Jump to content

Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.154.8.182 (talk) at 05:13, 26 April 2011 (→‎Birthday). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Multidel

/archive 1

Birthday

Hawkins again spent part of 1 March thanking fans on Twitter, for greetings on his birthday that day. These:

are just a few of dozens of examples; the latter is a message from his professional peers at Shropshire Live, using their official Twitter account.

Hawkins also retweeted foreign-language birthday greetings addressed to him (that's one of several examples), appealed for more followers as a birthday present and posted a picture of his birthday cake, which can be seen here: yfrog.com/hs1n4rmj complete with candles.

Can we now drop the pretence that his birthday isn't known publicly, known at his instigation and discussed by him? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Drop it Andy. Fences&Windows 02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of that self-contradictory prose do you think precludes publication of Hawkins' widely-self-publicised DoB? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem, mate? Give it up, get a life, find something useful to do. Thanks to whoever Fences And Windows [sic] is, for pointing out that the subject objects. The subject objects to having anything about him published on Wales's Folly, for that matter. *starts stopwatch to see how long it takes Mabbett to delete this comment, like all the others he's deleted as being inconvenient to his odd little agenda* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.120 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"The subject" objecting to this article's existence is neither here nor there. Whether he likes it or not, he is sufficiently notable to have an article on Wikipedia. The article is subject to certain policies, such as the policy on biographies of living people. Our duty on Wikipedia is to ensure that all info is accurate, and if any information is included that portrays the subject of the article in a negative light, it is sourced correctly and backed up by reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the information in this article is not accurate. Who says so? The subject does. Who's in a better position to know than the subject? Er ... nobody. So if the most reliable source possible tells you the information is inaccurate, isn't it your 'duty' (sic) (LOL) to remove it?