User talk:Tznkai/desk/BLPconcern

Criteria

we may want to not limit the criteria to "negative" material. Some of the fluff pieces should likely be candidates as well, IMHO. — Ched : ? 04:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably true.--Tznkai (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fork

After I'm done with the main proposal, I'll create a fork for A version that simply comments out the BLP in mainspace instead of moving it --Tznkai (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Suggestions for better names?--Tznkai (talk)

Operation destroy wikipedia (because going after the articles people actualy want to write didn't do enough damage the first time around)? ©Geni 10:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So destroying or influencing a real person's life in the name of "creating an article" is what we should be practicing eh? Let's just ignore all the wp:v, wp:npov, wp:rs, wp:npa, etc. stuff - and just keep anything regardless of any possible impact it may have on a real living person. Sorry, as much as I'm all for creation, and as much as I'm an inclusionist in most regards, playing with that type of mindset is not something I can support. You need to step back and take a good long hard look at the bit picture here. We have over 50,000 BLP articles without a single verifiable reference here Geni - they range from attack pages, to promotional fluff, to honest attempts. We have userspace and WP:INCUBATE for works in progress. Do you really support any employer, voter, or some private detective venue forming an opinion about a real person simply because some anon. IP typed up something on a top 10 website? Google (or any search engine for that matter) can provide some wonderful things - but WP shouldn't be supplying unverified, unsupported, or POV text to our readership when it comes to the lives of real living people. Please step back and look at the big picture from a more profound objective. — Ched : ? 12:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]