User talk:Overagainst

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

Hi, I've had to alter the amends you've made again on the Stafford Heginbotham page, please don't just dump lots of text in the header and you must put citations with the information you place. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC))

Please cite the Wikipedia policy or guidance for your assertions about what is in the lede, and how info there and in the main body is referenced. My text would have to be rubbish for it to be dumped in the lede. I think my edit, which you have taken it upon yourself to remove without discussion on the talk page, gives the main reason for subjects notability. Namely, he is not notable merely for claiming insurance on the fire at the stand that bunt down killing 56 people, but the that prior to this occurrence he was widely reputed among denizens of Bradford to be a serial arsonist and insurance fraudster according to newspaper articles (and a published book). This isn't a BLP, but I am open to changing the wording to make clear where the allegations are coming from by phrasing it as "according to author Martin Fletcher" where this is appropriate. Also I have no problem with having refs for each sentence, rather that the ref covering a few preceding sentences. Finally, you should say point by point what is in deleted text, but not in the cited sources; and please discuss in the proper place, which is the talk page for the article, before you delete any more paragraphs. _Overagainst (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bambi Woods, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Making edits to the page (and Talk) with a view to possibility of harm to a living person and their right to privacy is policy. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, the lede says "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". The most relevant section of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page WP:BLPNAME says "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories".
My reading of the above is that the onus is on those who want to use the "real" name to justify using the detail even if they have a totally reliable source. (which I don't think exists in this case anyway). This issue in relation to an adult performer has obviously come up a few times before for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography and while the following is indeed merely guidance, it is worth noting that the use of real names is not considered to add any meaningful context by the editors who have thought about the issue more than anyone else. Real names of performers "Even when reliably sourced, editorial judgment must be exercised before deciding to add a pornographic actor's birth name to an article which uses their stage name. Please review WP:BLPNAME as it relates to names that have been intentionally concealed because of a subject's occupation.Overagainst (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kindly leave an edit summary next time. Much of the guesswork of your edits would have been avoided. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Charlene Downes[edit]

Hi Overagainst. Your edit summary, for the deletion of the entire section on Paige Chivers, reads "Press reports of police line of inquiry connected with Disappearance of Charlene Downes., Now estavlished there is no connection- deleted)". Two questions - 1. Could you possibly provide some WP:RS link(s) that there is indeed no link, on the article Talk Page, by way of justification? 2. Is the police decision that there is no connection not itself a notable fact that sould at least be mentioned in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC) p.s. one the remaining supporting sources (Ref 3) is about the Paige Chivers case.

The were reports in the press years ago that I interpreted as meaning that the police's line of enquiry was that the two cases were connected, and so I created the section saying that police thought the cases were similar and giving the press report source as ref. I deleted it because the recent reporting of how a court came to convict someone for the murder of Chivers superceeds the previous reporting, and makes no mention of a connection to Downes's disappearance. No one has been convicted in the case of Downes, so I suppose it is possible they are connected. But we need a reliable source saying that to say so in the article, and I am not aware of one.Overagainst (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the conviction of a person for one murder necessarily precludes them from an on-going investigation into another. There is no reason why the police would raise the investigation of Downes during the Chivers trial. If they had, it may even have been ruled prejudical. You seem to be saying that there was no original justifcation for adding Chivers to this article in any case. Either way, some kind of explanation on the Talk Page might be more beneficial than a single very short edit summary? I think the two cases are still very much linked in the minds of the public. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspect by now the press would have been briefed and reported on any suspicions the police had about Chivers's killer being responsible for Downes's disappearance, so the public could know that both cases have been effectively cleared up. As there is no such suggestion being made or even implied I think the cases are now seen as quite separate ones as far as the law is concerned. There was a source implying the cases were very closely connected when I created the section. I probably should have been more punctilious with what I thought at the time was a weak addition. I would not add a section based on the unattributed opinion about the police's line of enquiry in an ongoing case now. As we now have the outcome of the investigation into Chivers, and it is not being suggested the actual fates of the girls are connected, the section has become redundant as to the facts of the case. If there was a source for Downes's disappearance being suspected by police to be the work of a murderer convicted over a separate case it would not be problematic to mention it.Overagainst (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying your position. Do you think a note at the article Talk Page would help? Do you think the Chivers case is itself sufficiently notable to have its own article? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brabant killers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • <ref>[http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2006/01/03/50245-le-belge-se-cachait-en-ariege.html Faits divers -

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Forrest Tucker‎‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Overagainst. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)