| Revision as of 06:55, 29 August 2015 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →ARCA notification: NY times← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:06, 29 August 2015 edit undoNomoskedasticity (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,758 edits →Splitting hairsNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| ==Splitting hairs== | ==Splitting hairs== | ||
| That article that was linked to by the OP uses Nungesser's name a plethora of times. We can't use someone's name when it was mentioned in the ]? ] (]) 06:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | That article that was linked to by the OP uses Nungesser's name a plethora of times. We can't use someone's name when it was mentioned in the ]? ] (]) 06:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :Have a look at the FAQs at the top of the talk page. ] (]) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:06, 29 August 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Susya delete
You deleted material from Susya while a discussion is taking place on the talk page. Please join it before you delete again. Settleman (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Shapps
The source very carefully avoids accusing Shapps of any wrongdoing ... which we ought well follow. The current use makes it quite appear that the living person operated an illegal pyramid scheme. Which is not claimed in the source given. No charges brought, and so no reason to maintain this bit in a BLP IMO. Collect (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Collect
Might be wise to back off Collect for a while, he's feeling persecuted and there are lots of eyes on him right now. Just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Whitaker rv
I'm not going to argue it, but it's a third source used to cite the same sentence, which already has two sources attached to it. I don't see it as supplemental, either - the source consists of the same information (which the writer is summarizing), followed by the writer's opinion piece about "the enablers" (unnamed) needing to be held accountable. There's nothing new or different about it that is of encyclopedic value - it's OVERCITE (and source dumping) to show that quantity of rehashed information in local news = notability. I'd personally rather somebody dealt with the lack of bio in a BLP, and the article creator's reversion of biographical data as "unsourced hagiography" from ASU's website. MSJapan (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
ARCA notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Collect and others and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks,
Splitting hairs
That article that was linked to by the OP uses Nungesser's name a plethora of times. We can't use someone's name when it was mentioned in the New York Times? Cla68 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Have a look at the FAQs at the top of the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)