User talk:Feneso

Hello, I'm Canley. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mark Colvin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Colvin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Canley (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Colvin. You have three times added information on the state of Colvin's marriage, each time removing a valid source from an obituary in The Guardian and linking to an ABC page that does not support your claim. Under the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP, such claims are only acceptable when supported by a reliable source. DO NOT re-add this claim without a suitable source. EdChem (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not the ABC obituary is more accurate that The Guardian's, you have repeatedly attempted to make a contentious claim about Colvin's wife that is not mentioned in the ABC reference, or in The Guardian, or anywhere else I have seen. And then there's the baffling use of the Wikipedia article Hall Greenland as a reference (which, might I add, does not support the claim either). --Canley (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Canley, I have re-read the ABC obituary and it says nothing to support your edit, nor does the Guardian reference. You need a source that supports you and that is reliable to make any such claim in Colvin's article. EdChem (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC obituary for very good reasons states that Colvin is survived by his two sons and makes no mention of a wife. It is absurd that the two of you have decided you are better judges of this matter than the ABC and, as I said before, this incident has shaken my faith in Wikipedia. It is shocking that a wonderful human being continues to be travestied on the web because two individuals who have no real knowledge of him deem themselves better judges of what is true than his beloved ABC.

Well, too bad. Verifiability is a core content policy of Wikipedia. Maybe you and Colvin's colleagues know better, know the truth, know more details of his family and his personal life. It doesn't matter—it's not up to you, me, or anyone to speculate relationship status from the fact that someone was not mentioned in an obituary. Even if I did know Colvin personally, I would never presume to insert some fact about his personal life that was not verifiable in a reliable source just because I knew about it. If you want to include this claim, then you need to include a reliable source, end of story. Not just linking to an obit that doesn't mention McKenzie, and a Wikipedia article about another Leichhardt councillor (which doesn't either), and then getting the vapours because no-one believes you. Surely as a journalist, Colvin and the "better judges" of the ABC would always favour verifiable facts over anecdotes from an anonymous Wikipedia editor! --Canley (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have a personal connection with the subject, as you seem to be alluding to, then you should probably read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well. --Canley (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate the above, it may well be that Colvin and his second wife were estranged but unless you have a reliable, verifiable source that says so, it is not information to include in the article. Neither is an estrangement any reason to remove any reference to his wife. I did find it surprising that neither obituary names his first wife because her name is equally relevant to the article but again without any sourcing it's not information that can be included. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]