Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:18, 13 July 2007

I am not a huge Wikipediaer and am only interested in a few articles. I may not be online for days at a time. Thank you. --Vitalmove 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have now reverted my edits to Press TV three times. Four reversions to an article in 24 hours would be a violation of the WP:3RR rule. Please keep this in mind. Perspicacite 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep Vandalizing the article? Your edits are contradicted by cited sources later in the article, and you have no reason to delete a list of Press TV's programs. I am new so I do not know how to deal with a bully like you, but I will find out. --Vitalmove 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a 3RR report on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You may comment here. I suggest you revert to my last edit. Otherwise you will likely be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for 24 hours. Perspicacite 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Watts

In answer to your question, I am not sure. The reason I tagged the article is that it is not enough context for me as someone who knows nothing about him whether he is sufficently notable or not. (Read up on WP:N and you will see what I mean).

If I were to guess, I would say being a host of a television would probably make him notable enough for him to have a page here. But it would depend on how important this television show is. As a rule of thumb, are there secondary sources (i.e. reliable websites, books, magazine artciles etc) about him in existance?

Your article is good enough that if someone thought it should be deleted, it wouldn't be deleted immediately but it would probably go to an AFD. That would give you about a week to improve it.Teiresias84 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes there are secondary sources. I linked seven mainstream media sources on him in the article. There are probably hundreds on the net. Press TV is also a worldwide network beamed to televisions in every country, and streamed on the internet. --Vitalmove 05:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't stress. I don't want to delete your article. I am just concerned that it might not be notable enough.

It's good to see that you are adding references from mainstream sources. I think the sources you have provided are reliable enough. However there are other problems with some of them. I'll run through them.

• Reliable source. Good. However it terms of adding to Mark Watts notablity, it only mentions that he wrote a book, which in itself is not enough for inclusion. This should stay in the article for it is a reference for the fact he wrote a book, but it dosen't get him about WP:N.

• This is written by Watts himself, which only proves himself to be a freelance journalist. Which again, by itself, is not sufficent.

• proves only he was sued for slander. Lots of people are sued for slander.

• Again, written by Watts. Adds nothing to notablity.

• Good. Shows that he is the add of FOIA. If you can show FOIA to have had secondary sources, then that'll help alot.

• Again backs up his journalistic credentals, although I saw nothing here that showed he was the chief investigative reporter.

• Another example of his work as a freelance journalist.

My feeling is that this is a real boderline case. I was hoping for an article or two specifically about him, not involving him (hope that makes sense). Can you add something about his TV show. I think that is what potential makes him notable. But you only say he is the host of a show on a network I've never heard of (I am living on the other side of the world, granted. But that is the auidence you need to write for) in the introduction and never come back to it. Add some more on his show and it should be ok.

I hope this made sense. The point I am trying to make is just because an reliable source is written by someone or mentions someone, it doesn't make the subject inhertiely notable. I really don't mean to sound harsh either. The article is well written and you have used references which is a lot better than most other new editors. You just need to establish notability a little more. Any more questions, don't hesitate to ask.Teiresias84 06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, any mainstream article can be described as "only saying" this and that about a person. The slander lawsuit was related to his successful book. I'll add another source for his prior title. The television station can be viewed on one of ten satellite bands as noted here http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=15384&sectionid=351020105 . Or you can view the internet stream here: mms://217.218.67.244/presslive . It's on twice a day I think. --Vitalmove 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I really want to stress I don't mean to come down too hard on you. It'll probably help if you add a couple of lines on the slander trial itself.Teiresias84 06:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems like it would give a minor event too much attention. The book was huge not because of the slander lawsuit, but rather because of the information it contained. Also, there was no trial in the slander lawsuit. It was settled out of court for a relatively small amount (a few hundred thousand pounds), which is a common way to get rid of lawsuits. --Vitalmove 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

I ask you to please change your username, Vitalmove. The name contains the name of a wikipedia process, moving. This can be taken as inappropriate. You can change your username by asking a bureaucrat.

Best regards,

bibliotheque (Talk) 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I'll try --Vitalmove 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Maraming salamat for trying. I am not assuming bad faith, but next time, respond on the Bibliotheque Official Complaints Cabal (BOCC). Again, salamat. biblio (forgive·disarm·unite) 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to change your name. "Move" is allowed in usernames. Andre (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

K, I removed the request. --Vitalmove 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage edits

I only revert (not delete) the most outlandish of personal attacks. The anti-Iranian accusation is quite funny when one considers that 90% of my edits are Angola-related. The Israeli government sure cares a lot about Angola, yessiree. Perspicacite 07:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The other 10% are against Muslims and Iranians. --Vitalmove 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

As charming as your comments are, accusing other editors of 'working for the Israeli government, having an "anti-Muslim bias", and being 'bullies' are violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:EQ. In the past three days in which you've edited you've repeatedly been told to maintain civility. Since you continue nonetheless to accuse other editors of 'vandalism' over a content dispute, consider this a formal warning as such behavior merits a block. Perspicacite 06:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)