Talk:Felix Holtmann

Removals`

From my talk page--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by your edit here since most of the material removed is cited (just not to online citations in the proper format). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Asking again since I reverted after you didn't reply here. Please explain your actions. The sources are all in the article. They all have sufficient information such that they can be located as easily as any other off-line sources. Off-line sources are just as valid as non-offline sources. Can you point to something that says that messiness of the citation format and such is a reason to remove material? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Off line sources are not as reliable for our purposes. Our only quality control with negative BLP is that other editors can easily check any claims. These may be true or may be lies - it is not realistic to say "well they stay unless someone goes to a library that has this newspaper". Sorry for not replying to your earlier post, this page is so busy I missed it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in WP:BLP,WP:V, or WP:RS that makes off-line sources less reliable than online sources. Such a notion has been proposed before and has been shot down repeatedly by the community. Do you have a better argument? If not, I'm reverting. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert a BLP removal without consensus that it is safe to do so. I challange the information that is there. If you can verify it, then you are welcome to restore it. The onus is on the person who wishes to retain the information to show it is true and verifiable. I suspect you have no idea.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You have zero reason to challenge this material. You have no reason to believe it is wrong. And I do have an idea whether the information is true and verifiable, namely that sources are given. Once sources are properly given, the onus is on the person pushing for removal. Sources exist. They are cited. Give a better reason or find something better to do with your time. And pro-forma "challenges" of information that you have no reason to doubt is the worst sourt of lack of collegiality that everyone has been trying to tell you about. Wikipedia is not a chess game or a special parliament where saying the perfect formula covers your actions. So better reasoning would be appreciated or the content will be restored. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake. The material isn't even neutral - it is simply a collection of negative low-notability news stories. You really want to replace a one-sided hatchet job because I've pissed you off. Sheeeesh.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't pissed me off, you've moderately annoyed me. It is quite hard to get pissed off over what is ultimately a long-term internet experiment. If we fail, others will simply take up where we have left off. You do however, by apparently sheer coincidence, manage to raise a good point. Given the current nature of the article and some of the wording, it is not unlikely that the article as it currently stands suffers from WP:UNDUE issues given the highly negative aspect of many elements. While that does not by itself make an article verboten (see for example Kent Hovind where the sources really are just that negative) it is sufficient argument that further investigation should occur before the older version is restored. It appears that in your attempting to flail around with your repeated changes to what your justification was for this action, you've managed to hit on a decent argument. If this sort of thing occurred more frequently and with less prior flailing the project would likely benefit. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)