Fewwords
Welcome
edit
|
Just a quick note - the full name of the school that he attended is The John Henry Newman School, hence your edits have been reverted. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Article edits are not signed
editIt is customary and expected that users will sign edits in WP:TALK space, but edits are not signed in article space (as here). See WP:SIGN for more information. 165.189.101.177 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Raymond Keene article
editHello. Thanks for your recent edits to the Raymond Keene article, many of which have added clarity through good sourcing of attributed quotes etc.
I do however have some serious concerns too. Regrettably, the article now has a serious imbalance between the space and detail afforded to Keene's many achievements/accomplishments and to material of a more controversial or negative nature; secondly, the presentation of material should not in any way be seen to constitute a personal attack on a person, but may do this already; and thirdly, there are doubts about the reliable and authoritative nature of some of the sources - eg. Private Eye, Kingpin, Daily Dirt Blog.
A further problem, is that little weight should be given to 'minority' views when including controversial material. In this article, most controversies and allegations revolve around a very small number of individuals - for example Levy, Donaldson, Henderson, Miles, Kramnik and Winter.
Many of these concerns are shared by other 'Wikiproject Chess' editors - see here. It is of course quite possible that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, so you may wish to read them.
Naturally, no-one is saying that Mr. Keene should not have controversial material written about him, but I hope you can appreciate that it should not outweigh the other material by a factor of 5:1, or thereabouts. My own opinion is that some of the newly added material will need to be removed. However, if you were already planning to expand the material comprising Mr. Keene's achievements to a similar level of detail, then the need for removal may be greatly diminished.
Lastly, I would apologise for the negative tone of this note and hope it does not put you off editing on Wikipedia.
I welcome your views, either here or on my talk page, or on the Raymond Keene talk page, should you want to widen the discussion to a greater number of editors. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more! All the material I have added is properly sourced, all of it is in the public domain and none of it has been legally challenged. I would strongly oppose removal of any material. There are as far as I can see no doubts whatsoever about the reliability of the sources, essentially for the reasons I give above. If they are not considered to be authoritative it would be necessary for somebody, in each instance, to explain precisely why. Anybody who wishes to say so is of course very much entitled to do so.
This phrase in particular
In this article, most controversies and allegations revolve around a very small number of individuals - for example Levy, Donaldson, Henderson, Miles, Kramnik and Winter.
doesn't appear to mean anything. If somebody is accused of plagiarisng other individual's work, as is the case here, then it is only one individual whose work has been plagiarised. So what? Plagiarism normally is of one individual. The importance of the fact lies in the subject's profession as a writer: allegations of plagiarism naturally, in the context, loom very large. Are the Donaldson and Winter affairs somehow irrelevant? I would like to hear how, if that is really so. Is Mig Greengard somehow an obscure commentator in the world of chess? I would not have said so. I do not think, either, that these are "minority" views.
I don't think there is any particular ratio by which controversial material should relate to other material: naturally it depends on the subject of the article. In Ray Keene's case there have been a lot of controversies and therefore a proper accounting must be made of them. Of course if anybody wants to add other material - the achievements, whatever they may be deemed to be, of his long career - then they may do so, provided that they are properly sourced. But all the material that has been added is pertinent, sourced, and accurate and there is no good reason to remove any of it. By all means add: that is what I have been doing. And will continue so to do. I have improved the article immensely: you may like to compare the density of references now with what was present beforehand.
- Hi. Of the sources, you say, "If they are not considered to be authoritative it would be necessary for somebody, in each instance, to explain precisely why." in fact, with biographies of living people the exact opposite is the case - any contentious material can be removed and the burden of proof is on the editor who added it to prove it is reliable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I mean necessary in an ethical sense, i.e. if there is a problem with any given part, then I think somebody should say precisely why. But all the new material is properly reference, none is obscure and all is known to ths subject of the piece. I do not believe you can improve much on that standard of reliability.
Once again, I find this
if you were already planning to expand the material comprising Mr. Keene's achievements to a similar level of detail
a very odd thing to say indeed. Mr Keene's achievements are already listed in great detail. If you are aware of any that have gone unlisted, why not insert them yourself?
Oh, I should add - I think you are confusing "minority views" on a subject with the number of poeople who felt themselves to be victims. You can have only one victim, but it doesn't follow that they are the only person who has a view on the subject - and this would apply very obviously and verifiably to Henderson, Donaldson, Winter etc.--Fewwords (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good old Justin Horton--ZincBelief (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
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 may also click on the signature button 
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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been confused by this because when I did this previously,when editing, I got a message saying not to!
--Fewwords (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- The previous message was about the edit summary box; you don't need to sign there but you should sign immediately after your comment if you are writing on a talk page. Regards, --Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 14
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raymond Keene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Signatures
editHello, with respect to this edit summary, please see WP:SIGNHERE. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)