User talk:1814K

Welcome

Hello 1814K and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article

Thanks for the message on my talk page. At the moment your article exists as a draft in your user space at User:1814K/Norman W. Larson - Professor. In order for it to appear in the mainspace it must be moved there. Before you do that, I would suggest that you read a couple of other academic bio articles - Stephen Hawking and Ronald Dworkin for example - to see how they are formatted. You should also take a look at WP:MOSBIO for tips on formatting and layout, and WP:YFA is also a helpful page. The main problem at the moment is formatting, particularly the citing of references. The subject is probably notable as that term is used on Wikipedia, but it is unclear from the draft which sources support notability, because the sources are not cited. I don't have time at the moment to take a look at the draft in detail, but you can ask for feedback at Requests for feedback. The regulars there are very experienced at reviewing new and draft articles and helping get them into shape for the mainspace. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

This relates to WCCO-TV. Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article.--ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 03:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 03:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Careful.

I am not a self appointed expert on WCCO. I am simply following established guidelines in relation to TV articles. What you are adding is unsourced, WP:BLP material that doesn't need to be in the article unless it is properly sourced. I am going to bring in another editor in on this as this has been an issue with other articles, not just WCCO. Please keep a neutral point of view, and also, remain civil with your edits. All of my reverts to WCCO were done based on guidelines and good faith. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Please don't launch personal attacks on other editors

Hello 1814K, please do not engage in personal attacks on editors, especially by making comments about them in the article itself. I'm of the opinion that this editor's criticism regarding unreferenced material to an article is actually quite correct. The rationales for not adding this type of material is available in the notice that was posted earlier above and they also appear on the talk page of the article itself. If you want to discuss this issue, please do so on the articles talk page. Please do not restore the material to the article without reaching a consensus on the article talk page first. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WCCO (AM). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Technically, this isn't "vandalism", it's a "content dispute"; however, that doesn't mean that 1814K is exempt from the necessity of discussing these proposed additions on the article talk page before re-adding it. Continuing to engage in disruptive editing can result in an editor being blocked. Please DO NOT re-add the disputed material to the article without discussing it first on the talk page. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to this [1] in reference to WCCO (AM). The WCCO-TV article is a whole other issue (as you mentioned). --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!}• 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]