  about another user is a very serious matter and can result in an indefinite block.
NO PERSONAL ATTACKS
A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be careful what you follow it up with, and consider substituting the word "the". Deal with facts and issues, not someone else's supposed personal motivations.
NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
Continued arguing of personal opinions on the talk page without verification will be regarded as disruption. So will re-inserting non-referenced material in the article after it has been challenged. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and NOR. Read them and stick to them.
REPORTING PROBLEMS
If you have a problem or another editor is violating policy, report it to me,
to another admin or to Administrators noticeboard with the "diff".
To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page.
Then put a square bracket either end, as in this example:
 
BLOCK
Violation of policies on this page can result in being blocked without further notice.</span>
Tyrenius 09:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

message: It is irrelevant if the entire article is unsourced. If you wish to make an edit to an article and someone else challenges it, you have to source your edits. This is even more important because you're making implications about a living person. WP:BLP, official Wikipedia policy states: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." Now, please source your claim correctly and in line with policy or cease making it. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Let's look at the article on verifiability
If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source.
This is my understanding of that entry of the rules. It is acceptable if the Binghamton Review published an article to include the information from at article in my Wikipedia entry, citing the Binghamton Review article as my source.  Which of course is what I have been criticised for doing.
It appears that I have followed the rules.  I would appreciate any of the administrators who disagree with what I have quoted to explain to me the problem they see.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelh613 (talk • contribs) .
:Michael, a student journal is not considered a reliable source. In addition, to use the journal as the main reference for an article on the journal equates to using a primary source, which is not acceptable per WP:RS: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material...Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections."
:Furthermore, the edits you wish to make cast aspersions on the reputation and name of another person based on your interpretation of an article they wrote as a college student. To comply with WP:BLP, you must cite reliable sources to make the edits you wish to make. By "reliable source" we're talking about a major newspaper such as the London Times or the New York Times. Despite repeated requests for a source, you have not provided one. All you have done is claim the original article as a source. This is not acceptable, particularly not in the way you wish to use it. 
:Instead of worrying about one article that was published in a student journal 15 years ago, why not focus on making this into a better article? it is in desperate need of an edit. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on verifiability rules