Talk:Roy L. Pearson, Jr.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:22, 26 June 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roy L. Pearson, Jr. redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Biography Redirect‑class

	Biography portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-05-03. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives

Talk:Roy L. Pearson, Jr./Archive 1

Removed links

I have removed two links from this article. One was a whitepages.com link pointing to the personal information of the subject of this article. This is inappropriate and unnecessary. Second was the biography link; Mr Pearson's biographical information has been removed from this link. I have thus removed the biographical information from this article as it is now unsourced, and was basically copied straight from that site anyway, so was a copyvio even when the source still existed. Ryanjunk 19:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't copyright facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can copyright a particular expression of facts. Ryanjunk 19:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information that is owned and created by the Federal Governement is free to use, under the Freedom of Information act. My strong suggestion is to restore Ryanjunk's incorrect deletions. Roy Pearson's biographical information is a work product of the Government and not copyrighted. Now it is not available here or on the original website (they deleted his biographical page, apparently after they fired him) leaving Wikipedian customers to fend for themselves looking for information from other, less available sources. What are searchers to do? The news is getting old, now it is historical facts that people are looking for. Wikipedia is the proper venue. Ryanjunk claims that once a source of information decides to take that information off of a webpage, it suddenly becomes unsourced. This claim is absurd, and attempts to change history itself by defining it as whatever the current state of the web reflects it to be. This is reminisent of George Orwell's 1984, where history itself was rewritten by the Government.--67.81.119.3 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and good point about the government material. And just because a source has been deleted doesn't mean the information contained in it ceases to be true. Google's cache of it still exists, so I'm restoring the deletions and providing a link to the cached version. 199.111.196.221 04:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC) (edit: I did however, take off the whitepages info. Stalking shouldn't be part of Wikipedia and the information is easy enough to find anyway)[reply]

I'd suggest you Assume Good Faith. My removal of the reference and my removal of the information were two separate actions. I removed the reference because it no longer contains any information. I removed the information because it was copied verbatim from the source. Thanks for calling me Big Brother, though, I haven't had a good laugh today. Ryanjunk 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this person is completely wrong. If a source cannot be accessed or no longer exists on the site, then it can't be considered a proper source. We know the information to be true, but it still has to be sourced by something else. Websites change all the time, and Wikipedia has plenty of articles with dead links in them Shadowrun 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News sites get rid of old items all the time. This is one reason a print source is preferable to an online one. It is also why we have the "last accessed" date in the citation templates. -- MisterHand 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there's always a way to cite dead links. WLU 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-work

I reworked the info from google cache to avoid copyviolation.

I've also added a section on the law suit, which I would like to expand but I don't have time for right now. WLU 12:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google cache contains information from the government. It is not copyrighted, as per the Freedom of Information act. Your google link now points to a mostly deleted web page. Please reconsider reverting the Google link to the cached page. --67.81.119.3 12:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Sorry folks I made a mistake here. It appears that the link in the article still points to the Google cache, but the Google cache itself now points to the deleted page at the DC Government. We need to somehow find an older Google cache. I don't know how to do that right now so I will leave it to others. --67.81.119.3 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced it with the Yahoo cache. The page isn't archived on archive.org. If it goes dead, I have a screenshot of the page as it was and could upload it. I don't know how well that would do as a source for Wikipedia though. 199.111.196.221 15:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would do fine. All that we need to do is establish the truth of the data. A screen shot verifies it. Even if the present state of the web doesn't show it, the data cannot be denied, even if it is currently different. --67.81.119.3 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Wikipedia thinks that the Yahoo screenshot is an orphan. In other words, the image is not linked to by any web page. I don't know why that is, because I clicked on the link to see the image, therefore there is a link, and that link is the one I clicked on. I don't see any tools anywhere to convince Wikipedia otherwise, so I will leave it to more experienced users to fix it. If it is not fixed, then Wikipedia will delete the image under it's speedy deletion policy.--68.193.161.227 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was linked as an external link, so it was not appearing in "What Links Here" for the image. I have made it an internal link so it should now no longer appear as orphaned. FYI, to do this you can place a colon (:) in front of the image link, and make it like a regular wikilink. [[:Image:whatever]] Ryanjunk 22:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CCDF

Should the Custom Cleaners Defense Fund be a reference or an external link? I'm leaning towards external link, though we could have both. WLU 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert due to vandalism

I have reverted the page due to vandalism. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.90.82.45 06:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last external link should refer to pre-trial, not pre-trail

Werner Cohn 6/14/07

Disbarment?

Is someone trying to disbar this guy? If so it should be in the article. F 07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost His Pants in a Lawsuit

Which would be an accurate statement, taken literally. I think it's worthy of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.142.237.208 (talk • contribs)

You might want WP:HUMOR or WP:JOKE WLU 13:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::::I'd suggest you Assume Good Faith. My removal of the reference and my removal of the information were two separate actions. I removed the reference because it no longer contains any information. I removed the information because it was copied verbatim from the source. Thanks for calling me Big Brother, though, I haven't had a good laugh today. [[User:Ryanjunk|Ryanjunk]] 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-::::''"Ryanjunk claims that once a source of information decides to take that information off of a webpage, it suddenly becomes unsourced. This claim is absurd, and attempts to change history itself by defining it as whatever the current state of the web reflects it to be. This is reminisent of George Orwell's 1984, where history itself was rewritten by the Government."'' -Oh, for Christs sake, no it doesn't. Let's stay grounded in reality here. If the source is taken off the website for whatever reason, then it ceases to be a proper source because technically it really doesn't exist anymore. Nobody is saying the information isn't true, we know it is, but we still have to have proof. Besides, this happens on Wikipedia all the time - websites change and links become dead, etc etc. [[User:Shadowrun|Shadowrun]] 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
+::::No, this person is completely wrong. If a source cannot be accessed or no longer exists on the site, then it can't be considered a proper source. We know the information to be true, but it still has to be sourced by something else. Websites change all the time, and Wikipedia has plenty of articles with dead links in them  [[User:Shadowrun|Shadowrun]] 14:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 :::::News sites get rid of old items all the time. This is one reason a print source is preferable to an online one. It is also why we have the "last accessed" date in the citation templates. -- [[User:MisterHand|MisterHand]] 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 ::::::Plus, there's always a way to [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22|cite dead links]].  [[User:WLU|WLU]] 14:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)