User talk:PathfinderE4

Welcome!

Hello, PathfinderE4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Malerooster (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding controversy section to bios

Hi PathfinderE4,

I have removed the controversy section from a few bios for NOW. Please use the talk page and get others involved and gain consensus before reading this material. I have ZERO interest or true knowledge about this issue, its more about Wikipedia policy and the care that is afforded subjects off biographies. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi malerooster. Everything put just from national papers that are reporting on the issue. At what point can actual real events be included in Bios? Do you work for Wikipedia? The reason I ask, is previous removals of said material was removed by Joe Skip Garcia's employer or an IP address from the employer. I have added the sections back, if you work for Wikipedia I would love to see the Wikipedia policy so I can be in agreement with it! There is potentially criminal activity as it relates to employment and science at UofA, it absolutely belongs on Wikipedia as reported in the National Press. Just google Sue Sisley!

Using semi colons helps to indent threads, and please sigh your posts using 4 tildes(~),just saying. Ok, I certainly don't work for Wikipedia, this is a hobby. I live on the East coast and have zippo interest or knowledge about the goings on at the Univ of Arizona. Please read WP:BLP and WP:NOT to start. We include material in a bio if it is noteworthy, relevant and well sourced, period. Then is must be due weight and written in a netral tone and not have ANY original analysis. I removed the "material" since the matter was brought to the BLP board and agreed to do so until there was consensus for its inclusion. If there is no consensus for inclusion, the "default" is to keep it out. If 10 other edits say I am wrong and want to add it, i'll happily step aside. Again, I have ZERO dogs in this fight. I have left you with a lot of policies and guidelines to review, but its a start. --Malerooster (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "material" again, and its so over the top its hard for me to explain. If the "material" was "better" written, it could possible have a chance of inclusion. I actually SUCK at writing "material", I am a math guy, so I am not the guy to do it. I do other type of editing here. Sorry I can't help more. Get others involved and see what they say. --Malerooster (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]