User talk:Itsallnewtome

Welcome

Hello, Itsallnewtome, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GirthSummit (blether) 21:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Some friendly advice

Hi there. I just wanted to say I have a lot of sympathy with your frustration. My goal as a reviewer is to simply follow policy and consensus with the implementation of that policy as best I can. I think some of the issues you are raising are valid concerns, but they challenge the policies at WP:NFILM as written in ways that go beyond an individual AFD discussion. In other words, our policies have traditionally been implemented during notability discussions at AFD in a certain way, and your arguments, are challenging that tradition (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Some of your ideas about conferred notability, such as films archived in museums or inclusion within a more inclusive National Archive, run counter to past practice, but they aren't necessarily bad ideas. In order to get those ideas to work at an AFD though, you'd have to get consensus to change the current policy either through clarification (like adding the BFI to the written policy as an example of a usable archive), or through adding a new guideline as regards to films in the collections of museums. You could attempt to garner support for a policy change by raising the issue and making a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). This might be your best way forward. I would support some modification to the policy, but until its modified I will have to keep my opinions grounded in current policy and precedence.4meter4 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @4meter4:, Thanks for reaching out, it's immensely appreciated especially as DuffBeer & HouseOFChange seem to be on a constant attack and have made my quest of tidying up Paul Atherton's article an absolute nightmare. Forcing me to try and save other editors articles in the process (sadly without the creators support) As you'll have already spotted on the AFD, I've got to the bottom of why the Congress Library's National Film Registry is not referred to as an Archive, it is becuase it isn't. It's merely a selected list of films housed in other archives. With that said how do you follow policy, when the Wikipedia policy clearly states that the film be "preserved into a National Film Archive" when the example given isn't an Archive at all? Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It's completely contradictory, and frankly that example has never been useful and puzzled me for years. It really needs to be re-examined, and I think your situation is a perfect scenario for bringing this up to the community to actually have a much needed discussion. I personally would support using the BFI as a better example in place of the National Film Registry. Hopefully the rest of the editing community will agree.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4:, As you may be aware I put the questions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film page as you suggested one on the BFI the other on Museum collection & notability. Is there anything special I need to do to raise this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I would just wait and see how those in the WikiProject respond. They don't carry any authority though in terms of setting notability policy. There you would at least get some feedback on any past relevant discussions that you (and myself for that matter) may not be aware of and, hopefully, would be able to convince other editors that a policy change is needed. At the best you will learn some things and gain some allies, at the worst you will learn what roadblocks might lie ahead for when you do make a proposal. When you feel you are ready, you can raise a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) (less watched but those who do are active in policy making) or at WP:Village Pump (more people watch the pump and are likely to participate). I'm happy to advise/ help you along the way in any way I can. Good luck!4meter4 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I just thought of something. I recently made a successful proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) which is now archived at the bottom of that page. You should also go take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). These are examples of how to go about making proposals. I am happy to advise you on the language of the proposal before you post it. Just ping me. I do think chatting at the WikiProject Film first to test the waters before you make a proposal is a smart move. 4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Many Thanks. I'll await to see if I get a response. Is there any way of being notified if people make changes to my posts on other pages? Itsallnewtome (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I would take a moment and read through Help:Notifications which would send you e-mails if certain events occur. Template:Talkback is sometimes used manually to inform people as opposed to the ping feature. Other than that your watchlist is your best option.4meter4 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thanks again. There has been no responses to my posts on the WikiProject for film as yet, it doesn't appear to get much enagement. The whiole of the Wikipedia environment seems incredibly destructive rather than collaborative which I've found a great shame. The reason I was so interested to tidy up Paul Atherton's article is I found him incredibly interesting. Especially as he is someone who defines as Black, is homeless, in receipt of DWP benefits and is campaigning for those who suffer with his condition and still managing to raise funds for social change films, direct plays, inspire book characters, perform in the Olympics etc. though much of that, whilst provable. has now been removed from the article in order to attempt to establish his notability. There seems much focus on numbers from Wikipedian Editors in respect to notability, so rather than notability being a measure in it's own right, it seems editors are looking for publicity (which I would argue is an entirely different measure) or exclusivity (which again doesn't neccesarily correlate). For example the BFI argument I have been having on The Ballet of Change (which you were kind enough to come and assist with) editors seem focussed on just the numbers in the collection of the BFI rather than the criteria for acceptance, but when I use the same kind of number logic when it came to Our London Lives by citing (again provable) that it is the only one of its type in the entire collection, therefore making it a literal 1 in a million object, the same number logic, seemingly doesn't apply. Editors seem to jump in to delete but then don't engage to see if the sources are available offline for instance (most of the problems I've had are links which were seemingly avialable when the articles were first written a decade ago but are now dead), which I understood from reading Wikipedia guidance is what they should do. You've clearly had a lot of experience here, is that your experience, or is it just because of the nature of this individual, whose notability is, I believe, in his life, rather than his work. So a compilation of his experiences (he appears to have been recognised in the press regularly since his teens) makes his notability rather than one or two of his works. If you can find the time, would appreciate your insights? Cheers. Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• I can understand your frustration. My experience on wikipedia has not been that way. I usually create articles on operas, opera singers, classical music, etc. and have a great many wiki friends at WP:WikiProject Opera. It's a very supportive highly collaborative group. However, not every WikiProject is as active or as friendly. It really just depends on the group, because after all we are just volunteers in an encyclopedia anyone can edit.

As for looking for 'publicity', that really isn't the case. PR releases aren't considered accurate pieces of information since they are often written by the subject (or somebody connected to them like an agent) and they don't count towards notability (because people often lie or stretch the truth to make themselves look good). Wikipedia is looking for 'verifiability' and 'quality control'. Wikipedia wants to be an accurate source of information (because reliability means people actually will come read articles). That means we necessarily rely upon citing publications from independent authoritative sources in order to maintain quality control. Books, journal articles, newspapers (in your case it would mean a critical review of an art showing and not a PR release advertising the show), online media, etc. are the main sources of information for verifying content. Articles that don't cite their source of information get deleted for quality control reasons. Likewise, the more independent sources there are on a particular subject, the more likely the information on the subject is to be accurate; that's why a certain amount of coverage in publications is necessary (a minimum of three works where the topic of the wikipedia article is the main subject is usually what we look for as a bare minimum necessary for inclusion). The outcome of that need for quality control is of course that we can only cover topics that are covered in print elsewhere. It also means that wikipedians are limited to what other people say/write about a subject because we can't do our own research.

Wikipedia is in some ways exclusive because wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) Encyclopedias don't cover all topics indiscriminately, but attempt to collect knowledge that has value. Unlike for profit print encyclopedias which employ professionals to make judgement calls on inclusion within a particular subject area, wikipedia is reliant upon volunteers who are often/usually amateur writers (as in we don't necessarily have college diplomas in the subject areas where we are writing and are not recognized authorities on a given subject matter). In order to guide amateur writers into creating a quality product, wikipedia has established policy guidelines that were built by the consensus of the volunteers themselves which we all agree to follow (although sometimes we do change them as we discussed earlier). Basically it boils down to this, if more than one professional writer (and really its more like three unless the two sources are very substantial) are writing on a topic, then we can use that material to build a quality article. If no professional writer is covering it, we can't build a quality article and so its not notable enough to have an article on. Because of this, newspaper articles, journals, magazines, books, etc. are very important in notability discussions.

That said, sometimes a particular subject is notable even if there are very limited sources available; or limited ones available online. That's why we have subject specific guidelines like WP:NFILM, WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NSPORT, etc. These subject specific guidelines temporarily lower the standard of inclusion at WP:GNG.

In your case, there is plenty of good sourcing and material available for Paul Atherton, and he deserves an article. Thank you for making his article better. Unfortunately, there isn't so much material on his individual works of art in print publications that aren't PR articles. It's unlikely that they would be considered notable for that reason, even though his work has obviously achieved some professional success. At the moment we don't have a subject specific guideline for individual works or art, and we have a very exclusive WP:NFILM guideline. That's why I recommended trying to alter the guidelines themselves because I agree that a work of art in a museum should probably be considered notable (by virtue of the fact that it was selected to be in the museum's collection by a professional(s)); and I personally see no reason why we shouldn't extend the National Archive criteria at WP:NFILM to all national archives globally. But just because you and I feel that way, doesn't mean others will. The community would need to discuss it and vote on it to change the guideline that guides content creation.

On a side note, there is no reason you couldn't just include the content on his major works of art on the Paul Atherton page itself under a subheading. For example, I recently did a ton of work on composer Richard Strauss' article and much of the article is spent talking about various works he created. Really everything you wrote on his art works could be all there on wikipedia still, but just in one place. Nobody would object to that.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: That's incredibly helpful. Much thanks. Your Straus article is amazing. I notice you've used lots of images, which gives it so much more breadth. In respect to that, when Our London Lives was merged into Paul Atherton's article the editor didn't include the images used, would there be a reason for this? Equally, I believe there was sufficient coverage of the Ballet of Change, as stated in my comments on the AFD, which included BBC News coverage of the event, but those links are now dead. The fact Atherton's work are such unique events in themselves I think causes problems for the stand-alone articles, as the work neither fits comfortably under the auspices of film or art. But your suggestion of including them in Atherton's article seems to be a smart compromise. That said, I want to establish his notability before putting any more hours into progressing the article, do you think the article itself would withold an AFD as it currently stands? Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Sorry in the delay getting back to you. I'd hoped to have got a resopnse to the Wikiproject suggestions before doing so, which as you know I'd posted on your advice but sadly they garnered no interaction whatsoever, as I said, it appears to be very much an underused part of Wikipedia.

@HouseOfChange: has made some siginificant amendments to the page that I'm sturggling to understand in terms of referencing. For instance the funding for The Ballet of Change was listed on the National Lottery Heritage Fund website up until a few weeks ago. It was an accurate reference that was clearly visible to everyone involved since my arrival here. However the link is now dead. I don't know if House of Change checked it on the Webarchive or not (I believe you have to wait 24 months to see if it's been archived "As a result, editors should wait ~24 months after the link is first tagged as dead before declaring that no web archive exists."), but the WP:DEADREF on wikipedia also says

"Sometimes, finding an appropriate source is not possible, or would require more extensive research techniques, such as a visit to a library or the use of a subscription-based database. If that is the case, consider consulting with Wikipedia editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, the Wikipedia:Village pump, or Wikipedia:Help desk. Also, consider contacting experts or other interested editors at a relevant WikiProject."

Which I don't believe he has undertaken, rather, simply taking it upon himself to just delete everything, with out seemingly any further invetigations. This seems in stark contrast to what Wikipedia policy advises, be grateful of some guidance?

Equally, there are references made to the exhibition for Our London Lives, that would have only been accessible during the show's duration but would no longer exist today. How do you deal with that sort of referencing? (I believe an editor made attempts to find a convenience link to a Museum of London Twitter post to validate it, but again HouseOfChange dismissed this, even though it seemed to comply with WP:Twitter).

As the films are themselves reference points, how much description can you take from viewing them? For instance a watch of Our London Lives lets you describe in full what's happened and what's contained within it, but do you have to find someone else who has watched it and described it in print or can you simply do so as an editor, giving it as a reference source within your descriptions, with appropriate time codes?

I'm beginning to pull in loads of coverage from The British Newspaper Archive & Cathays Library (which holds the Welsh Newspaper Achive) about his time running A Touch of Silk, an abseil he did to raise funds for Barnardos when he was in University, that ran over three days of Western Mail coverage. I've also located coverage in The Publican about his time running pubs in Cardiff, PR Week about his various PR Careers in London. Most of which were cited on his page, but no longer available online or never were (as they predate the internet's existence), but were removed because they were deadlinks or no links. Little point putting them back if HouseOfChange simply deletes them again. So be grateful to know precisely how I should go about addressing this?

One last question, there is much information about Atherton's life and circumstances contained within the Judgement he acquired from the Royal Courts of Justice in February of this year 2019 (It's still unclear why that Judgement isn't considered Ratio decidendi as a previous editor suggested by the way?) can that be used and the judgement then referenced, as it's submitted and accepted as an absolute truth by the courts?

As ever, massive thanks for the support. Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you should start by posing these questions to HouseOfChange, and seeing his/her reasoning behind these decisions. @HouseOfChange: Could you please take the time to answer Itsallnewtome's questions. Thanks in advance. I don't want to get in the middle of a potential edit war between you two.4meter4 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than using pings on your talk page to WP:CANVASS sympathetic @4meter4:, please bring your concern to the appropriate public space, the talk page of the article. My motivation is to create an appropriately encyclopedic article--what is your motivation, "ItsAllNewToMe"? What is your motivation for claiming to be a brand new editor with little or no connection to Paul Atherton, but with enormous knowledge of and interest in all his earlier history and press coverage? HouseOfChange (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:. Please don't WP:BITE and follow WP:CIVIL. Slinging accusations around isn't helpful. He's new and you should take the time and be kind and explain your policy based reasoning for your editorial choices. Follow WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@4meter4: Thanks for your help when I was in China-- I will try to be more patient. I have now explained my policy-based reasoning on the article talk page, where I also welcome your input. I re-added the information about Lottery funding (although it didn't seem to me very important) by citing it to a non-dead link. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance @4meter4: as always. @HouseOfChange: I will move this to the Talk Page of Atherton as you suggest. In answer to your personal questions, as I've addressed these elsewhere, I was drawn to Atherton's Wikipedia page upon hearing about his Royal Court Judgement through the Disability News Service, as a disabled person I'm a subscriber. I was amazed to discover that he was homeless and on Disability Benefits yet still managing to achieve so much (before you deleted them, things like his play, performance in You Me Bum Bum Train, appearance in the Closing Ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games, his contributions (however minor) to literary works etc. in addition to being taken into the Museum of London, raising a million in kind support for a film supporting feminism and staging a massive West End event (which I was aware of as a Londoner, as it was much talked about at the time) as I've always argued that it's the combination of things achieved throughout his life that made him notable but even though that is listed as a reason for notability under Wikipedia rules, I've yet to dicscover an article that's been written on that basis.

I've tinkered on Wikipedia for a number of years (as it says on my page), but MarioGomm persuaded me to sign up properly and assist in clearing up Atherton's page, following on from our discussions when I'd removed the notability tags, as it was very clear the page had been edited since their inclusion and there had been no further discussion on it for some time.

I've never undertaken such a complex thing before and have therefore been asking for assistance about the appropriate behaviour here from experienced Wiki Editors like Mariogom & 4Meter4. I wasn't WP:CANVASSing as you suggest (if I was attempting to do anything underhand I would have clearly not pinged you) merely getting clarity on behaviour and what is and isn't acceptable, as your behaviour to me, having read wikipedia guidlines, appeared to be in the latter category.

My biggest concern here, as I've mentioned to you personally, is the constant reliance on the internet for confirmation of things. When Wikipedia was first created, that would have been a reasonable proposition, but in the 21st Century when most things over 3 years old can't be found on Google searches (especially thing that were there in the early days and have ceased to exist entirely, or temporary like television news articles), so I've been researching offline sources, as I said I would and hence my searches in The British Newspaper Archive & Cathays Library offline archives. But I'm not looking for anything new, just citations that were already on his page, but have since died and no wiki-editor apparently (like yourself) have tried to find offline sources to confirm the deadlinks. In so doing, through an archive name search, I have picked up on the Abseiling event he undertook that I mentioned, that is new.

I would have thought if you were looking for accuracy, as you suggest you are, you wouldn't remove anything until such time as you've exhausted all routes to confirming the existence of the online citation somewhere offline (as per wikipedia guidlines), and that's where my focus has been.

The other reason I like wikipedia (as an Open source advocate), is it gives a platform for people who are notable, but don't have a £Million PR divisions in order to ensure they get lots of press publicity. Atherton appears to be a one man operation, attempting to do good things for those vulnerable groups in society, here in the UK, whose voices often don't get heard in the press either (like myself as a disabled person who relies on welfare benefits).

I think his achievements are outstanding and notable, under what are impossible circumstances. You may disagree, but surely our disagreements should be agreed by concensus with all contirbutors and not arbitarrily made by yourself? Thanks. Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that problems should be resolved by consensus, and the article talk page is a good place to seek that.

Responding to your concerns about elements the article now lacks, I looked back at a year-ago version of this article. The one reference cited as evidence for his performing in BumBum Train does not mention his name. Two sources for the Olympics claim are self-promotional articles written by Atherton himself, the third is a deadlink. As per WP:PROMO "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Hundreds of volunteer performers took part in BumBum Train and in the Olympics dancing; unsurprisingly their names held little interest for "independent, third-party sources."

Paul Atherton is free to post whatever claims he wants to make about himself on LinkedIn, Twitter, etc. or to create a YouTube channel documenting his films at whatever length he desires. Claims made in the "voice" of Wikipedia need to have sourcing that matches Wikipedia policy. The article for UK filmmaker Sam Masud is a relevant example that could help you. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: As you know, primary sources are permitted in Biography's inlcuding from Twitter, Facebook etc. etc.

"WP:ABOUTSELF Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."

So, as what you've described above would fit that requirement, Atherton for instance writing about his experience performing in the Closing Ceremony in an Op-Ed in the Telegraph which was also supported by his credit in the LOCOG Closing Ceremony Programme or defending the working practices of You Me Bum Bum Train in a response to an article in The Stage, I'm a little unclear what your contention is, could you please explain further? (and a gentle reminder, I didn't post these references, another editor did, but I do see their purpose) Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

They remain utterly trivial matters, where Atherton's voluntary participation had no impact and interested nobody but Atherton and perhaps a few of his fans. Such trivia do not belong in an encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Would you be able to point me to an example of a Self-Published Source that wouldn't be considered trivial by your standards on another Article's page please @HouseOfChange:. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection. The events are trivial, what we call "unencyclopedic content." The fact that only self-published sources mention them is evidence that nobody but Atherton is interested in what random events Atherton volunteers to perform in. Recall that encyclopedia articles are summaries of important facts about the article topic. In response to your question, Dave Winer article has many examples where Winer posted information about his activities and other RS then considered that information important enough to write about it as well. Probably many other notable users of social media would have similar examples in their bios. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As ever appreciate the response @HouseOfChange: but my query was about understanding the logic of the policy rather then anything specific to do with Atherton's article (a miscomunication I believe common in our interactions as it's currently only this article I'm learning this environment from). If there is other RS written about the subject then cleary there would be no reason to source it from a primary source or WP:ABOUTSELF. This is where my confustion comes from, why have a policy allowing information about the subject from the subject itself, if it only becomes pertinent when it gets RS and the very purpose of taking it from a primary source is no longer required? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two separate issues that I think you are confusing. 1) Can we use self-published sources as evidence of facts about the person? Yes, under some circumstances, as per WP:ABOUTSELF. 2) Is there a test for whether some reliably-sourced fact about a person belongs in that person's article (which you will recall is a summary of the most important facts about that person)? Topics in an article do not need to be individually notable. Topics closely related to a person's notability may be of interest to the encyclopedia reader. Topics that third-parties thought interesting enough to write about may also be of encyclopedic interest. Topics that meet neither of those two tests probably do not belong in an encyclopedia, even if the person has written about the topic himself. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @HouseOfChange: Merry Christmas :-) Just a quick one. Atherton's diary was taken into the permanent collection of the Museum of London so I'm trying to find comparable figures to ascertain what's trivial about a Londoners diarist's life or not. The main pages would be Samuel Johnson & Samuel Pepys in the latter the article makes reference to his sex life. From your perspective would that be considered trivial and should it be edited from the article? In the examples of the Olynpic Closing Ceremony in respect to Atherton, this is of course an event watched by over 3/4 Billion people, the volunteer performers were much revered here in London, so like say, Johnson's description of his political discourse (again here Atherton spoke at the House of Commons on the issues of homelessness which was also considered trivial) should that be remmoved from his page as being trivial too? In both examples of London diarists, the main contention of their articles is what they've written about, experiences they've either been witness too or participated in. Be useful to get your perspective? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Briefly, Atherton's being one among 20,000 volunteer performers is trivial unless independent RS takes an interest in Atherton's participation. If Pepys's sex activities are discussed by independent RS (not just by himself) then they are not, by my definition above, too trivial for Wikipedia. Certainly, the article about Pepys would be very long if every event from his diaries covered at length by RS was in the article. Articles are summaries not compendia. Article talk page would be a good place for you to ask questions about the article. This section of your talk page is already far from the topic where it began. Have a good Christmas yourself. 16:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard notification

I have requested a discussion at the COI noticeboard of whether or not it is appropriate that you have now removed the COI tag from Paul Atherton four times [1] [2][3][4] Here is the link for anybody who wishes to comment: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paul_Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please join the COIN discussion

Hello: I have been cleaning up the Paul Atherton article. From your contributions, it's clear you are a single-purpose editor who is solely here to edit Paul Atherton related articles, and nothing else. I look forward to hearing why this is the case over at the COIN discussion listed above. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ThatMontrealIP:, as you're aware I have joined the conversation on the COIN. I acknowledged that this is my first attempt at doing a full article. I'm sorry you dislike detailed answers, but I think it's the only way to get a true and reasoned argument. That said, you seemed to have made quite a few errors on your trimming and cleaning up on Atherton's article, which I'll take up with you on the talkpage there. Best Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Huge walls of text everywhere on a single subject: Paul Atherton. You are starting to consume large amounts of editor time with your likely COI editing. I am leaving this warning as a formality. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ThatMontrealIP: thanks for this. I've read the Disruptive Editing policy, but would be hugely grateful of some more detail in exactly what I am doing to breach it. In most of my posts on the talk page I'm asking questions or attempting to gain clarity on a point, this of course sometimes requires detailed explanation. As previously stated, I've barely edited the article itself and instead am trying to confirm accceptable langauge, judging weighting and trying to comprehend process for behaviour, all on the article's talk page, as the above description suggests you do. Many thanks. Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Future of Paul Atherton article

It is a frequent Wikipedia problem that it is hard to create good articles about topics that do not meet WP:GNG but are notable for some niche reason that never resulted in in-depth coverage. Maybe it is just WP:TOOSOON but future media coverage will occur, so that GNG is met. Feel free to post URLS or other information on the article talk page identifying such coverage of Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Single-purpose account/Arbcom decision

Since your edit history shows a long-term interest in non-neutral editing and promotion of Paul Atherton, please be aware of the Arbitration committee decision as follows: "Single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." In other words, pushing a single subject as you have done in an on-neutral way can be considered to be disruptive and accordingly you can be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As you'll see from the above post from @HouseOfChange: on 18:58 3rd January 2020 "Future of Paul Atherton Article" he requested I provide him links to any new, news Coverage that might come up about Atherton on the articles talk page. I had made no attempts to edit the article or defended any previous outstanding discussions nor indeed had any engagement with page until the recent flurry of press. Therefore before your uninvited involvement @ThatMontrealIP: all I had done was comply with HouseOfChange's request. So a) How can you draw a conclusion that what I was doing was following my agenda, when I was merely responding to anothers editor's request? AND b) As I've evidenced my position and you have not, how can you conclude my position is Non-Neutral especially as the edit in debate isn't even mine but HouseOfChange's? Itsallnewtome (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That was three months ago. Stop wasting everyone's time promoting Paul Atherton. Wikipedia is not here for narrow single purpose promotion of a subject, and if it continues you may end up blocked. You've edited one subject in the past six months, and posted miles of text on a narrow interest that isn't relevant to the article. You seem to have no qualms in wasting other editor's time on Paul Atherton, but we don't have a space on Wikipedia for time wasters who are WP:NOTHERE. Just a heads up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The only time waster here is you @ThatMontrealIP:. Your nonsensical argument, like saying it's been three months since Atherton has had any coverage is somehow my fault, is as ludicrous as every other position you've cited here. I'd like to complain about you. How does one go about it?Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don;t you try editing something other than Paul Atherton, instead of wasting everyone's time? When SPA accounts complain it generally does not go well. All I am saying is that your editing is very tiresome, as you have a narrow promotional interest. Please edit something else, or stop pestering us about Paul Atherton. It's simple advice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As ever @ThatMontrealIP:, you didn't answer my question , how do I complain about you?Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you, as you would very likely get blocked as a result. But if you are dead set, go ahead and find out how. Or take my advice and become a contributing member to the encyclopedia by editing something other than Paul Atherton. Your editing (100% Paul Atherton) is one of the most persistent cases of conflict of interest and promotional editing I have come across. The simple solution is to edit something else, or just stop bothering us about Paul Atherton. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your failure to engage, your constant bullying and the absolute insanity of your arguments clearly demonstrate that this isn't about encylopeadic betterment but is clearly about your personal dislike of the subject. I hate bullys and will address this as such. So will find out how to complain and do so. I've invested an immmense out of time and effort researching this subject, so why should you force me off here for simply pursuing logical answers to questions. (100% Adam Hemmings) Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is Adam Hemmings?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

(restart indent) To clarify, I did not request links to "any" news mentions of Atherton, I requested links to new in-depth coverage that could establish GNG notability. @Itsallnewtome:, this is your talk page and you are entitled to remove any content that you don't want to host here, e.g. other people criticizing you. @ThatMontrealIP:, WP:CIVIL applies to our dealings with other editors, even those who repeatedly annoy us -- it is not against WP:CIVIL to report an editor if you think he violates policy but repeated threats to report are not collegial. I doubt you get anywhere except BOOMERANG if you report Itsallnewtome. My understanding is that COI editors are supposed to edit talk pages with their suggestions, just not the articles themselves, and this is exactly what Itsallnewtome does. Let's all try to be nicer to each other and everyone else. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, the connected contributor editing is now crystal clear with their most recent post. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity of your comment above @HouseOfChange:. However, you've raised an important point. Why doesn't this add to WP:GNG, Atherton is already notable in his own right as we've already stated - so additional content doesn't need to rise to GNG WP:NNC, but as there's no question that this new news coverage is in depth and with nearly every article having Atherton's photo attached to it "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." written by verifiable secondary sources, I don't know why it wouldn't apply - there has been even further additional coverage in the past week that I'll post to the Talk Page for you later, but it would be good to get a definitive answer on this in the meantime? ThanksItsallnewtome (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is possible that Atherton will become GNG notable, though the consensus so far has been that he isn't yet. Notability tends to feed on itself--newspapers quote people others have quoted, etc. If multiple people are mentioning Atherton so that his name becomes known, eventually the in-depth coverage required for GNG may happen as a result. If Atherton becomes notable, there will be in-depth coverage in RS. By posting high-quality sources on the talk page, you can demonstrate that you understand how Wikipedia notability works. Coverage, no matter how extensive, doesn't help GNG when it is in things that are essentially blogs, or things that were posted or written by Atherton about himself. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @HouseOfChange: obviously here in the UK we'd consider BBC, Guardian Newspaper & Tortoise Media all to be high quality RS, which as you know, is what has been posted about Atherton and what I linked to on his talk page, throw in a Spanish news agency equivalent to Reuters to bring in a Continental European interest and further RS to the story and it's hard to see what else you would need? Could you please let me know?

Equally when someone has been commissioned and paid to write or speak about their opinions (this isn't someone posting a personal blog) i.e. an editor believes sufficiently in the subject to request and pay for them to speak Royal Society of Arts, lecture Brunel University or pontificate on a specific subject Policy Press why is that so dismissed? Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Present your actual articles and sources on the talk page of the article so that Wikipedia editors can make decisions based on them. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: As I've just stated, that bit has already been completed. YOU are contesting that they are RS I'm trying to discover why you've drawn those conclusions?Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to talk to some kindly mentor about Wikipedia policies or whatever, please go to Village Pump or one of those places. I am really REALLY not interested in composing long explanations in response to your accusations dressed up as "questions." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited by volunteers. Discuss the article on the article's talk page. Complain about other editors at WP:ANI. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: So you want me to ask another editor about YOUR thinking? Does that make sense to you? You made an edit, a decision YOU made no one else. So why are you unable to explain your decisions for doing so? It seems that you may not have any proper basis for doing so if you're unable to explain it. It seems strange that such a straight forward question would cause you so much consternation as to interpret it as an accusation? What is it you think I am accusing you of? Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

As above. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: OK, thatnks for confirming you have no real basis for your decisions. Itsallnewtome (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for confirming the pure baloney of your May 10 claim that "there has been even further additional coverage in the past week that I'll post to the Talk Page for you later." My advice then to limit your NEW postings to RS related to that particular statement by you. No rational person could see my remarks as a claim that BBC and Guardian are not RS. (TortoiseMedia articles, on the other hand, get written by members aka people who pay them a membership fee.) Please find a more productive hobby, you are embarrassing yourself and boring me. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: I am saddened you can't answer a direct question with a direct answer. I hadn't got around to posting additional information because you hadn't explained your thinking. Never forget you are behaving dictatorially in this space. So you're now contesting your original position and saying that there is sufficient coverage to warrant GNG. You can see my confusion. As for Tortoise Media, the articles are written by the top journalists in the country. The membership gives you access through the Paywall and options to participate in the thinkins. The article written about Atherton was written by David Taylor who was formerly the Deputy Editor of The Guardian which you yourself have just said is considered RS. Itsallnewtome (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)