R v Peacock received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A user is repeatedly adding a reference to their own blog and describing themselves as an "expert". I don't think it's notable so have been removing it. Somearemoreequal ( talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi I hope this is the correct place to contribute. I am said user. And I was referring to my own work. I have a Phd in gender studies and have relevant experience and knowledge in the area that relates to the case. The blog - Graunwatch www.graunwatch.wordpress.com that my article is from, is 'notable' in that it is the only site that critiques the Guardian newspaper specifically. I critiqued the discourse around the trial as shown in the Guardian. My blogpost on it had the most lively discussion of all that I have seen, with 46 comments and counting. The digital age changes what 'notable' means. I think wikipedia is a bit behind the times. QRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi NotoriousQRG ( talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)NotoriousQRG here I am fine with the edit I accept your points.
Hi all thanks for the information I accept your points. I had not encountered this 'revert' rule before and now I understand. Thanks NotoriousQRG
I am not going to edit it as I don't want to get into another fight but whoever edited the main body of the article most recently has not done a very good job. The sentences are far too long and it doesn't all make sense or even seem that relevant! NotoriousQRG —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC).
"Nigel Richardson later told the press that the jury had recognised that the pornography found in the DVDs would only be seen by "gay men specifically asking for this type of material" and not by the general public." This seems significant; the implication would be that only (some) members of the jury and legal professionals present have ever been exposed to this material against their wishes, inclinations etc. Is not the clear implication that the prosecution of such trials runs directly counter to the spirit of any obscenity legislation? I for one certainly do not have the stomach for this material and it appears that the only way I can ever be made to watch it is when the state calls me up for jury duty! 137.205.101.77 ( talk) 12:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
R v Peacock received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A user is repeatedly adding a reference to their own blog and describing themselves as an "expert". I don't think it's notable so have been removing it. Somearemoreequal ( talk) 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi I hope this is the correct place to contribute. I am said user. And I was referring to my own work. I have a Phd in gender studies and have relevant experience and knowledge in the area that relates to the case. The blog - Graunwatch www.graunwatch.wordpress.com that my article is from, is 'notable' in that it is the only site that critiques the Guardian newspaper specifically. I critiqued the discourse around the trial as shown in the Guardian. My blogpost on it had the most lively discussion of all that I have seen, with 46 comments and counting. The digital age changes what 'notable' means. I think wikipedia is a bit behind the times. QRG — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousQRG ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi NotoriousQRG ( talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)NotoriousQRG here I am fine with the edit I accept your points.
Hi all thanks for the information I accept your points. I had not encountered this 'revert' rule before and now I understand. Thanks NotoriousQRG
I am not going to edit it as I don't want to get into another fight but whoever edited the main body of the article most recently has not done a very good job. The sentences are far too long and it doesn't all make sense or even seem that relevant! NotoriousQRG —Preceding undated comment added 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC).
"Nigel Richardson later told the press that the jury had recognised that the pornography found in the DVDs would only be seen by "gay men specifically asking for this type of material" and not by the general public." This seems significant; the implication would be that only (some) members of the jury and legal professionals present have ever been exposed to this material against their wishes, inclinations etc. Is not the clear implication that the prosecution of such trials runs directly counter to the spirit of any obscenity legislation? I for one certainly do not have the stomach for this material and it appears that the only way I can ever be made to watch it is when the state calls me up for jury duty! 137.205.101.77 ( talk) 12:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)