User talk:TheBLPGuy

Some policies you should read

Looks like you're a little confused about how Wikipedia works. Have a look at our policies on verifiability ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."), original research, and one I've pointed you to before, biographies of living persons, which states quite clearly: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims." | TheBLPGuy 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop trolling, the BLP policy was designed to prevent defamatory or false information from being inserted into articles, in several cases you have removed accurate information because it lacked cites, this has nothing to do with BLP, maybe you could take the effort to add references instead of your apparant single purpose account agenda of deleting content. Also unless you discuss removal of content in the article talk pages, I am justified in reverting any large removal of content by you. Bleh999 00:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added references for most of the article you deleted in James Shields (baseball), I didn't see any 'original research' as you claimed. I don't think people will take kindly to you deleting content without any effort to add references or verify the information. Bleh999 00:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, what I'm doing has been sanctioned by Jimbo himself. Just check the history of a user named Frise, who sparked a huge thread at AN/I some months ago. Content that is unsourced may be removed without discussion, per WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be editing here. You can't even figure out what a single-purpose account is. BTW, nice job providing sources on Shields. That would be a much better course of action than blindly reverting edits you don't understand. | TheBLPGuy 00:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote you might learn from, from WP:V#Burden_of_evidence:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "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."

In other words, what I'm doing is exactly what Jimbo wants done. Unsourced information about living people, whether negative or not, should be removed. {{fact}}-tagging is not appropriate. | TheBLPGuy 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cherry picking quotes from Jimbo Wales to justify your actions is not relevant to the discussion, the whole point of addding citation needed tags is to give people time to add references or you could be bothered to do it yourself (since you appear to have much free time to spend here), I was able to find references for those articles rather easily, the fact that you deleted most of the article in James Shields (baseball) is not evidence of good faith editing (and it didn't contain any 'negative information' anyway), neither are your false claims of original research, I didn't find any in that article, so why did you claim that? can you name a specific case of original research you have removed? I doubt that you could, in fact a lack of general knowledge is not an excuse for claiming facts are 'original research', and anyway simple facts and figures about a baseball players season are not really relevant to the spirit of the BLP policy, the person challenging the validity of those figures would prove that that they are false then remove them(if they were interested in improving wikipedia rather than destroying articles), in your case you blanked an entirely factual article rather than spend 2 minutes to look up the figures available on numerous websites. Bleh999 01:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a policy that states that I need to find sources for unsourced content, rather than removing it per WP:V and WP:BLP, please show it to me. And while you're trying to learn our policies, check out WP:NPA before you leave edit summaries like this: "(added reference for information deleted by TheBLPGuy, who appears to lack the ability to verify information and assumes it is WP:OR)." | TheBLPGuy 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Not verified}} or {{Unreferenced}}. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done.[1]

and before you mention WP:NPA, I suggest you review some of your incivil comments above, if you can't take it then don't dish it out, besides in the case of James Shields (baseball) it indeed appears you lacked the ability to easily verify references to the article (simple common knowledge facts and figures) and instead opted for blanking most of the content. Bleh999 22:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single policy there that requires me to find sources for unsourced content. Some editors "may object," but that's hardly a mandate to leave unsourced content in - whereas WP:BLP makes it quite plain that unsourced content on living people should be removed. Looks like I'm in the clear. I appreciate you validating my actions for me, though. Besides, as long as you're comfortable finding sources (where possible) for the content I remove, I think that's a pretty solid outcome for Wikipedia. | TheBLPGuy 15:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

I know we may have got off on the wrong foot, however after some consideration I think you are doing a good job removing BLP violations, there is a list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_Puerto_Ricans most of these biographies contain unsourced information and claims, maybe you could help delete most of the articles since they appear to contain a lot of unreferenced claims and nonsense Bleh999 04:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio on Nazanin Boniadi

Thanks for listing this probable copyright violation on the copyright problems list!

Just one note: Remember to place the "maintenance use only" text on the original contributor's talk page - it helps ensuring that nobody's surprised when it disappears! --Alvestrand 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]