User talk:Pbachmann

Welcome!

Hello, Pbachmann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity vs trying to be helpful

Hello Hlj,

I did not want to re-edit because it seemed uncivilised to do so - instead I just wanted to clarify my position and understand yours.

I believe you when you say Custer was a publicity hound, but wonder whether it is better to put examples of recorded publicity seeking rather than offer what seems like an opinion. I do not know much about Custer at all but the two examples cited seem to indicate a willingess to please, or maybe to show off.

I wonder to what extent should the reader be allowed to form his own opinion about a person?

Regards,

Phil Bachmann

You should sign your messages with four tildes so it's convenient to reply. Anyway, thanks for discussing personally. I can see how the original text was misinterpreted. I modified it to indicate that he began his publicity seeking in this staff role. In fact, the sentence immediately following is an excellent example of such. If you continue to feel strongly that this sentence is inappropriate, please delete it. Your proposed modification that he was only trying to be helpful makes him seem like the milquetoast that he was not. Hal Jespersen 14:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back on track

As I said, I'm very busy and don't have the time to help you much. Overall, you've been doing a very good job fixing what was a poor article. I think you just need some assistance as you're very new to Wikipedia and biographies are especially difficult to work on because of WP:BLP policy.

That said, I encourage you to familiarize yourself more with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to seek some help with your work improve Edward de Bono‎ . I highly recommend getting a mentor (see WP:MENTOR and WP:AAU - the mentorship system is undergoing some changes and is a bit unorganized at the moment). You may also want to try one or more dispute resolution approaches.

Sorry that I caught you off guard with my edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ronz,

Thanks for the conciliatory tone, however, I was aware of most of the material you're pointing me to - it's just that I interpreted in different ways that most editors have.

As you can see from Edward de Bono's talk page, a fellow calling himself "Harry the Dirty Dog" does not agree that I've done a "very good job" and will be taking the hatchet to the article again soon:

"Thanks Ronz. I've deleted some more, but the article is still dreadful, frankly. It shouldn't be that hard to source info on someone as famous as de Bono, but right now the article fails to meet Wikipedia standards by a long way, which is not good for a BLP. If sources (beyond de Bono's own site) can't be found soon, more will need to be removed. Harry the Dog WOOF"

Clearly WOOF expects me to work hard to get the article to HIS standard but is not offering to do any work himself. As you can imagine, there is very little incentive for me to participate further in this process.

Again, thank you for making the effort at conciliation and thank you for having something positive to say about my efforts.

--Pbachmann (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not my standard. Wikipedia standards. The main policy you need to read and understand is the one on original research. Much of what you have added constitutes just that. Abiding by this policy is especially important when you are dealing with the biography of a living person. Everything, whether positive or negative, must be sourced and verifiable. Otherwise, under the policy on biographies of living people, it will simply be removed when it's spotted.

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." –Jimmy Wales

Harry the Dog WOOF 09:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware Wales' speech, and did not feel that it applied to what I did. There are other Wikipedia standards documents that speak against speedy deletion, but I won't bother referring to them because it does matter to me anymore.

I am finished editing content on Wikipedia. You and Ronz will have to wait for another expert to add content, or learn enough about Edward de Bono to write about him yourself.

--Pbachmann (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]