Talk:Sid Dinsdale

Major Changes, 5/5/14

I came across this page and found that it seriously violated WP:BLP, specifically, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It appears that Mr. Dinsdale or his campaign have been running this page as a way to disseminate pro-Dinsdale views, in violation of WP:NPOV. Previous edits from anonymous users May 2, 2014 were summarily removed by user Shawna.eves claiming they were not real users who made the changes. However, it simply appears that Shawna.eves did not like the content of the additions, as all were relevant and sourced.

User Freshacconci's attempt to revert back to a pro-Dinsdale page full of puffery and unsourced material violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Content that should be added back to the Life & Career section should be sourced and relevant to Mr. Dinsdale's career and U.S. Senate campaign. Large sections of relevant, sourced material, whether seen as positive or negative for Mr. Dinsdale should not be summarily deleted. SunlightWriter (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

On the contrary, I am mainly concerned with poorly sourced additions using questionable sources. You should not, per WP:BLP simply add those back until the issue is resolved here. Let's resolve the BLP issues and RS issues before adding anything to the article. freshacconci talk to me 21:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)-

Freshacconci - thank you for the word. That's good to hear. Please reference specific citation problems here rather than wholesale revision to a very problematic version of the article. Much of the content replaced in this version was unsourced and in violation of NPOV. SunlightWriter (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

Well, except the onus is on you not me, since you're making the changes. You are adding controversial info on a BLP article with questionable sources (redstate and watchdog websites). Those need to be removed until things are resolved. The other edits appear to be fine if you are just removing POV language or providing sources for existing text. We need to be extra careful with BLP articles. I understand this is a political figure and this kind of article attracts extremes pro and con. But we can't go from one POV to another. I've asked other editors to weigh in. freshacconci talk to me 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Freshacconci - I apologize if when I made my original edits that I worded it poorly. The redstate.com article was an editorial and was not viewed as a creditable source. Shawna.eves (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)shawna.eves

Freshacconci - While I appreciate your concerns regarding validity of sources (and I did make updates subsequently that I think you would agree are non controversial), several of the changes you erased included articles from the Omaha World Herald and other mainstream media outlets to support facts relevant to the NE Senate race. If you do have issue with a particular source, I would appreciate it in the future if you would take issue with that particular entry, and not conduct a wholesale revision to a previous version of the article that is almost entirely unsourced, and clearly in violation of NPOV (very likely written by the candidate or his staff). I hope that we can continue editing together here in a civil and respectful manner. Thank you. SunlightWriter (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

Page protection

Dear editors User:Ged UK and User:Graeme Bartlett - you (understandably) put a lock on this page. However, I believe the lock should have been placed on the version prior to the changes made by anonymous user with IP address "68.13.65.33" as they included the assertion that "To date, Sid and Dawn Dinsdale have contributed over 93% of their federal political contributions to Republicans," without providing a source to that claim. I would request that this line be deleted during the lock on this page.

Please note that I did request a valid source for this claim in my original revisions of it:

• 03:11, 6 May 2014‎ SunlightWriter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,548 bytes) (-115)‎ . . (Undid revision 607265738 by 67.3.210.45 (talk)This assertion requires a source to be included. The general landing page for "Open Secrets" does not support this claim.)
• 03:17, 6 May 2014‎ SunlightWriter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,767 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (→‎Political Activity: This assertion requires a source to be included. The general landing page for "Open Secrets" does not support this claim.)

Thank you for your consideration. SunlightWriter (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

How about the use of this reference www.omaha.com/article/20140505/NEWS/140509170/1707 that says he has raised $938,765 and spent $1,750,639 on his campaign? Replacing the sentence about 93%. While fully protected I can only make changes that have agreement here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Graeme Bartlett. I think that would help as it is factual and sourced. SunlightWriter (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

Inserted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated SunlightWriter (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)SunlightWriter

Dear editors User:Ged UK and User:Graeme Bartlett, as soon as you lifted the page protection, it looks like anonymous users went right back to making adding controversial, unsourced edits in violation of WP:BLP. I recommend re-locking the page. Thank you for considering. SunlightWriter (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)sunlightwriter

It automatically lifted. But I have applied semiprotection for 3 weeks to limit changes by anons. They should ask on this talk page first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's a great solution. SunlightWriter (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)sunlightwriter