User talk:Magnus Johansson

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Orly Taitz, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AniMate 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AniMate. In contrast to Barack Obama I shall try to follow the rules. I am a Wikipedia beginner and it is kind of you to inform me of my violations as I go along. Thanks again! Regarding rules: If the talk page guidelines apply to edit comments then JamesMLane ought to be reminded of what is said about capitalization. Magnus Johansson (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, yes, talk page guidelines apply to edit summaries. One difference, however, is that the wiki markup for making italics and boldface doesn't work in the edit summary field. If your point is that I capitalized the word "not" to emphasize it in an ES, that's the explanation -- emphasis can be shown with italics or boldfacing on a talk page but those options aren't available in the ES. JamesMLane t c 13:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I think you should avoid emphasizing through capitalization in edit summary fields; you express yourself quite clearly anyhow. Magnus Johansson (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Orly Taitz. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stillwaterising (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you cited World Net Daily. This is not a reliable source, by a long shot. Material based on WND will be removed. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the eligibility issue of Barack Obama I have found World Net Daily to be a lot more reliable than the mainstream media. Why should World Net Daily be considered unreliable on this issue, do you think? Magnus Johansson (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody hasn't proved or even attempted to argue that WND is an unreliable source regarding Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to serve as US president I expect not to have material about Orly Taitz work on the Obama eligibility issue removed because of the source being WND. Magnus Johansson (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Reliable Sources - a possibly useful link

Hi, If you want to know if a source is considered reliable on any topic, the Reliable sources Noticeboard might be useful to you. Here's a search of previous discussions about WND. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, AlmostReadytoFly, and thanks for your tip. However, I am more interested in WND's reliability on the topic of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as US president. If you want to discuss that, I hope you jump in. Magnus Johansson (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WND isn't a reliable source. There's a current discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about this, but every time it comes up, Wikipedia has consistently said it cannot serve as a reliable source. You've said on this page that "I have found World Net Daily to be a lot more reliable than the mainstream media." Unfortunately, Wikipedia generally only uses mainstream sources and not fringe sources. AniMate 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please quote the whole sentence by me and we can then continue this discussion from there? Magnus Johansson (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We've all been there and done that. A few lines above, ARF gave a pointer to sixteen or so discussions of WND's credibility. Please review those. PhGustaf (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

PhGustaf, I did not find the eligibility issue among those discussions. Magnus Johansson (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here and here. --Weazie (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The first section of the discussion you linked to does not conclude at all that WND is an unreliable source on this issue. Have you read it yourself, Weazie? Magnus Johansson (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have (and the discussion demonstrates how WND changed its tune on the birth certificate -- a prime example of its unreliability). WND unreliability has been hashed out to death; birtherdom is but one example of its unreliability, and your hair splitting will get you nowhere on wikipedia. --Weazie (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You talk about the birth certificate issue. What has that to do with Obama's eligibility issue i.e. his natural-born citizenship status? Magnus Johansson (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line. WND is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. You can split hairs, but that's not going to change. I also don't think there is any point arguing with you about this anymore. You have political fringe beliefs that an extremely biased website promotes. This is not the place for you to advance those theories. AniMate 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, AniMate, you do not know anything about my political beliefs, therefore it is not wise of you to label me in any such way. By your doing so the impression one gets is that you do not dare to discuss the core issue but instead tries to smear those who do. This behaviour has to be reported since it is a disgrace for Wikipedia.

Orly Taitz

I've responded on the article talk page. Aside from the WND issue, the question is was that press conference notable, and why. The other conferences explain why they are notable, and should be included in the article. That conference doesn't have anything notable about it.

The other source may also need to be looked at, I haven't as of yet. I'd suggesting raising your concerns on the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Please read Wikipedia:NFC#UULP. We can't use the photo of Taitz on the Colbert Report, because that is owned by Comedy Central and Taitz is still alive and it should be relatively easy to obtain a free photo of her. Since you're in contact with her, you could likely simply ask her to email you a free image which you can upload here with the proper free license. It should be noted that most free licenses grant others the ability to use the images outside of Wikipedia as well. We'll need to know who took the picture, so they can release the work to us. If she would prefer to deal with this herself, she can file a ticket with WP:OTRS where a volunteer will work with her to get a free image that she has uploaded. AniMate 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Orly Taitz birthdate

You changed Orly Taitz's birthdate, which had a proper citation, and didn't give any citation for your change. Please see WP:BLP. You must provide a reliable source for your claim as to her birthdate, or I'll change it back to what the reliable source said before you edited. Woogee (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the sourced version. Woogee (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)