User talk:Ryansmithxvx
Your note[edit]
Hi Ryan, I reverted Peter Daniel Young to an earlier version because a lot of the extra detail wasn't really notable, and the only sources were personal websites that contained negative material about another living person. We're not allowed to do that kind of thing per WP:BLP. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Many of the sources used were from the Associated Press and IndyMedia, which I had thought met the criteria of being objective and verifiable. I'm still new to wikipedia and am often confused on when something counts as usable and when it doesn't, as the same thing seems to be ok here and not ok there. I guess I'm just looking for some clarity. If you could, would you let me know exactly which pieces and which sources weren't acceptable and why, so that I have examples that go along with guidelines I'm still attempting to fully understand?
Thanks
Ryansmithxvx 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Ryan, some or all of the sources you wanted to use contained serious, contentious allegations about a living person other than the subject of the article, so they can't be used. Also, the extra material turned the article into more of a hagiography than I felt was appropriate (writing from memory here, because I've not looked at it since). Can you show me a link to the AP article or any similarly reliable sources? My recollection is that there were very few reliable sources, if any, for the parts I removed. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the references section of what was the longest version of the article to have existed before redaction. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Daniel_Young&diff=134723523&oldid=134035094#References Thanks again Ryansmithxvx 21:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again, I would need to see the specific references for the part you're complaining was removed. My recollection is that they were very poor, and that they included contentious statements about another living person, which would be a violation of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess my question, very broadly, applies to the whole of the article: the parts that were redacted down, I'm wondering why for each part I guess. Sorry for that being so broad. Would you be able to take a look at the former version I linked in my last response and let me know which parts weren't acceptable and why, other than sources saying negative commentary on another person? That part is easiest to understand and fix, but I'm still lost on some of the other aspects. Thanks. Ryansmithxvx 17:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again, I would need to see the specific references for the part you're complaining was removed. My recollection is that they were very poor, and that they included contentious statements about another living person, which would be a violation of WP:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
File:Prock.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prock.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
