Talk:Simon Collins/Archive 1

Untitled comment

This is seriously not Wikipedian, and should be looked over by someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoeflyDBM (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Update (30 April 2013)

Five years have passed and many revisions have been made. I don't think the above comment applies now. Cheers. Vuzor (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Brooks Bulletin Citation

If someone could assist with the Brooks Bulletin citation, that would be great. It's a PDF file of an article by Rob Brown of the Brooks Bulletin newspaper. The PDF is archived on another website, however, as one would find out when they click on the link. If someone could adjust that citation, that would be great. I can't seem to find a page with formatting instructions for this. Thank you. Vuzor (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Just edited the article to remove overlinking, undue weight to other bands and musicians, redundancies. We have to be careful the article doesn't read like an advertisement and still looks like an encyclopedia article. Naming and inter-linking Phil Collins over and over -- we get it, Simon's dad is the uber-famous Phil Collins. NO need for undue weight. Plugging and overlinking other musicians: same deal. Winkelvi (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It now seems well referenced. Can the tag come down? Span (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes! (sorry, in my zeal for editing it I forgot to remove it). I will do it now. Winkelvi (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Need references

Per BLP guidelines, the "Early life" section of the article has been removed as lacking references to support the content. The section had one reference and it was a dead link. Information was unverifiable. When this is remedied, the section can return. As well, I have placed cite needed tags on Collins' full name and birth date. Neither are referenced in the article. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's a recent interview in which the subject discusses his early life. I think it covers most of what was included in the removed section, although of course we can make some changes to it to more appropriately match the information given in the new source.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/musicians-corner/sound-of-contact-interview

AH: What age did you get your own kit?

SC: I was 6 when my father bought me a kit for my birthday. It was a red Tama 4-piece and that was what inspired me to really get into music. I started playing to records my parents had lying around and my music education begun from learning to play to those albums, and of course, growing up on tour with Genesis.

AH: What other instruments do you play?

SC: I taught myself the piano when I was in my early teens and immediately dove into song writing. Shortly after that I was writing lyrics and working on my voice. I couldn’t find a singer back then, so I just decided to sing the songs myself. Much later on, before production begun for my second solo album, I made a real effort to pick up the guitar and teach myself to play. I knew different influences would come out from writing on guitar, so that was the goal. I see the piano, guitar, vocals and even drums as tools that have the key to exploring different musical styles and directions. That is so important as a song writer and producer and I’m so glad looking back that I made the extra effort to learn those instruments.

AH: Aside from your dad, who else inspired you on drums and did you take formal lessons from someone?

SC: I grew up playing to tons of albums, so it’s very diverse. William Calhoun, David Grohl, Manu Katche, Vinnie Calihouta, Keith Moon, Steve Perkins, Stewart Copeland and Gavin Harrison have all had a significant impact on me. When I was 10-years old, I had a teacher but he was force feeding me jazz and at that age, all I really wanted to do was play to my favorite bands and make some serious noise. Luckily, my mom and dad were okay with being deafened on a daily basis for hours on end.

AH: Encompassing his entire body of work, including Brand X, Genesis, solo career, collaborations with artists like Eric Clapton, Earth Wind and Fire and Tears of Fears (to name a few), what do you find most influential and what are your favorite projects from your dad?

SC: I still love all the music from my father’s involvement with Genesis between late 70s and early 80s. It’s not just his work of course, but the entire band. It’s a big family to me. Putting that aside though it just stands on its own as some of the best progressive rock that’s been made to this day. That’s why singing on “Suppers Ready” recently with Steve Hackett, or my cover of “Keep it Dark” were so important to me. It was my way of celebrating great music and giving something back to say, “Thank you!” It’s the soundtrack to my childhood and in a way that was my introduction to music. It was that era of Genesis that I was on tour every night and that inspired me to start my own journey into music.

Cheers. Vuzor (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I just rewrote the "early life" section with three new sources. I hope that's fine. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Brooks Bulletin Citation: Not a Dead Link?

I just checked the Brooks Bulletin link after noticing it had been marked as a dead link. The PDF still loads for me, though it took a few seconds. I don't think this is a dead link as of right now. It still seems to work fine. If anyone is having trouble accessing it, please respond. Do try to use a different browser first, though. It seems alive and well on my end. Vuzor (talk) 10:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please confirm if the link works. There's no need to remove it if the link still directs to the source. Vuzor (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirming Simon Collins' Full Name, Date of Birth

One method of accomplishing this task would be to order the official documentation from the General Register Office of the UK. Anyone who sees this and who would like to help provide this information for this Wikipedia article, please leave a message below. You are welcome to contribute such information to this page if you have it available in the form of an appropriate source. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of new content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Articles must be written with the nature of an encyclopedia in mind. Some new content that was recently added has been removed as it was fan page-like and did not add to the article as being part of an encyclopedia. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning for the material's removal, though I feel it is equally important biographical information, particularly as these events were documented in multiple national news publications. I would like to request a third-party decision regarding whether the material is appropriate for the page. If it is appropriate, then I see no harm in keeping it; it is informative biographical information. If it is deemed unnecessary for this page, that is a fair decision as well. It's all for the sake of the page: if it adds to it, that's a good thing. If not, fine. If you agree to this process, please leave a message below. I will ask for another opinion anyway (it really doesn't hurt to ask, and no offense is meant by it), but I would like your acknowledgement of this process before it occurs. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The content isn't encyclopedic and doesn't add to the article or a reader's knowledge of the article subject. It's fan page material, not encyclopedic. Pretty simple. But since my opinion on things typically means nothing to you, feel free to canvass; don't think I won't have a problem with getting a hand-picked third party opinion through canvassing, though. Regardless, you've already said you're going to bring in someone of your own choosing anyway, so why would you care if you get an acknowledgement or not? If you really think this is "all for the sake of the page", let's do this the right way: a WP:RFC. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Request For Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a follow-up on the previous discussion regarding the content featured in the early life section of the article. Recently, the article was expanded with an assortment of new information. There is a debate regarding which of it should stay and which of it should not be included. If someone aside from those already involved could evaluate and provide a neutral opinion, that would be greatly appreciated.

The content in question can be found in the following version of the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=590649123

Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. FYI Vuzor: RfCs aren't just for those not involved with the article.

Diffs for the content in dispute are found here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4], and here [5]. The content was removed because it was the type of content you would find on a fan-site, not in an encyclopedia and did not add to the article. I stand by the removal of the content. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. On a first pass view my take is that most of it should be used, perhaps reworked a bit. A good article would include items that arguably can be seen as trivial by others. Certainly items tied to his life as a music performer is relevant. The lawsuit statement should be aligned with a follow-up as to what happened with it, dismissed, settled, etc. Early life sections give readers buy in so that can understand where a notable person came from. I don't particularly care what schools someone went to but Wikipedia readers apparently do. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the following tells the story: WP:LEAD The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I don't like one sentence leads, especially for an online encyclopedia. There should be a brief mention in the lead for each section in the main body of the article. Also, I recently went through a very trying ordeal because I changed the lead of a BLP to read, British-born. I was called a racist and a bigot. Go figure. Atsme ☯ talk 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment purely looking at the version linked above and nothing else here (including preceding comments) I would recommend losing the lost court battle and associated information. Actually that's the only part, everything else seemed relevant to the biography. AIRcorn (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Comnent. Thank you for your input. I have reworked the court battle information as Sportfan5000 suggested; please comment if it still does not fit with the article. The lead is something that should be addressed, and unless somebody else gets to it first I'll hopefully have that written as well. Feedback is always welcome. Thanks again. Vuzor (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion regarding disputed lawsuit content

I maintain that the content regarding a lawsuit between Collins' parents is not directly related to Simon Collins and is really more appropriate for the Phil Collins article. Simon Collins was a minor when it occurred, therefore, of what importance did it have in his life? The value of importance was to his mother and father's lives. To include it in this article is tabloid-ish and what you would see on a fan-site, not in an encyclopedia.

In spite of Vuzor's claims, there was no consensus over the inclusion of this content in the previous RfC. Even an administrator, Atama, said as much at the AN/I report recently filed by Vuzor.[6]

Discussing is what needs to happen, not more edit warring and not more wholesale reverting of changed and copy-edited content.[7] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my statement at ANI... Typically the point of an RfC is to bring in outside persons to weigh in on a topic when the current editors are unable to come to an agreement. There are a few ways in which an RfC should conclude. One way is that an uninvolved person (who may or may not be an administrator) judges the RfC, determines what consensus is among those participating (or if there is a consensus at all) and formally closes the RfC with their determination. Another way is that the RfC is withdrawn, either because the people disputing come to an agreement during the course of the RfC discussion, or the person who started the RfC gives up because their suggestion is not getting enough support. The final way is that no satisfactory conclusion is reached and it is brought to another venue (such as WP:DRN).

It appears that the RfC never actually was closed. It simply expired (after 30 days a bot removed the template). Vuzor liked the suggestion made by Sportfan5000 and acted on it. But there was no actual consensus made to support any further action. To sum up the RfC responses... Sportfan5000 suggested a follow-up to the lawsuit, Atsme wanted the lead expanded, and Aircorn suggested removing the court battle information. That seems like 3 fairly disparate opinions. If I would have formally closed the RfC I would have said that there doesn't seem to be any consensus reached from the brief, conflicting participation in the RfC. In any event, you are back to just trying to figure this out through our usual dispute resolution process. You can try the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'd volunteer to mediate (I've done it in the past many times) but unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to this myself right now (trying to handle COI and sockpuppet stuff). I'm not going to engage as an editor either, giving my opinion as to what I think would be the best course for this article. -- Atama頭 22:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph as the reference is unverifiable while unlinked. WP:BLP articles are different than non-BLPs, the guidelines are more stringent for verifiability. If content is unverifiable, it must be removed immediately. Don't know why I never noticed the lack of unverifiable referencing previously. Now that it has been noticed, the connected content had to go. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

References needed tag

I have added a references needed tag to this article. Special consideration needs to be given to references in a WP:BLP article. Unreferenced content in a BLP is supposed to be removed immediately, but am willing to give some time for references to be gathered for content marked by a cn tag. I think a week should do it. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Per this notification and BLP guidelines, I have removed uncited content from the article. Most of the cite needed tags were over a year old. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Why was the newspaper reference removed? Diff of that here: [8]. There's nothing wrong with it as a source. If you want to read the article yourself, you may need a print copy or access to a newspaper archival database service such as ProQuest. Everything was cited appropriately. I don't think the "citations needed" template is necessary. Vuzor (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Quan article, so I'm a bit puzzled. I think it's just a misunderstanding; I added back the two sentences that were removed because of it and the other reference confusion (the Richmond and Point Grey sentences). Is the CN template at the top really needed? The birthdate had no available source but that information has been removed already. Cheers.Vuzor (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't need a subscription to something in order to verify references. I already addressed the removal of content connected with that unverifiable reference. There is at least one other reference in the list that is unverifiable at this time. Content connected to it will need to go, too. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 14:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper articles and journal articles are acceptable sources. Academic journal articles can usually only be accessed by a database. I'm not sure why this is suddenly a problem when these are some of the most reliable types of sources available. In fact, Wikipedia explains specifically how to cite both newspaper and journal articles properly. They're acceptable sources.Vuzor (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is a BLP. There is nothing online that confirms or verifies what the alleged source allegedly says. If there's nothing else that verifies and confirms it, it should stay out. BLPs are much different for numerous reasons when it comes to verifiable sources and acceptable references. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi, Vuzor: Hey Winkelvi and Vuzor. I happened to notice the posts at the help desk so came to take a look to see if there were extenuating circumstances. I know you, Winkelvi, are operating in good faith, but you have a misunderstanding about the application of policy here, which is clear on these matters. We absolutely do not require citations to sources that are online and many of the finest published, reliable, secondary sources are not available online or are behind a paywall. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS, Wikipedia:Offline sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. Indeed, many of our best articles, i.e., featured articles, are composed of little but "offline" sources, as not all books, newspapers, journals, etc., are digitized. Verifiability does not require extreme ease of access, it requires the ability to check in some non-impossible way (yes, even if that means going to a library). Links to an online version of a newspaper article are valuable; they make verification easier, but they are courtesy links and are not required at all. There is no special rule for BLPs. By the way, I am sorry to post and run, but I am going to be offline, starting now, for a number of hours.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm misunderstanding at all. The following is very clear: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". An unverifiable source when it is the only reference available for content in a BLP falls under the category of "poorly sourced". -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Fuhghettaboutit.

Winkelvi, two other editors now (one at the help desk (current diff: [9]) and one here) have said material sourced from databases is acceptable. Your claim that the source is "unverifiable" or "poorly sourced" is completely your own creation based on your interpretation of the MOS. You offered me the advice to "let it go and cooperate." Shouldn't the opinions of others be enough for you to follow your own advice? This type of situation happens a lot between us (arguing about what is acceptable). The reason we disagree so much is precisely because you forbid acceptable content from being added to Wikipedia articles. If editors here collectively agree on these things and there are even instructional pages about it here, maybe there's something about your approach that doesn't totally fit. Maybe you've misunderstood the MOS. Vuzor (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. The first opinion from Ukexpat is invalid because he didn't have the whole story. BLP policy on sourcing is clear: if content is contested and unverifiable as well as poorly sourced, it goes. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you would like Ukexpat to weigh in again, we can ask him again just to be sure. I don't know if it's fair to say his opinion is "invalid" because it really doesn't matter whether the article is a BLP article or not, and his advice is thoughtful. We can't disregard Fuhghettaboutit's comment either. I don't want there to be any conflict between us, but it happens a lot. Based on what's happened a lot recently, it might be worth thinking about reconsidering the MOS, Winkelvi. I have no problem collaborating with others and I wish we could work together more easily, but the two of us reach an impasse a lot of the time because of issues like this. If you are editing in good faith, I think rethinking the spirit of the MOS would be helpful to you. It's not a slight against you; I'm sure you want to do good work, but you're debating things that aren't exactly problems to begin with. Vuzor (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a BLP or not? Wow. Consider pulling your head out. BLPs are a different animal altogether. And the bottom line still remains: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately". A source that is the only source and is inaccessible and unverifiable = "poorly sourced". -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Hey again Winkelvi. To be blunt, you don't understand what poorly sourced or unverifiable mean. These are not moving targets; we are not discussing undefined things and tossing opinions into a ring as to what they mean. We have policies and guidelines with plain meaning language and years of defining discussion and consensus. You are using these words in a totally idiosyncratic manner to come to a result that is patently incorrect. "Poorly sourced" refers to the reliability of the source: is the source one with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, editorial oversight and so on? In short, it has nothing whatsoever to do with access to the source, or from the other side, access to the source has nothing to say about its reliability. Again, much of the most reliable sources are in books, in libraries. It would, accordingly, be madness to require they be online for the very reason that sourcing is so important and the most reliable often are not.

Unverifiable, likewise, is not at all defined in the way you are using it. "Unverifiable" refers to information that is incapable of being checked against a reliable source and does not mean because you personally cannot look at the actually cited source from your magic box, that it is inaccessible. As I cited in the previous post, that we are not being restricted to online sources is directly addressed by the verifiability policy and not in keeping with your outré interpretation. Likewise, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published provides "It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

I am getting the feeling you are digging in your heels because the tenor of your responses here and at the help desk indicate you do not seem to be listening to anyone else. I am a user of long experience, an admin for over seven years. I am not saying that to convince you, it shouldn't, but maybe it will get you to step back and actually consider what I am saying before coming back with a knee jerk reaction, and look at the policies with an eye that you might actually be wrong – something that we all must fight our egos to do. Would it convince you if I arranged for other experienced users to comment? We can do that through various forms of calling people to the discussion. I guarantee you will find yourself a lone voice in the wilderness.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Let's start with this from you: "'Unverifiable' refers to information that is incapable of being checked against a reliable source". Which is precisely the issue. The alleged newspaper articles cited, are unavailable without a subscription. They are from as far back as over a couple decades have no reliable source to support them. I've done searches to see if there is anything out there that would be a replacement source. Nothing is available. THAT is why I am "digging my heels in" (as you put it) in regard to these unavailable sources. It's not about not listening, it's about me believing you aren't seeing this for what it really is beyond what policy says regarding references. Again, as I've noted several times now, the unavailable reference is a poor source to support content that is contestable. And frankly, if this weren't a BLP article, I'd be willing to let it go. It's because this is a BLP that I'm standing my ground on this.

But, as far as Wikipedia policies go, you and I both know that depending on the editors, depending on the administrators watching/involved, depending on the article and so on, it's really "policy-schmolicy". The old stand-by of WP:IAR and specifically this [10] is common behavior, some even see it as policy. You know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I know it too. You also know that people use the "rules" to force their way in disputes. And that's been Vuzor's tactic practically from the first time he and I butted heads about a year ago. He uses the "rules" as a battering ram to get his way. I see the rules as something to recognize, use as a guideline. The only time I get real stringent about policy is in regard to BLPs. And in regard to the BLP in question, I still keep coming back to verifiability over truth and "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful". That's my bottom line.

And, honestly, I wish you would discuss this and hash it out here rather than be an administrator who reverts wholesale. As an administrator, it seems like a WP:DICK move to me, and one that was done with the intent to intimidate. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, Winkelvi. You have constantly disputed and reverted everything that I've tried to add for the very same reason you're disputing and creating an issue over this content. That is why I have argued time and time again with you. You have effectively tried to block other editors from adding content to these pages by approaching articles with the same attitude you've shown here. You've been hostile not only towards me but to other editors as well over every bit of content you feel deserves not to be here. I'm not using any "tactic," and I don't appreciate the bad faith demonstrated with that comment. It's been a lengthy and difficult process editing each time because of your insistence that you are "right," no matter what anyone else says. Even when others tell you you're wrong, you won't budge. You've shown bad faith here in accusing Fuhghettaboutit of doing anything with "the intent to intimidate."

I think you misunderstand Fuhghettaboutit's explanation of reliable sources and unverifiable content. Approach the following with a sense of logic.

"A reliable source is defined as "one with a reputation for fact checking, accuracy, editorial oversight and so on"". This includes academic journal articles, mainstream newspaper articles, etc as referred to in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

""Unverifiable" refers to information that is incapable of being checked against a reliable source".

Verifiable information in a Wikipedia article is information that is backed up by a reliable source (in other words, capable of being checked against a reliable source (aka the one being cited in the first place)).

Winkelvi, you have misunderstood, and it has made editing these articles extremely difficult. You have dictated what happens on these pages with your interpretation of the MOS and your aggressive, hostile, authoritarian "what I say goes" stance, regardless of what anyone else has told you about what is acceptable content and how policies work. I ask that you not be stubborn and that you accept that your conduct here needs to change.Vuzor (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God. Here you go again, playing the victim card. Please stop with the fucking dramatics and dishonesty. I've not been hostile to you or anyone. I've not tried to stop anyone from editing. I've not been authoritarian. I've not tried to stop new content being added. I have no feelings about whether someone belongs in Wikipedia or not. I haven't dictated anything. And please stop projecting. Practically everything you've erroneously accused me of here is what you, yourself, are guilty of. Stop bringing up shit from the past. Stop talking about editors and talk about edits instead. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The response simply stems from you claiming that I've used any "tactic." I've asked that you be professional, and I'm adding to the fact you've misunderstood the MOS and how editors should operate here. These pages and the various reports on the incidents board are full of incidents just like this one. Why do you argue with everyone, even the administrators, when they tell you how things work around here? The administrators, of all people, should know. It's frustrating having to go through this every time. We waste so much time bickering over non-issues because you don't understand what acceptable content and acceptable sources are. You make problems out of nothing. Also, I just provided an explanation of what Fuhghettaboutit was talking about in regards to reliable sources and unverifiable content. That has everything to do with the discussion taking place now. Vuzor (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

(e/c × 4) Winkelvi, must I now define what "incapable" means? I do not believe trying to explain the policy further is going to work because that's already been tried. Have you noticed the four experienced users at the help desk all disagreeing with you – actually telling you you're blatantly incorrect? I make a fifth and Vuzor, whose recapitulation ofv the policy concern above is spot on, makes a sixth. I have no idea what has happened between you and Vuzor in your past interaction and it's irrelevant to the fact here your acting to this article's harm by your misapplication and misunderstanding of reliable sourcing and verifiability. I reverted just like any other editor would (and should here), and since I would never use my tools in a content dispute, nor would any admin properly, any intimidation you feel is unwarranted on those grounds; what you should be intimidated by is the thin ice you're standing on. Meanwhile we do have a problem – your edits stripping swaths of content sourced to newspapers articles on a totally invalid basis – so it appears we need to get others involved to reach a consensus since you appear intent on keeping in your changes. But for the moment I'm going to bed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:See my response to the other editors at the help desk for more and where I am on all of this at the present. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Yes, I've looked at your latest post at the help desk. You've repeated the exact same misunderstandings and possibly a further misunderstanding. Talking about the newspaper articles, you've now said they are from as "far back as over a couple decades [and] have no reliable source to support them" which is a non sequitur. These newspaper sources are the reliable sources; they don't in turn need their own reliable sources. Hard to even tell what that could mean because it results in a recursive loop, a snake eating its tail. I actually agree with you on one thing you've said: there is some point of extreme lack of access that makes a source useless for verification – a "lockbox" as you've put it. A source literally only in a safety deposit box would indeed make access too difficult. Note that that issue is not one of reliability as you keep characterizing it. It's more an issue of publication. Anyway, needing to go to a library is as far from this concept as can be. And these sources apparently aren't even that "distant" as the discussion has been that they actually are available online just behind a paywall which, again, the verifiability policy addresses directly, as I've just linked (again). In a later post you've said you liked Roger (Dodger67)'s explanation best. Does that mean you're going to revert your removals? The status quo resulting from your bowdlerizing cannot remain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Please back off from cutting remarks and mis-characterizations ("bowdlerizing" = censorship, plus others in your previous communications). They're not appreciated nor are they necessary. I'm not an asshole or even a problem editor, I'm just someone with strong opinions who sees things differently or from a different angle than a lot of folks. A little respect and AGF my direction wouldn't be out of place here. And it certainly would be appreciated.

In regard to the reliability of a reference that's locked behind a paywall: the more inaccessible a reference is, the less likely anyone is to look into it to fact check. While AGF gives some leeway when it comes to trusting editors to do the right thing by articles in regard to references, there are editors out there with agendas and a propensity toward "pointyness" who will abuse AGF and this policy to intentionally use such references and slip something through the cracks or under the door. Sad, but true. That possibility borne out of human fallibility is one of the reasons why I will continue to strongly disagree with the use of such references and calling them "reliable". (just to be clear, my objection to the use of such references will not result in edit warring or disruptive behavior -- I'm just reserving the right to dislike such locked and unavailable references) In my opinion, human nature being what it is -- especially in the internet environment -- that makes the policy regarding use of such references inherently flawed. All that said, enough soapboxing from me.

Later today I will get to fixing the article along with re-adding the removed references (as necessary, as I have found better, available references for some). Currently, I'm busy with personal business surrounding the early morning death of a close family member. I'll probably get to the article later tonight, if that's acceptable to you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, the assumption that other editors are "abusing AGF" and then blocking the types of sources allowed itself goes against AGF. Your strong disagreement with the use of reliable sources is baffling, considering the MOS defines reliable sources very clearly. That basic misunderstanding will continue to cause harm to this article and other articles you review in the future (such things aren't isolated to just this incident), as some of the most useful sources are from archives. Trying to build an article solely from web search engine sources severely limits the scope and depth of an article. There is a system in place, as one editor described on the Help Desk page, for requesting fact checks. Database material is reliable. Lengthy discussions have surely been had about this when the policies were designed.

I can't say for sure if, based on your comment, you call your references "better" just because they're online. You've missed the whole point entirely in that case. The content was sourced originally from the newspaper articles; if you have found additional sources, they could be used as supplemental sources for certain (it's common to have more than one source linked to a sentence). For that reason and the fact that database material is reliable, reverting to Fuhghettaboutit's diff should be the proper course of action. Your comment makes you seem intent on removing a large quantity of material just because it's from a database; that's the wrong approach. I must also mention that the word "bowdlerizing" is a fitting description for what has taken place here and in the past, as not only do you remove sources that you disagree with (you tried to remove primary sources (official biographies and websites) at one point, using the buzzword "fan cruft" to delete them), but you also prevent material from being added on the basis of it being "too descriptive" or "promotional material," frequently when others disagree with you. You revert content without hesitation and then point fingers and demonstrate hostility when other editors involved ask for outside feedback. This refusal to allow any information on to these pages including reliable sources, even when administrators intervene, shows an innate paranoia that has made editing these pages severely difficult for others. It is censorship. You've acted in bad faith often because you always jump to the wrong conclusions right away, and you misunderstanding the MOS and the spirit of editing on Wikipedia. Vuzor (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Vuzor, Wikipedia is a community and anyone can edit articles as well as comment on talk pages. But just because you can do all that doesn't mean you always should. My comments were obviously not directed to you, but to Fuhghettaboutit. That said, I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop dissecting everything I say and taking it personally. If you want to play the victim card once again and imagine any of my comments were about you specifically, that's your choice. But please stop dragging me into your drama and "woe-is-me-I'm-so-abused" scenarios. It's nauseating and tiresome, frankly. What's more, continually whining, being a victim, and making more accusations and noticeboard reports than productive, cooperative edits is doing you no favors in the eyes of other editors and editor/administrators. Before you know it, people will start seeing you as a problematic pain in the ass. Not a place you want to be in if you choose to stay in Wikipedia (yesterday you played the diva card and threatened to leave if you didn't get what you wanted, remember?). Take your bullshit pseudo psychoanalysis of me and put it where the sun doesn't shine. Then please stop obsessively talking to me and about me in talk pages as well as filing noticeboard discussions and start working toward building an encyclopedia (if you choose to rescind your use of the diva card and stay, that is). After all, building an encyclopedia is what we're supposed to be here for, not creating and perpetuating drama. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't make productive edits (nor can anybody else) when they are all blocked and instantly reverted by a single person on the basis of a few buzzwords and bad faith assumptions about content, sources, and other editors. Cooperation becomes difficult when a user demonstrates hostility, refuses to listen to others, even administrators, and imposes strict rules that disregard the MOS. This has been taken to the noticeboards in the past several times precisely because of incidents like this one. Vuzor (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

More of that pain in the ass and tedious victim-talk, eh Vuzor? There are thousands upon thousands of articles to edit in Wikipedia. You seem fixated on only a few articles. In the 2+ years I've been here, I've edited 1,304 articles and I have 1,483 articles on my watchlist. By contrast, in nearly three years since your first edit you have edited only 89 articles. For what it's worth to you, my advice is that you branch out and find other articles to edit along with the Collins-related articles. Surely, if you took a mind to, you could find scores if articles to edit that I have no interest and time invested in. Articles I couldn't care less about and would never read, add content to, remove inappropriate content, etc. If you did that, you wouldn't have to cross paths with me where you would be tempted to take my edits at the same articles personally and get yourself so riled up, feeling all persecuted and such. You could take a vacation from noticeboards. Be happier editing. Sounds like a solution to me. Are we done here now? Never mind, forget I asked because I'm done responding to you on this. Go out into the Wikipedia world and prosper by adding new articles to your editing repertoire and doing something truly productive and helpful here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, you telling me not to edit here is absurd. Your comment reeks of arrogance. We all do what we can, and 89 articles is a fair number so far. That's deviating from the point that you should restore Fuhghettaboutit's version of the page and reconsider how you approach editing. Editing other articles does not mean I can not edit this article; effectively suggesting that I 'go away' is completely immature and doesn't resolve any of the issues we have here. You always take an "I can't accept that" stance, revert other editors' work immediately, complain when editors try to ask for outside opinions, then accuse them of "edit warring." You refuse to listen to others (as you've proven here), and have even argued against consensus (see: [11]):

"Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)"

The conduct you've demonstrated here is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. Vuzor (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Going back on my comment (just for the moment) that I'm done talking to you: I never said you shouldn't edit these articles, I gave you suggestions for branching out and expanding your interests at other articles so you might enjoy Wikipedia more and feel less like anyone is out to get you. But, I guess you would only see that I told you to "go away" completely. Why? Because that's how you operate, how you think about those you believe have wronged you. Or did you forget that a little over two weeks ago you suggested a topic ban for me simply because you didn't like that I edited what you contributed? And now I've got to ask: did you miss what I told Fuhg above? You know, the part about dealing with the overnight death of a close family member? You pour over everything said to you in talk pages, so I'm betting you didn't miss it. You didn't miss it and still you're being accusatory and a martyr and lining up your collection of past evidence that I've somehow made your Wikipedia life miserable. Which, considering you know what I'm going through real-life-wise right now, makes you a complete dick. Based on that, here's my last comment to you on this talk page topic: Fuck. Off. (I'm sure you'll be heading to a noticeboard now to tattle, right?) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You have continued to make assumptions about other editors in bad faith. This is not about me being "wronged." It never has been. This is about your misunderstanding of the MOS, your imposition of censorship, your refusal to operate on Wikipedia civilly, and your tendency to dispute non-issues in the most vicious, disrespectful way each time an addition is made. This is about the current situation: your refusal to allow other editors to work on this article, your refusal to listen to consensus or to administrators. If it helps at all, I express my condolences to you in regards to your family, but that does not bar me from leaving a message about the current situation. If you want to be here to read my comments at this very moment, fine. That decision is at your discretion.

I won't be going to a noticeboard this time. I feel Fuhghettaboutit is involved with this discussion already and further mediation should be handled as such. Vuzor (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Do newspaper sources that are unavailable for free online thereby become unreliable and is the content they are cited to verify, thereby rendered poorly-sourced and/or unverifiable?

Should the cited content removed on the basis stated in the RFC title be returned to the article?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Further statement of issue. A large portion of cited content in this article, sourced to published newspaper articles such as The Province, The Vancouver Sun and the The Prince George Citizen, has been removed by User:Winkelvi on the stated basis that since they are not available for free online, they are rendered unreliable, the content they were cited to verify is "poorly-sourced", and because the sources are not free, the content is "unverifiable". Example diffs: [12], [13], [14]. In some cases the information was kept but the newspaper citation removed and replaced with a citation needed tag (diff).

  Discussion has been attempted above, pointing to among others, policy pages such as the verifiability policy's section at WP:SOURCEACCESS and the ‪identifying reliable sources‬ guideline's section at Definition of published. After some discussion I reverted to a version prior to the removals and was promptly re-reverted. The discussion is immediately above.

  Some more generalized discussion can be found at ‪Wikipedia:Help desk‬#Newspaper Articles, at which five other experienced users (@Ukexpat, Jc3s5h, Dodger67, Orangemike, GB fan:) all advised that this understanding was incorrect. As appears from the discussion, there will be no resolution and voluntary return of the sourced content without a consensus being established by the community.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support returning cited content to article., i.e., revert to version of 03:32, May 2, 2014.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:The cited content had already been returned to the article hours before this RfC was opened. Considering such, I'm confused as to why you opened this RfC. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I thought this issue was resolved in the Help Desk discussion. In the last post there, the editor concerned accepted my explanation and even thanked me. Why are we going over this again? Restore the cites, close this silly RFC and move on. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Dodger67:Roger, it was resolved and I already took care of returning the content and sources. Fuhghettaboutit, I don't understand. The sources that were removed and the content associated with those sources - all of that was put back into the article. It was taken care of hours before this RfC, just as I said it would be here [15]. I did what you inquired about ("Does that mean you're going to revert your removals?"), and what you talked about again in the wording in this RfC ("A large portion of cited content in this article, sourced to published newspaper articles such as The Province, The Vancouver Sun and the The Prince George Citizen, has been removed by User:Winkelvi on the stated basis that since they are not available for free online"; "voluntary return of the sourced content"). Why was this RfC opened when what you asked me to do has already been done? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• No, not all of that content was restored. The proposal is to revert the article to the version from 3:32, May 2, 2014 [16] (or the recent restoration of that version of the article at 03:28, 17 May 2014 [17]). That version has been deemed the most recent version before content began to be removed wholesale (for example: [18], [19] (with edit summary: "Rem uncited BLP content per discussion started on talk page 5/2/14") and [20]). A noteworthy amount of content from the 3:32, May 2, 2014 version has not been restored. Instead, the current diff most closely resembles the version at 09:23, 16 May, 2014 in which User:Winkelvi had already removed and disputed the content in question (see: [21]). Between 3:32, May 2, 2014 and 09:23, May 16, 2014, a noteworthy amount of content sourced from newspaper articles was removed. Additional information from valid online sources was also removed for dubious reasons. The current version of the page only partially restores the content in question. This RfC is in regards to the full restoration of content removed (reverting to the version from 3:32, May 2, 2014 [22]). Vuzor (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a ridiculous RfC. You can't override Wikipedia policy with an RfC. Of course subscription-only sources are reliable. If your question is whether to revert to a specific date, then I suggest you just do it. If someone objects, then start up a new RfC with a better premise. I'm tempted to close this RfC myself right now, but I'm not in the mood for drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • ditto. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Fuhghettaboutit, if you have access to the subscription-only material, it'd be helpful for Winkelvi if you provided quotes from the sources demonstrating their statements in the "quote" section of your citations. Obviously you'd have to avoid copyright infringement and only quote relevant material. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The subscription-only material was actually added by me. I have access to that material. Fuhgettaboutit stepped in to mediate, as seen in the other discussion above. I can provide the quotations, though that would first entail reverting to the proposed revision as NinjaRobotPirate has suggested (in order to restore all of the references and content that had been removed). Vuzor (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

actually it was NinjaRobotPirate who suggested that, I merely agreed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading the comments from the edit page, so I had your two names mixed up initially. Anyway, I have just added all of the relevant quotations in the {{cite news}} article templates. This clutters the references section a bit, but all of the quotations used are visible. The revision matches 3:32, May 2, 2014 with the only difference being the addition of the quotations in the references (see comparison: [23]). Multiple quotations from each article were used and I had originally separated each quotation with a "|quote=" tag, but only the last "|quote=" tag would show up for each, so to display them all I simply separated them all with double quotation marks ("").Vuzor (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit frightening that I've become interchangeable with TheRedPenOfDoom, but I suppose it's more fun to be infamous than an admin. See below for some comments on the quotations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I had pre-written the RfC text, and when I came back I saw your post starting with describing how you were continuing to believe in your position and I guess I got to about where you said "I will continue to strongly disagree with the use of such references..." and then scanned the wall of heated debate including you telling Vuzor to "Fuck. Off" as your last post and about there I decided it was a lost cause and posted. My fault though. Hastiness (and distraction at home). Didn't notice the part of your initial post where you said you were nevertheless going to restore and that you had actually done so (to an extent). Whether that extent is sufficient is not part of this RfC and understandably confused everyone here. I've removed RfC template which will tell the bot to close as soon as it notices. (condolences, didn't see the part about your family member either; something like that makes all the squabbles we have here pure trivia).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

Since this page was getting quite long and discussions went back to over a year ago, I have created an article talk page archive named Talk:Simon Collins/Archive 1. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)