User talk:Snertking

Re: Mel Sembler page

Good day Snertking, and thank you for your message. Very clever of you to have spotted the commonality between this IP-range and the subject's domain. I can very confidently say however, that a request for page-protection at this article would likely be rejected, simply because protection is usually reserved for high-traffic situations (when an article is undergoing aggressive rapid-edit abuse), rather than troublesome or annoyance activity occurring over an extended period. My best advice would be to keep this article in your watch list and periodically revisit to review whatever changes have been made since your last edit. When a revert or content-restoration is necessary, the inclusion of a "see talk page" note in your edit-summary can go a long way, especially as much of your homework is already clearly explained there. In revert situations, I would also recommend the use of user-talk warnings, as they will eventually lead to blocks imposed against persistent abusers. Establishing a friendly line of communication and discussion with these IPs would be in the best interest of everyone. Other measures of resolve (or blocks) can of course be taken if the disruption continues, but only after these IPs have been sufficiently warned and have failed to respond to your discussion requests. I'd happily assist you with taking the matter to the next level at that point, but with any luck, they already know that you're onto them, and will simply just give it up. Feel free to contact me at any time if this advice doesn't appear to be working very well for you. Have yourself a great day Snertking, good luck, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wurundjeri

Good going with the Wurundjeri vandalism! Scary to think it stood there for three days. SeoMac (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mel Sembler

I have raised the matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/noticeboard. I would challenge you to substantiate your accusation that I have "vandalized this page in past making false claims of unreliable sources and spurious BLP claims" GabrielF (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

OpEdNews.com is not a reliable source

You need to read the reliable sources policy and the biographies of living persons policy. Edit-warring to insert contentious, poorly-sourced material into the biography of a living person is prohibited. Specifically:

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

OpEdNews.com is, unquestionably, a poor source for contentious material about a living person. Again, specifically:

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

From OpEdNews' own About page: OpEdNews provides a content management system, accessible by anyone, that supports groups-- organizations, non-profits, clubs, etc.,enabling them to share articles, posting to pages focusing on specific subjects, every state and county in the US and all other countries and provinces (some pages added as needed or requested.)

This is the definition of a self-published source with no editorial control. It is not acceptable, period, end of sentence, as a source for contentious or negative material about a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)