Hardman-left

Original discussion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that the time you can donate to our project is constructive. Like many communities, we have rules and policies that we must all follow. Assessing your initial edits to various articles, the best way I can advise you is: all additions to Wikipedia should be supported by verifiable reliable sources, especially when writing about living people.
The onus to provide an adequate reference is on the person wishing the information to be added. Anyone may challenge or remove any claim that is not supported by a source.
All of the edits and challenges I have made towards your contributions are in an effort to uphold the WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia, and is certainly not the result of political bias.
You noted at Talk:Consett that your employment limits the amount of time you can contribute to the project. Any time you can donate is appreciated; that time would be most efficient by supporting every claim with a reference (which I see that you are beginning to do). Thanks. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding your own rules and the the way they are applied in reality. I've been reading Wiki articles for a while now, and as far as I can see it is not the case that every claim is supported by a reference. This would be impossible, and of course no article in an academic journal or encyclopedia is governed by such an absurdly strict application of a general principle, otherwise we would be swamped by absurdities such as 'the sun rises in the east' (Herodotus, 450BC). The frequency of my in-text referencing is pretty much the same as most other Wiki articles. Secondly, I've checked all the biographical articles from the Consett page and some others from the Sunderland page, and in none of them is the birthdate referenced. So why are you insisting that I reference this one? I need neither your 'assessments' nor your 'advice', especially as it seems to be inappropriate and inconsistent. As for political bias, methinks you doth protest too much. This is a free encyclopedia, and therefore, unless I do something especially wrong, I would appreciate being left alone.

You are absolutely correct that many Wikipedia articles do not comply with the rules. However, that is like saying, 'other people drink and drive, therefore it is OK that I do the same'. The problem is that because it is easier to add material to Wikipedia that do not follow our policies, we have more people contravening the policies than those of use working to correct it.
Academic journal articles are written by people with professional status, whose credibility might be compromised should detail be inaccurate. As Wikipedia's editors are, in the main, anonymous, there is no particular onus for contributors to be diligent. This is why all contributions must be supported by verifiable references.
The issues that I have raised are formal Wikipedia policies. Ignoring these policies might result in editorial privileges being revoked. Neither us would like that, so let's start playing by Wikipedia's rules so that we can collaborate for the good of the project. --The JPS^{talk to me} 12:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, you present a false analogy. I can't find a single article on Wiki that references dates and places of birth, therefore this place is a bar, not a road, and it's full of drunks. No academic article references dates and places of birth. What do you mean, 'revoke editorial privileges', precisely? I'll put in this one final reference, but I'm not Prof. Hall's agent, I can't spend hours on this, I can't see anything wrong with the entry and I feel distinctly singled out.

I am not asking you to spend hours on this: I am asking that you support additions with references, per WP:PILLAR. If you feel that you don't have the time to locate adequate references, then it would be appropriate to not add the information.
Yes, you will find a seemingly infinite number of unreferenced assertions on Wikipedia. This does not make it OK to add more. I'm sorry that you feel singled out, but I can assure you that you are not the first inexperienced user to have been coached, either by myself or other editors. I am trying to support you by pointing you towards the relevant policies.
By 'revoking editing privileges', I mean that administrators can block (usually temporally) user accounts to 'prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia', 'deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior', and to 'encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.' The policy is here. The decision to block a user is not taken lightly as it conflicts with the democratic aims of the project.
In the spirit of "assume good faith", a fundamental attitude amongst contributors, I believe that you are trying to achieve good things and help the Wikipedia project. I am helping you to achieve those positive aims by advising you and linking to relevant policies.
To conclude, I strongly encourage you to read WP:BLP and WP:PILLAR. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's done. Now, as you said, there are thousands of other unreferenced birthdates around the place, so there's plenty of work for you to do. Good luck with it.

January 2013

Hello, Hardman-left. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

(I have noticed that all of your contributions to Wikipedia seem to have the purpose of promoting Steve Hall in one way or another.) DreamGuy (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Steve Hall taught me at Uni. he was an inspiration. I rate him very highly. So what?

The so what is the information already provided above, which you should read and follow. In brief: if you have an admitted bias in favor of a person you should not edit anything related to that person. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)