User talk:Bayshorebabydoll

Welcome!

Hello, Bayshorebabydoll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Houston Press

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bayshore!

I understand you removed information from Bacliff, Texas that is unflattering towards Bacliff itself. In your edit summary you said that the source article was "an opinion piece and not based on fact". Unfortunately there is no evidence of either case. The article is not labeled as an "opinion" piece (yes, there are Wikipedia guidelines on how to handle "opinion" columns as newspapers) and it was published by a newspaper, so it is not treated as an opinion piece. The Houston Press did not make any retractions towards comments, and any internet discussion board comments do not count as reliable sources. Therefore I have restored the information removed in your edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, just to be fair, I started a section on the reliable source noticeboard at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Identifying_.22opinion_pieces.22:_Bacliff.2C_Texas just to confirm the usage of the source. Kindly take a look. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only respondent agrees that it's a regular factual news story and not an op/ed. By the way, please communicate with other Wikipedians. Sign your responses with four tildes like this: ~~~~. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also started this thread on the Houston Wikiproject Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Houston#User_removing_unflattering_information_from_Bacliff.2C_Texas and I started a discussion at the Good Article page at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#User_removing_content_and_disputing_source_in_article_marked_as_.22good_article.22. I also made a further post to the NPOV noticeboard and contacted three longtime Houston area editors (User talk:RJN, User talk:Nsaum75, and User talk:Postoak) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I'll take a look at it and post my reply on the Talk:Bacliff, Texas talk page, and I'll show you the specific section. From this point it will be best to keep it on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I posted my reply at Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232 - I have a few questions, but I also have several things to clarify, especially regarding the verifiability policy (WP:V) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a user posted information about Gator Miller on the talk page. Please take a look. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please go participate in the talk page. I haven't yet modified your edits because I am waiting until the discussion ends before reverting any changes, so there is no Wikipedia:Edit war. But if you do not participate in the discussion after some time (5-7 days) I will revert whatever edits that I feel should be reverted (in other words, restoring all content sourced from the Houston Press). Several assertions you added to the article are either unsourced, or not sourced to good sources, and because Bacliff is marked as a "Wikipedia:Good article" I will have to remove them in order to maintain the "Good article" marking. Again, please participate in the talk page. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore the previous version in five days if you do not participate in the edit discussion that has been set up. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find more articles about Bacliff when I get the chance. Please tune into the discussion at Bacliff, Texas as I am still not convinced that the HP articles shouldn't be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still active on Wikipedia? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Yes, I am still here[reply]

Okay :) - Did you make responses to my latest comments on the talk page? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)No, I didn't. It didn't seem to require one, but I did read it[reply]

I want to still use the Houston Press source, I do want to add more sources to the article in general. If I add more sources, the "weight" of any existing source would decrease by default. What I could do is head off to the library and see if I can get archives of any old articles about Bacliff. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found some new ones :) - I'll add them too. Again, while I still believe in using the Houston Press article I want to use them with other sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Houston Press article referred to a shooting in a game room. I found the Chronicle article: Staff. "Officers seek witnesses in Bacliff robbery" (Houston Chronicle, Tuesday July 8, 2008 - On NewsBank (I can send you the article if you like). It's a "news event" story so I won't add info about it to the article, but I this is referred to in the Houston Press article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)There's a big difference between the Houston Chronicle article on that event and the Housto Press article. The Houston Chronicle artcle reports about it without any of the author's bias that runs throughout the Houston Press articles.[reply]