User talk:Dougbremner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I did that but now there is no longer a link to my username.


Doug, I see the signbot has asked this already, but it's worthwhile to repeat. Please sign each post you make on a talk page by writing four tildes (~). You may have noticed that your signature looks different than everyone else's because it says that the preceding comment was unsigned but written by you. Typing four ~ will stop that. Welcome to the MoMK article. Things can get rough there, but don't give up and try and have patience. Best. LedRush (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I figured it out now. What happens next with the stomach contents issue? It seems to have stalled. How do you all reach consensus on what to put in the article? Dougbremner (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is often hard to figure out. What you could do to move things along is request a specific edit and ask people their opinions on it. That way, they could suggest specific changes. Also, per WP:BRD], you could boldly add your requested language. However, if it is reverted, the proper procedure would bring you back to the talk page to discuss the edit (meaning, you should not just revert the reversion, something that could incite an edit war. LedRush (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I put a summary of what is in the Sollecito appeal regarding medical evidence for time of death so we'll see how that flies with the troops! Is waiting 24 hours fair before attempting to post it in the article? Dougbremner (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing in General[edit]

I know editing can be frustrating within Wikipedia's rules, especially when you feel that you have specialized knowledge that is not being included into the article. Try and stay positive and civil, though. We work here through many policies that are designed to help the encyclopedia in general, including the need for reliable sources, the concern not to put WP:UNDUE weight on one topic, and the general need for a neutral point of view. For right or wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to find truth or deep investigative information; it is more a summary of what reliable sources say about a topic.

You can definitely leverage your specialized information to the article's benefit, and I hope you stick around. But don't be discouraged by the hostility on the talk page or by not always having your arguments win out. If you stay positive and civil, and you make your arguments well, more often than not your contributions will appear in the article.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but tag teaming me about my response to a simple question about whether there should be a NPOV tag for an article is over the top, as is creating black lists of editors. Dougbremner (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox[edit]

You seem knowledgable about the Italian trial process. I think that the current wording in the lead is confusing. Do you think there is a way to explain it simply and then go into more detail about the nuances in another paragraph or section? Westeros1994 (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You could say "was sentenced to 26 years and spent 4 years in prison before the initial conviction was overturned". Then we can add a section on Italian law and I could work on that later. Feel free to change as you wish but I think you get the point of what I was saying. If you'd rather I change it let me know. Dougbremner (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I like that wording and would prefer that you make the change when you're ready to start the Italian law section. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
OK thanks I changed the wording and added a section on Italian law as it relates to the trial of Amanda Knox. Dougbremner (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Doug Bremner[edit]

Hi - your username suggests a clear WP:COI or close connection to the subject with your contributions to the Doug Bremner, please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for some useful advice. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that and if you look at the history you will see that the page has been around for over a year and I only recently made some formatting corrections and added secondary sources withoug changing primary content drastically but I acknowledge your points and will lay off my own page. Thanks.. Dougbremner (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


Hi again, I see you are editing the knox BLP as well - as a named individual that blogs and writes about her - you have imo also a COI in regard to her BLP - I would suggest its a better position if you do not edit her wikipedia biography either. If you do edit it and you are involved in any disputes at that article, you should be aware such off wiki involvement will compound the issue . Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Personal blogs are not reliable sources WP:RS. I have never written articles or been quoted on the case in reliable public media and I am not a public figure in the case. Dougbremner (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
No , I am not suggesting you are in anyway a WP:RS about Knox. You have a wikipedia article here where it is linked to your blog where you extensively opine about the murder. You are welcome to disagree, I am only advising you in a well meaning way, but as I said if you are involved in disputes at that WP:BLP your off wiki posts will compound the report. I suggest you take a lot of care and use discussion on the talkpage to seek consensus. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Last time I checked there is no mention of my blog ( or link to it on the wikipedia page about me. That's because, as you know, it is not WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dougbremner (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I removed it as overly promotional - if your blog is notable or discussed in an independent reliable source then we can replace it but as we have your main website and your blog is linked from there I chose to remove it, it is recommend wiki guideline as the correct position to just have the main private website. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I saw that you removed it and I think that was appropriate as it wasn't WP:RS and I have no complaints with that. I wasn't the one to put it in there in the first place and my edits were trying to remove my personal website as primary source. (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dougbremner (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue was about whether there are links on the Doug_Bremner page to the blog, not whether there are any links anywhere on wikipedia to the blog. Dougbremner (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

When you add or change content, as you did to the article Amanda Knox, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Documentaries on Amanda Knox[edit]

  • American Girl, Italian Nightmare: CBS 48 Hours documentary, broadcast in April 2009 in the United States,[1]
  • Beyond the Headlines: Amanda Knox: Lifetime documentary, broadcast on 21 February 2011 in the United States[2]
  • A Long Way From Home: CBS 48 Hours documentary, broadcast in April 2008 in the United States[3]
  • Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story: CNN CNN Presents documentary, broadcast on 8 May 2011 in the United States[4][5]
  • The Trial of Amanda Knox: NBC Dateline NBC documentary, broadcast on 4 December 2009 in the United States[6]
  • Cold Blood: Life Behind Bars For Amanda Knox: Investigation Discovery Cold Blood documentary, broadcast on 20 April 2011 in the United States [7]
  • The Trials of Amanda Knox: The Learning Channel documentary, broadcast on 24 March 2010 in the United States[8]
  • - Amanda Knox: The untold story, CBS 48 Hours documentary October 8, 2011 7:45 PM[9]
  1. ^ "American girl, Italian nightmare". 8 April, 2008. Retrieved 15 October, 2011.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Amanda Knox TV Movie Draws Ire from Victim's Dad". 4 Feb, 2011.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "A Long Way From Home". 10 April, 2008.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "‘Murder Abroad: The Amanda Knox Story’ – CNN’s Drew Griffin Reports". 28 April, 2011. Retrieved 15 October, 2011.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)
  5. ^ "CNN Presents: Murder Abroad, The Amanda Knox Story". Retrieved 15 October, 2011.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  6. ^ "The Trial of Amanda Knox". 4 Dec, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ "Cold Blood: Life Behind Bars For Amanda Knox". 18 April, 2011.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ "The Trials of Amanda Knox". 25 March, 2010.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ ""48 Hours" reveals Amanda Knox's untold story". 8 October , 2011. Retrieved 18 October, 2011.  Check date values in: |access-date=, |date= (help)

Italian justice system[edit]

Hi Doug, I saw you mention the Italian justice system somewhere, and how a person is not convicted after the first trial. You sounded quite knowledgeable about this, so I was wondering whether you'd be willing to write a brief section (just a paragraph would do), for placement at the top of Murder of Meredith Kercher, to give readers some background. No worries, though, if you're too busy. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

COI comments[edit]

"As for Connolly15 "outing" editors I think that is kind of a joke since I use my real name in editing!"

I am not "outing" editors. If I could have just said your username I would have. I was complying with Wikipedia policy of not "naming names" on that page. An administrator asked me to email her and I complied, it's pretty simple. You should note what I said directly above your comments, "My personal opinion is that no one should be prevented from editing unless they are being abusive/vandalising." You then proceed to agree with me directly below the comment.
I think the spirit of that rule is not to match the real name to the user name. Users such as myself who use our real names are obviously waving their right for anonymity. I am aware that anyone can google my name and find a large amount of information about me. I prefer it that way as I choose to use total transparency. Dougbremner (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Connolly15 has been bringing this up for a while e.g. on the talk page of off2riorob"

I have raised this once previously with a user who first raised it with you! And you will note that in my comment to off2rirob I said, " I thought I would bring this to your attention as you raised the issue. I'm not aware of any unfair edits he has made."

"Connolly15 seems to be quite concerned about the Giuliano_Mignini page and my edits there only about 1/5 of which is related to the current topic. Of everyone involved he seems to be the most single topic motivated."

My concern for that article has been motivated by (1) its original extremely poor quality and (2) it's violation of BLP quality guidelines, which other users have agreed with (see delete talk page). I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I am the most single topic motivated, since I created a whole article on Calunnia and also added to your Italian criminal procedure section of Murder of Meredith Kercher a whole section on how victims play a role in criminal procedure in civilian legal systems. I have also amended the MoMK article regarding Lumuba's restitution/damages from the calunnia conviction. Perhaps you could justify your comments or retract them. Thanks (Connolly15 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
The MoMK article has a history of waves of people opening accounts to post only on that topic, many of whom were banned, so editors are appropriately wary of that, although it appears that you are new and as far as I can tell editing in good faith. The article started out poorly and then improved, that is just the way things are done here, it is a group effort that runs according to certain rules. E.g. I think that the book Injustice in Perugia is of a much higher quality than Angel Face, but I agree with the decision to include the latter and not the former, because it follows WP:RS rules. Again, I loathe The Sun but that doesn't mean it necessarily is not WP:RS. I admit I wondered if you had a personal involvement in the Mignini page since you seem to have a strong opinion that he is not notable or that the information was primarily negative. I would invite you to read the criteria for WP:Notability and go along with the consensus, which seems to be in favor of him being notable and not just related to a single event. I wouldn't take this personally, as you continue to edit here and on other pages not directly related people will trust that you are editing in good faith. As for locking down pages or adding censorship to users I am against that as the opposing views ultimately lead to the best results especially when the rules are followed and there is oversite from senior editors. Dougbremner (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW it is not really true that my relative "offered her services as a lawyer to the Knox family." She was either acting as their attorney or she was not, and in this case she was not their attorney. The closest you could get would be this reliable source which quotes her saying that she "offered her counsel pro bono", i.e. gave them advice free of charge (as an attorney from the same town with a mutual friend, Michael Heavey), which is not the same as entering in an attorney-client relationship. The previous citation also quotes her as saying that she is a "spokesperson for the Friends of Amanda", which just means that she went on TV to talk about the case. In spite of the internet hype to the contrary, the Friends of Amanda or "FOA" are nothing more than a group of people from Seattle who thought she was innocent, without charter or official political or non-profit status, or even a list of members on any web site I've been able to find. They have no more "official status" than the picknicking friends of Florence. Dougbremner (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"The MoMK article has a history of waves of people opening accounts to post only on that topic, many of whom were banned, so editors are appropriately wary of that, although it appears that you are new and as far as I can tell editing in good faith."

If doubt remains in your mind you may care to review my sandbox where I have been working on a recast of a lengthy article Scots law, which is also a lonely article needing a fresh coat of paint. I hope this establishes that I am a genuine contributor, and I can confirm that I have no connection at all to any of this and don't even maintain a blog, twitter account, etc on the issue.

Again, I loathe The Sun but that doesn't mean it necessarily is not WP:RS.

I'm glad you agree. However, I think you can agree that when lifting quotes from The Sun it is important to clarify they come from a tabloid (especially where they are not substantiated anywhere else). The paper suffers from a fairly high failure rate in defending itself from libel in the UK.

" I admit I wondered if you had a personal involvement in the Mignini page since you seem to have a strong opinion that he is not notable or that the information was primarily negative. I would invite you to read the criteria for WP:Notability and go along with the consensus, which seems to be in favor of him being notable and not just related to a single event."

I would ask that you read my reasoning for nominating the article for deletion in the first place - it had nothing to do with notability concerns or that he was only related to 1 event, which were subsequently raised by another user and then attributed to me as nominator.

"The article started out poorly and then improved"

Agreed, attention was paid to it (and biographical details added) only after I nominated it for deletion. It existed for 2 weeks before that in a poor state and would have benefited from some time spent in draft form in a sandbox given his controversial character.

"I wouldn't take this personally"

I haven't, but you accused me of a number of things (noted above) which are incorrect on a pubic forum.

"BTW it is not really true that my relative "offered her services as a lawyer to the Knox family." She was either acting as their attorney or she was not, and in this case she was not their attorney."

I would draw your attention here where she lists "Friends of Amanda Knox" as some of her "high-profile clients". I cannot comment on the United States, but in the UK offering pro bono legal advice constitutes a client-solicitor relationship and the solicitor holds the same duty of care to the pro bono client as they would otherwise hold if they were charging them fees - hence my understanding from the Times Article you cited that she was offering her services as a lawyer to the Knox family by offering to give them counsel pro bono. (Connolly15 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

Finkellium/Col Scott[edit]

Thanks for that info. You didn't ask me to do anything so I'll take it as an FYI. Lesion (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. He is on a role about this case and my sister is her lawyer. I am the subject of the page that he tried to get deleted last month but I wanted to wait until that process was over to say anything. Dougbremner (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Becca Albee (October 7)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Teahouse logo
Hello! Dougbremner, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your submission at AfC Becca Albee was accepted[edit]

Becca Albee, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

(っ◔◡◔)っRoss Hill 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Keatley[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Richard Keatley has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

==Added WP:GNG secondary sources citations not related to subjects, removed proposed deletion. Subject meets criteria for WP:POLITICIAN as cited in multiple secondary sources due to notariety of election (more can be added if needed) Dougbremner (talk)

Nomination of Richard Keatley for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Richard Keatley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Keatley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Multiple primary newspapers in past month noting person e.g ajc primary newspaper of Atlanta Dougbremner (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See updated reference list, this is most important political race in US right now Dougbremner (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)