User talk:Infoaddict1
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Infoaddict1! I am Marcus Qwertyus and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The article The Draco Trilogy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- thoroughly non-notable amateur fiction, execrably sourced, created by an SPA who shows too much interest in adding content embarassing the cited author
While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
BLP violations
[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Cassandra Clare. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Everything I added is cited. If you have problems with particular citations, let's discuss them one by one like adults, rather than rashly deleting the majority of her article, which is cited properly. Thanks. Infoaddict1 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Cassandra Clare, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did you look at the edits I just made? I spent all day linking to scholarly journals. Please explains what I have done wrong. Thanks! Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely, if that's the case, there's only two "scholarly journals" linked in the article's references; the first doesn't support the primary claim you cite it for, and it rather plainly says that it sourced whatever relevant material it includes to the Wikipedia article on Cassandra Clare, so that it cannot be a reliable source for that article. The second, rather guardedly, mentions accusations against Clare only as accusations; the claim you cite was directed at a writer the paper's author was careful not to identify. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the edits in question and I find both the accusations of vandalism and of blatant blockable BLP violations to be overblown. "Poorly sourced" is subjective, and there may or may not be merit in the complaint, but nobody gets to wield a ban-hammer in a content disagreement. I've suggested that this be discussed here, where hopefully an agreement can be reached without threats. -- Atama頭 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- You should take a careful look. It's extremely clear, examining the history of this article, that its subject has been the victim of harassment by a string of SPAs and sockpuppetsfor several years, and even longer off-Wiki. As the editing being done by Active Banana following this SPAs last piece of hatchetwork makes evident, the editor is playing fast and loose with sourcing, deleting favorable material (like reducing the long list of awards and honors) while introducing highly dubious, sometimes fabricated, negative material. This is not a content dispute, but an argument over whether the intent is to embarass and distress the article subject, and it's well past time for the "banhammer" to be wielded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is the last I'm going to reply to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz as it seems utterly useless to continue this line of discussion. Again, if you had checked, a lot of the info I've added on Clare -- a) mention of her new works b) mention of her film option c) mention of her film's screenwriter d) mention of her book dedication to her grandfather f) adding photo g) removing previous vandalism h) mentions of her massive popularity as a fic writer i) additions of works that inspire her -- is not negative, has no to distress, or whatever else you think is going on. Whether you like fan fiction or not, fan fiction was this author's first claim to fame. If you are of the minority opinion that fan fiction = embarrassing, that is your opinion and has no bearing on her wiki article. Yes, there has been some negative info added, because subject had a negative incident in the past. Unfortunately, this is a huge part of her notability as you've noted with the sockpuppets accounts and other SPAs. This is almost unavoidable, and would be biased to completely excise when there are numerous sources that mention the incident. Additionally, the only info I've deleted on the subject was to pare down awards to Wins only. My reasons why are clearly stated in both the edit summary and the talk page. Infoaddict1 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- You should take a careful look. It's extremely clear, examining the history of this article, that its subject has been the victim of harassment by a string of SPAs and sockpuppetsfor several years, and even longer off-Wiki. As the editing being done by Active Banana following this SPAs last piece of hatchetwork makes evident, the editor is playing fast and loose with sourcing, deleting favorable material (like reducing the long list of awards and honors) while introducing highly dubious, sometimes fabricated, negative material. This is not a content dispute, but an argument over whether the intent is to embarass and distress the article subject, and it's well past time for the "banhammer" to be wielded. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've reviewed the edits in question and I find both the accusations of vandalism and of blatant blockable BLP violations to be overblown. "Poorly sourced" is subjective, and there may or may not be merit in the complaint, but nobody gets to wield a ban-hammer in a content disagreement. I've suggested that this be discussed here, where hopefully an agreement can be reached without threats. -- Atama頭 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strangely, if that's the case, there's only two "scholarly journals" linked in the article's references; the first doesn't support the primary claim you cite it for, and it rather plainly says that it sourced whatever relevant material it includes to the Wikipedia article on Cassandra Clare, so that it cannot be a reliable source for that article. The second, rather guardedly, mentions accusations against Clare only as accusations; the claim you cite was directed at a writer the paper's author was careful not to identify. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)