Talk:Dallas Dempster/Archives/2013

Edit war

There's been a bit of an edit war on this article. Yesterday, Australia time, Mr Dempster left his phone number in an edit summary and I rang him and discussed the article with him before reading either version, but offered to look at it and ensure it conforms to Wikipedia policy. He offered to compensate me for my trouble and I declined, explaining that this is what I do for fun, and that I wanted to preserve my independence.

This case was also discussed on the administrators' noticeboard (incidents) and the Australian wikipedians' noticeboard, where I noticed it.

Something's wrong with my internet access at home (I'm at a library now) and Optus say it may be another day before I'm back online, so I can't move as quickly as I would like. Can I begin by inviting Mr Dempster and Mr Ikin, and anyone else, to point out here any information in the current version of the article that is either false or misleading? (We can get to what's missing once we've dealt with this.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Back at the library. Having heard nothing, and this being a biography of a living person (BLP) and subject to our WP:BLP policy among others, I'll now take a look at the article and make changes as I go, explaining my edits in edit summaries. Where I remove or change content due to a belief that the content adds undue derogatory implications, or undue weight to negative content, please do not re-add it without discussing first on this talk page, per WP:BLP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting interpretations of what was said at the noticeboards - specially WP:COI and WP:OWN - the topic and article are not any one editors domain sats 03:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

moved item from another talk page

(Copied from Anthonyhcole's talk page)

:from the content Mr Dempster added, uncontroversial, uncontested, he'd know. my reading of http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP is that you are re-inserting material - even if it is in your terms 'uncontroversial', that is unlikely to be WP:V and potentially WP:OR - I look at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help and think you, dallas and his PR need to look at that page carefully sats 04:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with out BLP, V, OR and most other content policies, but if I've misunderstood something, I always appreciate critical review by other editors. The edit referred to above [1] replaces unsourced early life content with unsourced early life content added by the subject/his agent. You are at liberty to delete it but since it's uncontroversial and accompanied by a {{cn}}, and attested by the subject, I think it's a worthwhile addition, and deletion would harm, rather that improve, the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between what a subject wishes to say about himself in an encyclopedia, and what an uninvolved person would say about him. Subjects often want to insert their own views of things; But first, they are not necessarily their own actual view of their life, but what they would like to have appear here about it. There's a difference. They also represent what they personally think important about themselves. But we're not concerned with that, we includes what a general reader would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia. The details of their first few jobs, including their method of travel to them and their initial steps op the promotional ladder, are not generally among this, proud though the person may be about it. I have consequently removed some material. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Further PR glossing on this article

While updating the "Hyperion Energy" section, for which third-party sources seem to be disappearing, I noticed that on 10 and 21 June a pair of IP editors had made further PR-style alterations and gratuitously removed a reliable mainstream source of which the editors apparently disapprove. They have created the time-consuming task of restoring the article to an NPOV and verifiable standard. I intend to contribute to this and put the article back on my watchlist for closer attention. Bjenks (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)