User talk:Brillen Otarie

Why you keep being reverted

Read WP:BLP. Particularly important for this guy, is the following passage:

"The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article."

You may not like the guy, I may not like the guy, but these are the rules. Considering what the guy has said about bloggers, and the fact that he claims to be consulting lawyers to defend his honour, the people who are reverting you have one purpose in mind: guard Wikipedia from being sued in court by him. You may not like the fact that we must be extra careful because he is "an honourable man" (look up the meaning of that phrase in Shakespeare) but you and I will only be allowed to write what WP:BLP allows.

I do not know whether you understand Dutch. Since the guy is Flemish and right-wing, I would advise against using any links to French-speaking newspapers or even Flemish papers and magazines like De Morgen or Humo, because they would be accused of not being neutral. Well, even Het Belang van Limburg would probably be considered too left-wing. There are texts in De Standaard, but that is paying, and in Gazet van Antwerpen, though that last one, as close as it is to the guy's politics, is sometimes doubted as a reliable source. Luckily, Dutch newspapers (from the Netherlands) have started to tell the story. This link ([1]) is simply great because it mentions Daerden (so cannot be faulted for lack of neutrality) and mentions a few other things about "the guy" (it improves the rest of the article) but also because it emphasises the bit about going (and taking his entourage) to New York without having anything to do there and the bit about the telephone call to the bar owner. That is obviously not so trivial as "wanting to take over as the bar man" or "singing suggestive songs" would be. And it is obvious that the paper considers these two things (trip and call) more or less proven. (there is already a second foreign source, BN/De Stem, a local paper from the Southern Netherlands which covers this - let us hope English papers will follow suit).

You expressed your concern that links to newspapers may be inconvenient, because the articles may disappear. Well, as long as the info is not in another secondary source like a book oe a biography, newspapers are all we have. Note that if it is notable, it will soon be in such "secondary" sources. And many papers have archives which remain readable for quite some time. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Edition mistake

Admins cannot erase a particular part of the history pages. WP:Oversight can do that; you may request there. Thanks for opening your concern to me. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, could you please direct me to that diff where you have committed that mistake so that I can help you with the request? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you visited WP:Oversight? --Efe (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I rechecked the policy. But at least the edit has been removed in the talk page, though Im not apprehensive with it, and its not completely publicly viewable. --Efe (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good also that you were guided by the guy above about biographies of living persons. --Efe (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)