MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:Damiens.rf/Archive 2. |
|||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
Re:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Alfonso&diff=322854381&oldid=321586411 this], please review [[WP:BLP]], Here's more information on that: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "''There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales]''. This goes for all tags related to unsourced or poorly sourced content. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
Re:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricardo_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Alfonso&diff=322854381&oldid=321586411 this], please review [[WP:BLP]], Here's more information on that: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "''There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales]''. This goes for all tags related to unsourced or poorly sourced content. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Edits such as this made to [[WP:BLP]] articles need proper sourcing and attribution, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angel_Moya_Acosta&diff=prev&oldid=323323706], we cannot use Wikipedia's editorial voice to say the person was imprisoned for betraying his country - that's the POV of the of the people who arrested him and as such needs to be sourced and properly attributed. As you can see, many sources say he was imprisoned "for leading demonstration...against a dicatorship", which is quite different. Both view need to be presented per [[WP:NPOV]] ''and'' [[WP:BLP]], which makes sourcing and content even more strict. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content to a [[WP:BLP]] may lead to your being blocked. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">☥</span>]]</small> 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:28, 1 November 2009
This talk page is not a battle ground
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Cuban dissidents
I hope this isn't your admission of some sort of bias or agenda in the deletion of these individuals? Grsz11 15:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand you. --Damiens.rf 15:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
AfDs
Couldn't you combine those AfDs into one entry? Frank | talk 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be a good idea. As it's already happening, editors may disagree on the level of notability of each one of these men, and new information may always arrive about them. We should respect the editors opinions in each of these cases. --Damiens.rf 15:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see them listed individually. The main AfD topic will be notability, and that's an individual matter.
- As a general rule I wouldn't see "prisoners" as notable, nor even Black Spring prisoners as notable (a list on Black Spring (Cuba) is about the right level). However some of these individuals were notable beforehand, or have become notable as a response to their particular treatment afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to avoid those whose article mentioned some minor credible level of independent notability, but of course, community review is welcome. Also, some nomination may trigger some article expansion that would uncover previously undocumented notability. --Damiens.rf 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe five at a time might be better. It's hard to try to check out this many at once. I thought there was guidence somewhere on a policy or guideline page, but I haven't found it. JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- "It's hard to try to check out this many at once." - You don't have to. --Damiens.rf 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Diaz
I believe the other edits were fine. Adding any fact tags to a WP:BLP is highly problematic - but especially so when done on a wide scale. And yes, you're more than welcome to make improvements to the article, but please don't put the tags back. I totally agree that the article needs work, I'm slowly working on it, and would appreciate any help! Dreadstar ☥ 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. So I will now produce a version identical to the one previous to your revert minus the fact tags ok? --Damiens.rf 18:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I'll now try to -rework out some of your changes, like moving the signature image left-to-right. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Alrighty, I'll leave it in your hands and check back later! Have fun! Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Please check out. --Damiens.rf 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- LOL! Alrighty, I'll leave it in your hands and check back later! Have fun! Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I'll now try to -rework out some of your changes, like moving the signature image left-to-right. --Damiens.rf 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As for wikipedia policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY free images don't get deleted for simply being unused they get moved to commons, only un-free images get deleted but even then they get speedy deleted under CSD F5--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- That was an unwise decision to move such trash image to Commons. --Damiens.rf 11:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
BLP
Re:this, please review WP:BLP, Here's more information on that: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimmy Wales. This goes for all tags related to unsourced or poorly sourced content. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Edits such as this made to WP:BLP articles need proper sourcing and attribution, [1], we cannot use Wikipedia's editorial voice to say the person was imprisoned for betraying his country - that's the POV of the of the people who arrested him and as such needs to be sourced and properly attributed. As you can see, many sources say he was imprisoned "for leading demonstration...against a dicatorship", which is quite different. Both view need to be presented per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, which makes sourcing and content even more strict. Adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content to a WP:BLP may lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 19:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)