Please review Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. All biographical material posted, especially that which may portray a living subject in a negative light, must be rigorously sourced. Any unsourced material, especially of a controversial nature, will be deleted. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please give me some guidance, I did take the time to read all of the toutorials, and I thought I did everything right. Please just tell me what to remove.
Kathywillets (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)KathyKathywillets (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
How about this, do you have access to my page from before I first editted it, I believe
that was in Nov., because that page was up and apparently OK, for several years. If you have access, it will have all that i NEED TO SHOW MY INFORMATION IS FROM A SOURCED MATERIAL.
Kathywillets (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)kATHYKathywillets (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The only previous version was deleted for the same reasons by another administrator. Biographical information is subject to very rigid policies, and enforcement is far more stringent than in former years. The previous article had only one insubstantial source. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
And you can't tell me what that one item was?
Thank you, hopefully I can get to that this week. I comnpletely understand the issues, except when it is an autobiogrphical contribution. There must be a way to verify who someone is, this is the age of computers, and basically little to no privacy.
Kathywillets (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)KathyKathywillets (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The ref was {{cite web|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973830,00.html|publisher=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|title=Scandals|accessdate=2007-08-23|date=1991-09-16}}. It's OK as far as it goes, but the vast majority of the article was unsourced, and it falls far short of multiple, independent media. Sourcing for such an article must be ironclad. I'd suggest you contact editors who have worked successfully with similar articles who could help you. I have no objection to the existence of the article - you (and I'm assuming you are Kathy Willets) seem to meet notability, but a great deal of work is needed to meet sourcing requirements. As I said, biography criteria have become far more stringent in the last couple of years, and they're about to become extremely restrictive, when the flagged revision policy effectively prevents a biography from being seen unless it has passed a review process.Acroterion (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you I think, all of that gobblity gook writing/symbols is just too much for me, I am computer illeterate. You mention working with editors, from where, this site, and how does one contact a person, to work with you?
- I would have assumed that the reference to Time was the only thing I did correctly.
- Nobody expects you to be proficient in markup language - I'm not, and you did note the source correctly You just need a lot more sources. There's a current issue concerning a biographical article that's being discussed in today's Times of London that will probably lead to enactment of even tighter controls on biographies in the near future. I'd suggest that you leave a note asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography: if you look at the thread on Shaun Costello you'll see the kind of issues that concern editors: one person's accuracy is another's defamation, and autobiographies are generally received poorly. You can see a list of regular participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. Acroterion (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, hopefully I can get to that this week. I comnpletely understand the issues, except when it is an autobiogrphical contribution. There must be a way to verify who someone is, this is the age of computers, and basically little to no privacy.
Kathywillets (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)KathyKathywillets (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)