Talk:Thomas Naylor

WP:SPS

This article relies heavily on WP:SPS. Needs much work. --TR05401 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

There's lots of WP:RS info out there. But if one wants to delete probably true info or find info that will trivialize the subject, it's easy enough to do, isn't it? Anyway, I'll clean it up a bit. But then we discussed your single purpose account modus operandi here, didn't we? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of having any such discussion with you.

You've launched into an allegation regarding first posts by an editor. Kind of a damned if I do, damned if I post scenario, no? Perhaps this immediately condescending, accusation laden tone of yours, an editor who stresses how many edits they've made, is a part of the problem when dealing with someone who's just started to edit and is learning their way. If you're a leader here, your style is unwelcoming and seems to convey a sense of ownership (as in you'll "clean it up a bit") and the charge of impropriety is further evidence of that style in what I've been finding in your own record. You've brought up my record so it prompted my own examination of yours.

I still do not see how you can justify using in a BLP an extremely POV website devoted to promotion of the individual, who appears to be a retiree who operates at the fringes here in Vermont and has no impact on the body politic, government or any of the other odd issues that he raises at his website. Certainly what has been inserted here with few direct links to the exact material on his website should be backed up by some neutral secondary source if at all possible, no? Wouldn't that be an improvement?

There is much at his website that he has written that is not included this article and I'm not surprised.

I'm unconvinced at this point that Thomas H. Naylor is sufficiently notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article unless an oddball, as he is considered here, is notable for that alone. Being a former academic, a writer, a founder of a "civic group" that he says has no members or, as he describes himself, a "professional troublemaker," make him notable. Nor do "press clippings" of what turns out to be self-published work, as I've now found in the article, amount to sources that confirm that he is someone notable for accomplishment beyond blowing his own horn. --TR05401 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just made a few preliminary changes to improper way the article was edited. First, I easily found three difference sources for the Associate Press article, and one is supposed to look for such links before just deleting dead links. (Also note that there was another ref already in the article as to "founder" factoid.) Second, to make it clear that info now attributed to his bio should be better sourced I added verification needed. Let's give people a few days to do that. Third, I did divide up the books in the bibliography, but that probably needs more work to properly support the last sentence of lead, where I put by citation needed for now. More to come. Patience, now that problems have been noted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)