Talk:David kernell

Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed.

Welcome!

Hello, David kernell, 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! Ferrie (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kernell

Please, seek community consensus before making changes to a controversial topic, as you consistently have been doing on the redirects related to David Kernell. I would advise you to discuss your concerns on Talk:Sarah Palin email hack (as you have already done with other issues you had with that article). Cheers, Waldir ^talk 09:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kernell

I had sought community consensus before making the changes to David Kernell article, I placed these comments on that article's discussion page. see Talk: David kernell " Using a person's name to direct to an article that speaks to a particular incidence identifies that person directly with the directed article and the incident. This is against the policy of Wikipedia, which states that articles can not be generated about living people for one event. This link should be removed." I added this comment over a month ago. I added content to the article yesterday because it is indeed an article, not a redirect page, and thus should have content. As stated, I feel that its existence violates the the policy of Wikipedia, and is a politically motivated attack upon an individual. The fact is that Mr. Kernell is not the only one that obtained unauthorized access to Sarah Palin's account, rather at least five people did, according to trial testimony. I see no mention of them in the article, nor any redirects using variations of their name as is the case with Mr. Kernell Constitutionguard (talk)

(Help cancelled; question already answered on user talk page, User_talk:Constitutionguard Chzz ► 15:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

First, what you're putting into this article about a living person needs to be sourced or it can be summarily deleted, which is what has happened so far; read through our policies about editing biographies of living people. Second, having an article about a person that solely summarizes something contentious about their life -- particularly when it's completely unsourced -- and nothing else means it's dangerously close to an attack page and shouldn't exist in that form. The information you're seeking to insert here is already covered in the article about the email hacking page, it seems to me. Unless you have something to add about him or his life beyond this, I don't think what you're seeking to do is appropriate. — e. ripley\^talk 13:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are also doing this at David Kernell which is possibly where some of the confusion is coming from. We don't repeat text throughout multiple articles; this article is only intended to redirect elsewhere in the case that someone forgets to cap his last name. I'll move my comments over to the David Kernell article now, which appears to be better-sourced, but still problematic. — e. ripley\^talk 13:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the confusion this must represent. In the past I have tried to delete this page as I feel strongly that it is not supported by Wiki policies, alas it was always recreated. The fact that it exists is I believe solely a personal attack. My only option seemed to add to the page different facts than those presented in the other article which is slanted to the Palin point of view, including her picture. You should wait for a consensus before making such a drastic change. By direction solely to the Palin article, one could consider that article just about David Kernell, it is not. This solo direct enforces the claim of a public attack. Therefore I will not add or move my comments to that sight but rather keep them here where they are more appropriately placed. I will reverse you edit to attempt obtain more consensus about this issue.Constitutionguard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Respectfully, I think you have this backwards. You need to gather consensus before you attempt to change the redirect again, in clear violation of our policy on biographies of living people. In any case, it appears that the article has been nominated for deletion, so perhaps it will be a moot point. — e. ripley\^talk 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]