Talk:Brian Haberlin

Brian Haberlin's early life and ancestry

I am a close relative of Brian, and some of the information provided here about his ancestry and parentage is incorrect.

Brian's father, William Haberlin, was indeed from Hawaii, but his ancestors had no discernible Hawaiian blood, rather being descendants of Portuguese laborers. Brian's mother, Mildred Copley, was born in Maine (NOT New Hampshire) to an American family of aristocratic British descent. She was mostly of English, Scottish and Irish descent, not Swedish-Irish.ZalgoApproaches (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Content

<Much of the content provided reads as a marketing/sales page written with extraneous information from a subjective, non-neutral and biased perspective. Additionally much of the content was taken out of context for the source material provided. Content and information have been changed/adjusted to read as more factual with a neutral tone containing verifiable / non-biased sources, while matching similar wikipedia pages on biographies of living people.> Slacker13 (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

6 December content removal

@Slacker13: I've reverted your two edits, in which you deleted one third of the content of this article. I don't agree with your rationale, above; but, equally, because you deleted so much in a single edit, it is hard to see the wood for the trees.

Could I suggest, if you wish to address supposed issues on this article, that you work sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph, making a series of small edits, rather than making a single huge change. That will allow other edits to better understand what you are doing, and why you are doing it. Please specify your specific objection to text removed in the edit summary.

Here, for instance, it is not clear which parts of the article have been removed because they are uncited; which because you view tham as "extraneous", which because you view them as "subjective, non-neutral or biased", which because they are in your opinion "out of context" &c.

In general, across wikipedia, please do not make sweeping changes to articles in a single edit, but instead do it piecemeal so that other editors can understand what you are doing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

HI Tagishsimon, the issues I attempted to tackle were flagged by Wikiprojects Biographies. I removed the tag because I addressed the issues. If you've reverted my edits, can you please place the tag/flag back so other editors recognize the article has been flagged for non neutral tone and unverifiable content? thx Slacker13 (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I added the tag back myself. Slacker13 (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slacker13: Exactly which parts of the article does the tag relate to, Slacker13? It seems to my eye that pretty much all of it is cited. The notice is from 2009 when it looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Haberlin&oldid=253965649 ... can you spot the difference?

Not to put to fine a point on it, I've been here for 20 years. You have been here for five minutes. I really don't want to get into a shit revert war with you. But I really wish you'd slow down and consider whether your bull-in-a-china-shop approach is appropriate, and whether you yet have requisite knowledge to evaluate the necessity for the tag. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure what the issue is. Yes, I'm a new comer and i'm learning. I'm going by what third parties (outside of you and i) are suggesting. i.e. the flags for content. Don't shoot the messenger. On a side note, Aren't you supposed to have 1. assume good faith, 2. have more patience for a new comer, 3. be welcoming and not make it difficult for a new editor to contribute, 4. be civil? To be honest, I'm feeling a bit targeted. Slacker13 (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI -- I wasn't the one who placed the original tag. I removed it, after I made the edits. You reverted the edits, so I placed the tag back that I had removed. Slacker13 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slacker13: I pointed to the state of the article when the tag was added. About 5 sentences and zero citations. Now, without looking again, about 50 sentences and 17 references. It is very common on WP for a nagbox like this to be applied, say, in 2009, and then to persist on the article for, say 14 years, long after the need for it has expired. This is the case with this article.

I asked you a clear question which you have not answered: exactly which parts of the article do you think merit the tag? To me, it seems substantially referenced. There are very few sentences without a citation; perhaps 93% is cited and 7% is not. That is not a situation, in my very long experience, which calls for the tag. You need to justify your decision to add the tag; because that's what's going on here. Why, Slacker 13? Why have you decided to add the tag.

I note your questions: 1. I do assume good faith, but I also assume that you do not know what you are doing because that's what it looks like. 2. I have patience. I'm spending a lot of time trying to educate you. 3. I'm not making it difficult for you to contribute. I'm mitigating the damage which you are causing. 4. I'm being scrupilously civil, but that it not the same as being in any way impressed with your work or approach so far. The bald fact is that you put a taget on yuor back in the teahouse thread, and here we are with exactly the sort of issue I anticipated there: you not understanding what you are doing, and making mincemeat of other people's work. You being a clear and present risk to the wellbeing of WP articles, evidenced by the changes you have made to this one. I have invited you to redo your changes in very small chunks so that they can be anaysed: that is evidence of facilitation your contributions.

Right now I'm most concerned about the tag. You need to justify your placement of it, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have already justified the tag. It was placed by someone else. You are welcome to ask them why it was placed to begin with. I removed it when I made the edits, you reverted my edits, I placed it back. If you don't think it's warranted you are fully welcome to check the sources, source parts that aren't sourced / poorly sourced / self-sourced. As it stands, this article has faulty sources. I can point them out to you, but I have a day job and would prefer not to redo the work and then again have them reverted by you. You indicate that you feel this article is well sourced, so remove the tag. Slacker13 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slacker13: You have not justified the readdition of the tag. The tag was added to an article WITH NO CITATIONS WHATSOEVER. It now has SEVENTEEN CITATIONS. THESE THINGS ARE NOT THE SAME. And if you remember, I did remove the tag indicating it was well sourced. You re-added it. I will now remove it once again and hope that you can contain yourself. See also WP:POINTY. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You can remove it, but I don't agree this article is well sourced and I do plan on going line by line with it, but not right now, because as I said, day job. You and I both know just because a source is listed doesn't mean it meets Wiki guidelines for sourcing. This article was flagged, it's listed as a start article that needs fleshing out and help. Slacker13 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

For example source 1, doesn't exist. Source 2 seems questionable based on the context of the sentence, but I don't have a copy of the book in front of me. There may be one source that has editorial oversight. Many of them seem like self-sourced/created references that I'd have to do through in depth. In going through Wiki policy on content -- there is language in there that I'll need to find, because again newbie, that describes the exact issues I'm seeing. So this debate we're having is exactly why I posted the tea house question.

• WP:REPUTABLE
• WP:CONTEXTMATTERS
• WP:RSSELF
• WP:UGC
• WP:SELFSOURCE

So my question to you, is WHY you think this article is well sourced, outside of just the number of sources because frankly it seems counter to everything I've read? Slacker13 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Slacker13: It is not that I think it is well sourced, but rather that it is not so badly sourced as to require the BLP Source box. As I have said multiple times, that was added in 2009 when it had no citations. It was appropriate then. It is not appropriate now. The vast majority of BLPs could do with more sources. Relatively few of them carry the BLP Sources box. PLEASE try to learn how wikipedia works before going off half-cocked.

Source 1 exists at https://web.archive.org/web/20220306011651/http://manikcreations.com/interviews/interview-with-brian-haberlin/ ... again, you need to slow down and think about what you are doing. Your inability to find the source does not mean the source does not exist. There are standard protocols when sources disappear, which normally involve checking the wayback machine.

I note the bar-room lawyer list of policies and guidelines. If you click on any of them, you'll see that all of your links are broken, in the sense that they resolve to the redirect page and not to the redirect target. I don't expect new users to be competent, so that's fine. But they are another concrete demonstration of your hubris. Please tone it down a notch or three and take on board that you have a lot to learn. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Noted. And I actually really do appreciate the guidance. I know you don't have to take the time to explain all of this, so that you have, is appreciated. Taking it down a notch. Slacker13 (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)