Talk:Chanelle Hayes/Archive 1

Site Link Discussion - May 2008

Seems that chanellehayes.com has now updated from the holding page it used to be since big brother last year. Is it worth adding it to the links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnynow (talk • contribs) 22:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Category:People from Wakefield —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.190 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tape Discussion - April 2008

PLEASE CAN USER "NIGHTFACTORY" STOP REMOVING TEXT ADDED TO THE ARTICLE THAT THEY FIND UNFLATTERING TO CHANELLE...STOP REVERTING WITHOUT DUE REASON AND EXPLANATION HERE IN THE DISCUSSION PAGE...a simple look at their user page shows they ONLY edit and revert articles relating to Chanelle Hayes.

---

I am removing graffiti added that is erroneous and put there to spread rumour and hate. Some have added contributory information and I have left that alone. If Wicki want the page to end up a pigs ear of personal slurs and misinformation then that is what it will become if someone does not look after it. I shall keep doing so as the page seems to attract graffiti and misinformation. I only tend to edit Chanelle Hayes as it is in need to looking after more than most pages. Other pages of interest do not get graffiti like Chanelle's does. Please can people just leave the page be, only add info if it is not miss representational and influenced by tabloid hype. I am trying to be as objective as possible from an informed position.Nightfactoy (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

---

You are NOT being objective...you are there to remove anything you personally feel is unflattering. Has Chanelle been in a sex tape? YES. Same as she released a perfume. Please...STOP removing information like this...you cannot simple wipe whole edits because you personally do not like that. What you are doing is against Wiki...if you continue I will request to have it protected.

AND user nightfactory...it is NOT Graffiti and misinformation. It is the TRUTH. See for yourself. I am adding it again...please do NOT remove it unless you state here first WHY and how it is graffiti/Misinformation. Also, Chanelles career is because of tabloids.

---

It's not a sex tape as there is no sex in it. Also the source and reason for this tape has not been revealed yet. Said to be part of new TV show "Fur TV" (comedy show), but not confirmed and contextualised. According to Chanelle's Agent "all will be revealed in time" so we will wait and see. Whatever the contents of this tape (when the full unedited version is released) Chanelle has many other videos for interviews for magazines that are not on the page so I don't see why this one should take presidence. All content currently on the page is sourced and referenced, written in a objective manner. Any non-sourced, unreferenced, subjective, missinformed material will be deleted when seen, in line with Wickipedia rules, as has been the case so far.Nightfactoy (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone in this discussion realizes that we do NOT put every piece of information about a person into a article. Even if something is reported by a very reliable source, it may not be important enough to include. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Note to Editor at 86.144.14.3 -- Please sign your comments by putting four tilde characters after them. This makes it much easier to follow the discussion. Thank you. (The tilde is the shift character on the key to the left of the 'one' key. Here is an example. ~~~~) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note for Wanderer and Nightfactory (i.e. "Team Chanelle") this is WIKIPEDIA...Not as stated "Wickipedia". Also...it is well known Chanelles Mother was a sex worker, or prostitute as is more commonly known, and was murdered by a Punter, is this shown on the page? No. Is anything of Chanelles imitation of Victoria Beckham shown on the page? No. Is anything shown of Chanelles "Glamour Modelling"? No. Is there anything majorly relating to the fact that made her well known, i.e Big Brother other then a flattering small text? This article is highly biased. I suggest that this article be seriously edited, sorted out and stopped being used as a tool. The fact she "models" for Diva corsets is here nor there...it is NOT well known to the public, and neither is the fact she models for michelle for george. Chanelle is known for Big Brother. Is anything mentioned of the fact she was voted "Least Talented Celebrity" in an official pole? NO. is anything mentioned of the fact her perfume failed to sell well, and neither did her calender? NO. Is this article subjective, honest and to wikipedia standards? NO. This is a TOTAL vanity article, created by either her fans, agents or the person in question. Please can wikipedia stop being used like this.

Also, for future reference, the Tilde is NOT next to the "One key" as you state, it is on the right of the @ or ' key on the common QWERTY keyboard. Please guys, stop using Wikipedia as a promotional tool, or a way for "fans" to flatter "celebrities" they see as idols. 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.14.3 (talk • contribs)

Hello, you may certainly insert facts about Hayes' bio, but they have to be backed by a serious source. Unsourced claims have to be removed, especially if they could be seen as potentially libellous (I'm not saying you did that, I'm just providing some general advice according to our key policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, etc.). Please take a look at the top of the page for more information about that. In case of any questions or ideas regarding the article, you can make proposals of what to add anytime by using this talk page. --Catgut (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

• On my Qwerty keyboard, the "~" is just left of the "one" key. My keyboard says "IBM"; maybe that's the difference.
• Since you know where the ~ key is, please use it to sign your notes.
• Your assumption about my motives is wrong. I've never heard of Ms Hayes before getting into this discussion.
• My motive is to try to keep this article from offending the Wikipedia policies. Catgut mentioned these two: Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. WP:BLP is also important.
• I have to wonder what your motive is related to this article.

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Catgut, Thank You for the reply. I will be editing the article and adding more personal information, trying to make it more to Wikipedia standards and not a vanity article/fan article. Wanderer57, please do not be so condescending and rude. Thank You. 86.144.14.3 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment Drives

Want to help write or improve biographies? Check out WikiProject Biography Tips for writing better articles. —Yamara ✉ 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Chanelle's New Single "I Want It"

I love this song tons!!! I hope she get's a no.1 single with it!!! Will someone update it as soon as they find out where she's charted?Jonni Boi 19:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Spice Girls and Victoria Beckham's Page on Wikipedia

Anyone else think there should be some sort of link to these pages especially as Chanelle is influenced by Victoria Beckham. (90.205.46.192 (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

Links

All links that appear to link to a company/organisation that sells products should be removed. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links for further information.

1. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some "advertising" links, and replaced a couple with more neutral links. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been through the article carefully, and removed most of the unsuitable links (including those tucked away in the references). For future reference:

• Links to sites that sell or promote something are not allowed, even if it's something mentioned in the text.
• Neither are links to sites that install malware on your computer.
• If a sentence mentions a music video, we do not include a promotional link to the video (especially hidden in a citation!)
• Blogs are not normally regarded as reliable sources (I did leave some of these in though).

I think that there may be some confusion on the part of the editor adding the references. It might help to read our core policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sources (linked above). Basically, a reference should be to a reliable source, such as a mainstream newspaper or magazine article, that actually backs up what the cited article text says. If you need more advice, I'm happy to help out. EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion requested

Nightfactoy (talk · contribs) is currently edit warring on this article to the point of ownership. Despite what his user page says about being interested in a variety of subjects [1], he only edits this or related articles on wikipedia. Specifically, he is removing sourced material from this article, (the latest revert [2] - 2RR today). His reasons are variously (newest first):

• It is trivial info [3]
• I am here to defame Hayes [4]
• It is subjective and uneeded [5]
• I am here to slander Hayes [6]

Despite the serious breaches of WP:AGF, this information is sourced and is not trivial, and is quite relevant to the profile of Hayes in the context of her career.

I and another editor have advised him in edit summaries not to remove sourced material without discussion [7], as you can see he has not yet discussed his edits. He seems to think he is entitled to edit war and repeatedly reverts stating his previous edit summaries "still stand". I am requesting a third opinion before the inveitable 3RR block occurs, as I have already warned him over 3RR and AGF [8], which he chose to ignore and revert again [9] (albeit toning down the accusations).

Post edit: user is further continuing to make reverts despite this open request, and abusing the minor edit flag: [10]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Post edit 2. It should be noted that the removal of the fact that her birth mother was a murdered prostituted is being caught up in the above edit warring. I do not currently consider that part of the above request, but it is likely going to bacome part of it if the above user continues to make edits bulking multiple changes in one go [11]. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Consensus only exists until an editor challenges it and after that occurs it no longer exists. That said, the page should normally remain as Nightfactoy (talk · contribs) has changed it. The edit represented his objection to the consensus already established. Conversation should then take place here on the talk page to establish if the new edit should remain or not. I don't think that the edit should remain. The reasons for that are; 1) user has known history of issues regarding notables of this TV program, 2) has known history of contentious edits in this category, and 3) did not provide a good justification for the edit in the edit summary. As such his edit should not be allowed to remain until discussion has taken place here and a new consensus to change the page exists. I will ask for page protection in the mean time. Edit-warring is harmful to wikipedia for many reasons; bandwidth, DB space, reader confusion and possible loss due to wars. Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The page has now been fully protected. I'd encourage you both to list your real issues with the situation between you and let's try and work it out. I'm sure you're both well intentioned. Tell your side below and please keep your comments inside your own section, Thanks Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MickMacNee's comments

• As above. Information is sourced and relevant. The fact that it is negative has no bearing on whether it is allowed to remain. It is most certainly not trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nightfactoy's comments

I don't know why you 'Mickmacknee' are so insistent on putting this information in the Wicki page. It has no relevance to in the context of the Chanelle page. These are just newspaper stories/attention grabbers that bandy about just to get gossip. If the page were all about gossip and paper headlines then we could find hundreds of positive articles but then the page again would seem biased. Best to keep to known facts and not just repeat spurious headline grabbing 'opinions'. Again I query your repeated interest in inputting negative media stories that do not add any real information about Chanelle on the page. You originally edited with a whole section entitled 'Decline' if people want to look at the history. A strong negative bias there I think. This coupled with the fact that 'Mickmacknee' has not edited the page previously to that.Nightfactoy (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I put it under "Decline" as it seemed a logical next section after the "Rise to Stardom" section. Both innappropriate titles have been removed, and yet you continue to try and remove sourced info. The fact I never came here before has absolutely nothing to do with whether this information meets policy, which it does. This is yet another serious failure on your part to assume good faith. The fact that you have only editted Hayes articles is actually more relevant and likely to lead to assumptions about your motives here in editting this article.

I think you are quite wrong if you think this aricle is currently wholly factual, many positive facts are from Digital Spy which is the source of the negative information you want removed as non-factual. Other references are from the likes of Heat, Daily Star, MTV etc etc, these hardly known for serious non-"headline grabbing" news copy. There are even blog sites being used as sources here, quite against policy. If this article was trimmed to properly referenced facts it would be barely bigger than a stub. If you force me to by your continued double standards, I will trim the entire article to the bare facts, per the policy on biographies and the policy on reliable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I sense here a real hostility towards both this page and its subject from 'MickMackNee'. This only makes it clearer I think that their edits are from a biased standpoint and that their intention is to reduce the page. You have put nothing to add to the page apart from negative trivia that suites your stance of attacking the page and it's subject. The information that has been gathered thus far has not relied upon just one reference source but many, including Chanelle herself, and her agent. The reference links are there as they are the online reference to the information, but not the total source info as in MickMackNee's Dspy ref's. Previously both Positive and negative edits if deemed too biased and non objective have been edited from the page. May I also say that someone has changed the Ref link to the prostitute comment. The orriginal was to the Big Brother site, not a magazine blog.Nightfactoy (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the addition of info that Chanelle's birth mother was a prostitute in the 'Early life' section of the page I think that this information is better kept in the context of the reference article linked to, listed in the reference section, for readers to look at in it's proper place and context. Not put in on the first line, obscenely highlighting it as if it is the most important factor, like some cheap magazine cover. If Wicki want to retain some quality in their pages then I think some care and consideration needs to be used in maintaining their pages. Especially ones like 'Chanelle' which occasionally sparks controversy and people attempting to project their own biased opinions onto the page, driven by media hype and not rationally informed.Nightfactoy (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. This information was widely reported at the time as an integral part of her backstory, it is not 'gossip'. We don't hide information because it can be found in references, that is not maintaining quality. I don't know where you get these ideas from about how wikipedia works, they do not appear to be policy based to me. Coupled with your lack of editting experience outside of this article, it could be said you are currently applying how you think wikipedia should work for this article. Well, I like it and I don't like it are not policies here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My editing is based both on the current Wicki policy of non-biased editing and a knowledge of the English language and how that language can be used to create either a fair and balanced and objective piece or, as in some editors cases, a wholly defamatory version that doesn't highlight the main facts (i.e; info relating to Chanelle's BB career and her later work on TV and in Magazines), but seeks to highlight secondary information, of which there is many, choosing selected articles from tabloids wishing to make a stir and not based on credible fact (i.e; from Chanelle or her agent directly). The references that I have entered are all above board and info that is extra to the main info on what is necessarily a short Wicki page on Chanelle, can be linked to using the Ref section or other links as appropriate, so the info is there if the reader wants to go further. There are a lot of articles out there about or referring to Chanelle and Chanelle's Wicki page is not a dumping ground for all those that editors feel portrays their personal opinion of Chanelle. Info needs to be edited over all to portray an objective stance and one that reflects what is actually going on with Chanelle and not just a list of secondary tabloid attention seeking headlines.Nightfactoy (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about secondary tabloid info seem to ignore the fact that two of the sourced pieces of negative info quote her directly - the worst poll and "fame may be over", this would seem to meet your need of objectively "reflecting what is actually going on with Chanelle". But this is besides the point, because only including information directly from Chanelle or her agent to the exclusion of secondary sources is categorically not how you satisfy the objectivity requirements of wikipedia.

Your basic complaint seems to centre on a failure on my part to comply with the neutral point of view policy. Well, if you can find anything in the policy that suggests the information added by me here is not objective, balanced, or relevant to Channelle or her career, then you might have a case. I happen to think every single piece of information I added is more than relevant to her overall career, especially when compared to some of the current information you appear to approve of. Unless you want to demonstrate how not being on the Radio 1 playlist is not relevant to her musical career, for example. It is not as if I have added that she was called a name by another celeb, or that she ran over a dog, or was mean to her gardener the other day - that would be trivial and non-relevant to her bio.

Your perception that References sections are the proper location for obtaining further reading is just wrong. Read Wikipedia:Further_reading#Further_reading. MickMacNee (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For the attention of the 'Third Editor'

I therefore request that the text in the Career section, third paragraph down, from the Chris Moyles show to the V festival, be taken off the page. If all this trivial, inconsequential info were to be added every time it happened to Chanelle then the wicki page would be a mile long. Same for the 'prostitute' part of the 'Early Life' section. It is already in the Ref page and properly contextualised there (I refer to my previous discussion comments).Nightfactoy (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, we can deal with this more later. I have to go out for a bout 6 hours. Will be back later and will post reposnes then. Thanks! :-) Fr33kman talk 12:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In23065 Comment

After reading this I do believe that Nightfactoy has to let other people edit the page and not act as the decider of what edits are allowed and what are not. Every page on Wikipedia should give neutral Big Brother 8. In23065 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Contrary to the reading here, there are actually a lot of people who have added/edited info on the page, what makes up the current page. There has to be line drawn though as to what is let through. As this is a publicly edited page then it is up to general person, such as myself and a few others, to keep some order on the page. If everybody were keen on objectivity and understood Wicki rules then I would not need to edit it as much, and would be left time to improving it more, amen.Nightfactoy (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ianbaxter43 Comment

As someone who has previously edited this page, I thought I'd leave my comments. The information in the disputed paragraph all uses Digital Spy as the source. Digital Spy is not a news agency, it only reports stuff that it has got from other publications. Surely if someone wants to post something they should at least give the original source? Specifically regarding the V festival claim, the organizers of V festival are well known to make these claims of rejecting Big Brother people every year, indeed this year they also claimed that they had rejected a request to allow Aisleyne to be in the VIP area. It's an annual game for them. Nobody believes a word of it, so i don't see what place it has on a Wiki page?Ianbaxter43 (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have Digital Spy removed as a valid source, I would suggest you open a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. As for this article, or Big Brother in general, I hardly think that the reliability of their 'entertainment reporting' based on what unnmamed sources say (in stories where all allegations are attributable to named staff editors, and with quotes, that are subject to libel law) is of any less quality than that of the Daily Star / Heat.

I am not going to accept the removal of only 'negative' information based on your personal view given here of DS as source, when it is likely the four 'positive' pieces of information in the article also sourced from Digital Spy will not be removed on the same basis. If you're complaining about the references, then it's all or nothing, as said above. This is the correct application of the neutral point of view policy. Your personal assessment that "nobody believes a word of it" is just not going to be accepted on wiki as a justification for any removal, that's just a fact. MickMacNee (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the difference is that at least the Daily Star and it's ilk make up their own 'news'. Digital Spy only reports that the Daily Star has made up something. I'm quite happy for all digital Spy stuff to be removed, I'm quite sure more reliable sources can be found for the positive stuff if necessary.Ianbaxter43 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Legally speaking, there's no difference. MickMacNee (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think your wrong, the info here [12] is attributed to the Press Association. I imagine that half the time DS and the Daily Star are sourcing from the same news agencies. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

friendly warning

Nightfactoy, do not attack other editors, impugning their intentions, please assume good faith. Stay focused, as suggested by others, on the content. If you continue to violate policy on personal attacks, you could be blocked. It wouldn't be me, and I'm not thinking of the content in writing this, and if I wanted to see you blocked, I wouldn't put this warning here, I'd put a standard civility warning on your Talk page, where it would be seen by an admin considering blocking you. They'd see you had been warned. Here, they might not notice it, and, I recommend, do not respond to this edit. (though responding on my Talk, if you wanted to, would be harmless.) If there is no response from you, I will remove this comment if it appears there is no more need for it. And I ask that other editors likewise not respond to it. If they do, I would strike it instead of deleting it. My goal here is to encourage all the editors working on this article to cooperate and find consensus, not to support "one side." ==Abd (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but MickMackNee is not commenting in good faith so I don't see it in good faith. I would normally start out in welcoming editors with good faith. However MickMackNee's edits show that they are not in good faith. I comment as I see it, and in line with the neutrality mentioned in Wicki's guide to editing. You are not thinking about the content but I am and I see that the content of Macknee is biased so I edit it out in order to keep the Wicki page objective. This is not a personal argument just one over content. If anybody is taking sides it seems you have just done so in your comment, that seems totally personal and not related to the issues under comment. I see no reason to change my view on Macknee's edits as already stated. I am not attacking anybody. I don't know what comments you are reading. If you re-read you will see that I am taking the objective stance here as one would against any biast editor, not 'attacking' at all. And I think, just for the record, that the 'attack' is going the other way. I see from MackNickNee's talk page that you have been advising/helping MackNickNee, so taking sides seems to be an issue here. I also note MackMickNee's edit warring/block history. Nightfactoy (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, Nightfactoy. It used to be that assume good faith was a policy. That was changed, because it's hard to enforce, not because it wasn't still an important behavioral guideline. You cannot read his mind. You do not really know his intentions; instead you look at his edits and make assumptions. Whether he has an agenda or not isn't actually relevant. By claiming he does, you confuse the issue. Incivility breeds incivility. Calling an editor "biased" is an attack. Talk about the article and the text, not the edits. Text has no motive, it's just a collection of words. Those words may be read one way or another; we want the text to read in an encyclopedic way, following policy and guidelines. A biased editor might put in conforming text or unconforming text, the alleged bias of the editor is a red herring. Yes, I'm helping MickMacNee. And I'm also helping you. If you look back in my history far enough, you'll see that I warned him, earlier this year, in just about exactly the way I just warned you. One difference, though. He responded, and changed his behavior. This section here was intended to warn you and then be removed. If you consent, that can still be done. Otherwise, because you responded, I cannot remove it. Further, because you responded, you can now be consider warned, just the same as if I'd warned you on your talk. If you'd simply left this alone, there would have been no evidence that you even saw it. Maybe that's too complicated for you. Sorry. But as to comments I was reading, here's a diff to start with: [13].

MickMacNee is an established editor, with over 8,000 edits. He's not focused on this article exclusively. It appears that you are dedicated to this particular topic, the vast bulk of your edits relate to it. That makes you a single purpose account. Such an account may be considered to have some kind of conflict of interest. You are still welcome to edit, but you should avoid controversial edits, edits you would expect to be reverted, reasonably. And if someone has been reverting you, you should then know to expect it! You are fully welcome to discuss the article, here, but civilly. Or else you can be blocked, just as MickMacNee can be blocked for incivility, though most of his blocks have been or edit warring, and, in fact, most of them have been for edit warring to support text that was ultimately accepted by consensus. (Edit warring is blockable, even if the text being supported is "right,") Is this clear enough? --Abd (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that just because most of my edits have been for this one wicki page this puts me to a disadvantage in regards my editing? That doesn't seem fair to me. I have not edited other pages of interest as they have not attracted so much graffiti as Chanelle's does. Avoid making controversial edits? Any edit could be deemed controversial to any particular editor, it depends on their view and intentions. I think that some here in this discussion do not have information about the subject (Chanelle) and are seeing this discussion without judging the material or understanding the true biased nature of the edits under discussion. I think MackNee's edits are 'controversial', does that mean these edits should be taken away? Or is it just that she is an 'established editor' that matters? Also by MickMacNee I mean his/her edits not her personally. It's not an 'attack. Her edits are biased. I gather this by reading them. I edit accordingly, trying to make the page have overall objectivity. I see that Abd is also now resorting to personally insults now under the guise of official editor on Wicki. Is this advisable;- 'Maybe that's too complicated for you' - to give an example. Not very friendly? Nightfactoy (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I said what I said, and I did not say what I did not say. Yes. SPAs are at some disadvantage in practice. Did you read the linked essay? WP:SPA, for your convenience, again. The most relevant part is The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards. On the other hand, you might be cut some slack as a newcomer. In other words, you get to make mistakes that might result in a more experienced editor getting blocked. But don't count on it, the "newbie pass" expires. I don't think you are being entirely fair here. I'd that you edit this page because you are interested in the subject. If it was the level of "graffiti," there are plenty of other pages with more. Should we point to one for your? In fact, some of us patrol Recent Changes. Believe me, if removing graffiti is what you like to do, there is plenty to do. More than you could possibly handle yourself. You wrote about the alleged motives of the editor, you did not, as you claim above, stick to discussing the content. By the way, use Show Preview before saving your edits, and fix errors or copy edit your comments before deciding to Save Page. You make it difficult for others to see what is going on in Page History because you do with six edits what should normally take one or maybe two. You wrote (bold face is my emendation):

I sense here a real hostility towards both this page and its subject from 'MickMackNee'. This only makes it clearer I think that your edits are from a biased standpoint and that your intention is to reduce the page. You have put nothing to add to the page apart from negative trivia that suites your stance of attacking the page and it's subject.Nightfactoy (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is personal attack. It is almost entirely about the editor, not the content. Calling content "negative trivia" is legitimate, whether correct or not. Now, we have an encyclopedia to write and edit. I'm not getting that you are particularly responsive to being educated here, which is your privilege. But I should make a few things clear: I'm not an "official editor." We don't have any of those. Administrators mostly regulate behavior, in theory they have no superior rights about content, though they are expected to have a much better than average understanding of content policies. I'm not an administrator. I'm an experienced user, that's all. As they say, take what you like and leave the rest. But don't say nobody tried to help you understand what's going on. I'm not going to delete this section, but I'd have utterly no objection if someone else does so. I might decide to drop a copy or diff to it on the user's Talk page, or not, or anyone else can do that if they think it might be useful. This section was not intended to be specifically useful in editing this article, just to, hopefully, clear up some distractions. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)