Talk:Michael Wines

message: Warning: if the current edit wars  continue without any attempt to resolve the dispute on this talk page, people are going to get blocked. Meanwhile, I note that the statement has 4 references. Why? If any one of them is any good, one of them will do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit wars 

message: There were 5 references numbered 2-6.  I've removed all except #4 the media life one. #2 and #5 are clearly not reliable sources, #3 is a broken link, #6 does not mention Wines.
Actually I'll remove the whole section in a second but that is a different matter, based on the discussion at WP:BLPN
which is clearly against inclusion of this matter.  Idlewild101 (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Superfluous references

message: This is at WP:BLPN so the discussion here might also be superfluous.  The consensus there is clear.
Users:DGG, Tom, Digwuran, and myself are completely against including this material here.
Will Beback says a one sentence non-scatological summary might be included if Wines acheivements/awards are also included.
All this is based on BLP, NPOV, notability, and weight issues
Dsol and Cooke want it included - but don't actually say why - only arguing that it can be included.
5 vs. 2 looks like a consensus to me, as far as it can be done in this matter.
Here Biophys is against inclusion, RussAvia mimicks Cooke, and there's a new editor without a previous edit history mimicking Cooke as well.  Idlewild101 (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If a real consensus forms for inclusion, then fine, otherwise leave it out for the numerous reasons given above and on the BLP board. --Tom 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a real concensus supposed to be in this case? What part of the BLP policy precludes including at least some summary of what secondary sources have said? Also, I don't think it's appropriate to phrase your opinion as an order given to another editor in this case. dsol (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably say that "real consensus" is probably a few, ie 3-5, univolved parties that say this material belongs. Have we seen that yet? --Tom 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that was seen, back in 2007.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive25 TWilliams9 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm more or less fine with leaving it out of Wines' article, which is basically a stub anyway. The eXile guys did cite a Fairness and Accuracy in Report peice criticizing Wines, which should be cited. Vanity Fair is a reliable source on why they did it, I'm not sure if there were other in depth sources. However, I don't agree that Wines' name should be left out -- he's a public figure and the fact that the NYT Beaureau chief was targeted is key to the story. I'm not aware of anything in BLP policy that says we should censor ourselves here. dsol (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there ever a consensus reached about this? FYI the reason why they targeted Wines is because they held a "Final Four" bracket contest of the worst journalist in Russia and allowed to people to vote; Wines was the clear winner in their poll. It's not something HE did, but it's something that happened to him. It's a highly unusual situation. Wikimandia (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at BLPN

message: If this article survives the deletion process would this photo be allowalbe?  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/foreign_correspondence/july-dec01/terrorism_9-18.html  It is from PBS, a government entity, so is it in the public domain?  Those who know a bit more I would appreciate your input.  TWilliams9 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get the idea that PBS is a government entity? DHN (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: I can't for the life of me see why this entry should exist. Based on the content, Wines's career has been unremarkable. As it presently reads, Wines is "based" in China but has no apparent employer. Nicmart (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lousy entry 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Wines. 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/20091015031851/http://nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/Michael_Wines.html to https://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/ask_reporters/Michael_Wines.html
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) 08:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I haven't been on wikipedia in ages but there has always been stuff on blps that has driven me nuts - this damn thing about the 'horse semen pie' is one of them. it is really disgusting, degrading, probably not even true, and the only evidence of its notability is stuff from taibbi. So whoever keeps putting it in, either stop or come explain why it is absolutely notable and not violative of a bunch of blp policies. thanks.  Happy monsoon day 05:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop putting the pie stuff on the page