User talk:Greyhyenalunch

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Greyhyenalunch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Robert Lethbridge. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wikipelli ^Talk 10:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lethbridge[edit]

What is Optima, a journal that you have cited at Robert Lethbridge? I have reverted your contributions for now because there appears to be a grave risk of contravening our policy regarding biographies of living people. For sure, the citation of a forum is entirely unacceptable. Optima may be ok but I have my doubts unless it is the official journal produced on behalf of the Fellows (eg: at Peterhouse there was both an official "Peterhouse Record" and a student-published rag - the latter is not a reliable source). - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up regarding the citation of a forum. As for Optima, this is indeed an official periodical published twice yearly by Fitzwilliam College, i.e. on behalf of the Master and Fellows. Its main webpage is here. If you are still in any doubt, have a look at an issue, e.g. issue 17, to confirm that the staff are all paid officers of the College (either in Development or Communications), and its editor is the College's Head of Communications Resources. I think therefore the removed bit sourced to Optima should be reinserted, but will wait to hear your view first.Greyhyenalunch (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am surprised that they are quite so free in their opinions in print! Obviously, the interpersonal angst voiced at High Table etc represent the usual personality/college politics clashes etc and, boy, was there some when I was at Peterhouse during Trevor-Roper's time! But putting it in writing is rather different until they are safely dead and buried. However, it is apparently there and it is a reasonable source, therefore I see no reason to exclude it except possibly on the grounds of trivia and the principle of "doing least harm" in a BLP. I am a bit on the fence about that issue but WP:BOLD seems likely to apply. I wonder if it might be worth while seeking a third opinion? Would you object to that? - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all with seeking another opinion - I think it's a good idea.Greyhyenalunch (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I eill copy this entire thread to Talk:Robert Lethbridge and then flag it up at WP:3O or somewhere similar. Thanks for your understanding. - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]