2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014

January 2020

Hello, I'm CatcherStorm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ben-Sasson, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CatcherStorm ^talk 19:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• We do not add refs on disambig pages.2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User johnrichardhall

Please take any issues you may feel you have with me to the appropriate Wikipedia noticeboard. Thank you. Johnrichardhall (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello, I'm Orville. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Sigma Phi Epsilon brothers have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Orville^talk 23:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Why is that not constructive? That comprises a major part of his notability. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Fordham University School of Law alumni, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I've provided a number of RSs. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The sources are sufficient, but his leading a double life is not the reason he's a notable alumni or resident at the very schools/cities where you've added his double life to the lists. Listing this one particular additional fact about him gives it undue weight in these lists. Orville^talk 23:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

First you make one complaint. I address it. Sufficiently, you say.

That is not appropriate. You first complained that you wanted to see RS sources. So ... I already added four RS articles focusing specifically on his double life.

So now you create another argument. An assertion that his leading a double life is not the reason he is notable.

That is not appropriate. You first complained that you wanted to see RS sources. So ... I already added four RS articles focusing specifically on his double life.

Here, obviously, the RSs - as they routinely reflect this double life issue in the years since it broke - view it as a significant part of his notability. And that is what makes a person notable. What they are covered for that satisfies our notability standards. Here, we have GNG coverage of his double life, and it is indeed a major part of his notability. Nobody should be deleting it from notability lists. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

He wouldn't be on the notability lists if he was just another person leading a double life. He's on the lists for his political career. It is well sourced that Bill Clinton was impeached, but look at the notable lists that include him and you'll find they all mention that he was President, not he was a President who was impeached. Huge fact, but irrelevant to why he's notable. Orville^talk 00:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. We measure notability by RS coverage. People sometimes become notable for more than one reason. Not nearly every RS article about Clinton mentions he was impeached. Nearly every article on this fellow - since it was uncovered - mentions his double life. The contrast with Clinton is clear. We could guess at the factors that go into the RS coverage (eg, how high an office did the person hold - the higher, the more likely they were notable mainly for it, and how notable is the other thing they did, the more notable (eg, double life, Anthony Weiner stuff, Dennis Hastert, Larry Craig, etc, the more likely they are known for it as well). But it is not our place to guess. We need simply look at the RS coverage. Since it was uncovered, in his case, all his coverage is overwhelmingly covering or mentioning this, and it is what of course knocked him out of office - what he was notable for first). 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead section already makes mention of his DUI arrest and affair with Laura Fay, and that in itself should be enough. Adding the terms "double life" compromises the neutrality of the article. CatcherStorm ^talk 00:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Vito Fosella

Hi! Per WP:RSUW, I've removed the addition about Vito Fosella leading a double life in the various lists you've added it to. Adding the fact that he led a double life to these lists is extraneous information and gives it undue weight. He's not notable because he led a double life (although it is interesting). The content is in the main article for readers that would like to learn more about him. Orville^talk 23:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not appropriate. You first complained that you wanted to see RS sources. So ... I already added four RS articles focusing specifically on his double life.

That is a major part of his notability. It was following it becoming known that his political career ended. This is not undue weight - that is not a subjective test, that an editor can use to hide highly relevant information, but rather one that can be tested objectively -- did RSs widely cover it. Here, obviously, they did. Look not only at the RSs I added as refs. Perform your own google search. And note that since his double life was revealed, nearly every single mention of him in RSs mentions it. One does not get to hide behind IDONTLIKEIT rationales where the RSs broadly cover it.2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see my response in the section above. I'm not concerned about the number of sources, but rather the weight given to this one particular fact in the various lists to which it's been added. Orville^talk 23:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I agree with Orville's assessment, this is undue. A simple statement describing him as an American politician should suffice as that is his main claim to notability. The additional detail about his "double life" (which I agree is interesting) belongs at his article. Please discuss this on a relevant talk page if you disagree. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Per above. CatcherStorm ^talk 23:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Catcher -- as I requested of you on your talk page, I would appreciate it if you would stop hounding me. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is "hounding" you. We appreciate your other contributions. If you would like to continue to discuss the issue please do so on a relevant talk page. CatcherStorm ^talk 23:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody else is hounding me. You are. Since I recently corrected a mistake of yours, and left word about your mistake on your talk page. Suddenly, you began hounding me to multiple pages. That is not OK. Please stop it. As I have already requested on your talk page. 2604:2000:E010:1100:30F3:9E93:17BD:5014 (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hanoch Gutfreund has been accepted

Hanoch Gutfreund, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CatcherStorm ^talk 00:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---