User talk:Canderel

Mark Hudson

Hi. Although I disagree with your last edit to this article, I'd like to ask you to stop submitting large excerpts from copyrighted material. Please use the article as a source, and write with your own words. Also remember to properly cite the article, please see WP:CITE. Also have a look at Talk:Mark Hudson, where I've left a little post in order to try and avoid an edit war. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that difficult... If you have a reliable source for the information, go ahead and edit the article and insert it while maintaining neutrality. Make sure you don't do like before and quote the entire article, as this is a breach of copyright laws. Use your own words to write it, for example using a subsection under 'Personal life'. But remember to list the source as well, not only the name of the newspaper, author and year of publishing. If available online, insert a link to the article, if not then list newspaper, author, the date it was published, and if possible also the page number of the article.

Using a quote like this is unacceptable. But use this information as a basis, and write it in your own words. Please remember that Wikipedia is all about verifiability and neutrality. This means that basically, even if something is true, it cannot be added to an article unless someone else have written about it. Also, I'd like to ask you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, as it seems you have an agenda to use Wikipedia as a way to publish this story in order to achieve something else. If this is the case, please don't add the information directly, but suggest it on the talkpage, and let an uninvolved editor insert it into the article. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 26, 2007

I've been monitoring the Mark Hudson article, and I've done my own research into the allegations posted. The results are, I could not find the incident on record. There is no information that can confirm this (short of buying some book that is supposedly where the information was from, which I'm not about to do, and nobody who has the book has stepped forward to prove it is true, and even then, per WP:BLP it still would probably not be allowed.)

Here is the issue: Per Wikipedia policy, people cannot post defamatory information about living people without being able to prove it. I can understand that if the incident did happen, it should be made public, but the issue HERE is, this is a neutral, fact based encyclopedia, and you cannot put speculation or rumors here. Encyclopedias that are printed do not have such things, and this encyclopedia is no different. Until someone can verify the story with URLs, proving it happened, then the information can't be posted here for legal reasons. Please review the information at WP:BLP for additional details. I'm sorry that this upsets you, and I do realize you feel strongly, but you need to realize this is not the forum for a "crusade". This is facts-only, and I hope you can respect that. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's edit was reverted yet again, and reverted again by the person stating she's his daughter. I'm sending this to the WP:BLP board for review, protection, and other actions. I am really not the right person to be involved in this dispute, and only got involved out of coincidence of being on RC patrol. I think Elonka's decision needs to stand as it is, but with the "crusaders" out there I think it will just be a constant tug of war, that needs to be dealt with by someone in the Admin community. ^Ariel♥Gold 07:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with Elonka's arbitration. See her page. But the others - you must deal with them....Canderel 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand, and I too think Elonka's decision was correct. However, again this morning someone removed Elonka's edits, and again put the huge chunk of text into the article, disregarding Elonka's note on the talk page. (Which was subsequently removed by the person who says she's his daughter). I'm done with it. I have sent it up to WP:BLP for review, and I will let the Admins decide the course of action from here. I am neither qualified, nor interested in being the "Gatekeeper" of that article, lol. I fully see both sides, and feel for both sides, so I'm just going to end up feeling bad no matter what I do, best to let the experts sort it out. :) Thanks for the reply and understanding! ^Ariel♥Gold 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles, as you did at Mark Hudson. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Crockspot 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making edits that violate WP:BLP as an anon IP will not save you from a block. If you insert that unsourced passage one more time, logged in or not, I will have your account and your IP address blocked from further editing. Is that clear? - Crockspot 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]