User: Aubbit IP address is 68.225.182.79
Hi all,
I don't know how I should go about requesting a deletion of a specific entry - I tried the FAQ but it confused me even more. I have a bit of a problem.
I have been accused by admins of 'vandalizing' and 'blanking' a specific Wikientry: Bill Freeman.
I am doing neither. I am a personal friend of Mr. Freeman, and I find the article extremely offensive, as do his other friends. The person writing this article (who reverts it back every time I edit it) is obviously biased, and is revealing very untrue and unneccisary information about Mr. Freeman and his wife.
I merely am trying to edit out the offensive bits, which keep reappearing the next day. I have read the policy on 'neutral point of view' and such, and I believe the user writing the article on Mr. Freeman has violated that ten times over. Yet I am being blocked and accused of vandalizing and blanking, simply because I am trying to protect a friend who does not deserve an article like that.
If possible, I would like this article deleted for good, because it does more harm than good. If anyone could help me with this, or work something out, please let me know. Thank you, Aubbit
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
On 1/7/06, M. Anderson symphonia@yahoo.com wrote:
User: Aubbit IP address is 68.225.182.79
Hi all,
I don't know how I should go about requesting a deletion of a specific entry - I tried the FAQ but it confused me even more. I have a bit of a problem.
I have been accused by admins of 'vandalizing' and 'blanking' a specific Wikientry: Bill Freeman.
I am doing neither. I am a personal friend of Mr. Freeman, and I find the article extremely offensive, as do his other friends. The person writing this article (who reverts it back every time I edit it) is obviously biased, and is revealing very untrue and unneccisary information about Mr. Freeman and his wife.
I merely am trying to edit out the offensive bits, which keep reappearing the next day. I have read the policy on 'neutral point of view' and such, and I believe the user writing the article on Mr. Freeman has violated that ten times over. Yet I am being blocked and accused of vandalizing and blanking, simply because I am trying to protect a friend who does not deserve an article like that.
If possible, I would like this article deleted for good, because it does more harm than good. If anyone could help me with this, or work something out, please let me know. Thank you, Aubbit
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant Neutral Point of View violations. What the article does is present controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that.
I think you misunderstand what the neutral point of view is. It is not there to simply present the most basic of facts. What it is there for is to prevent outright accusing Freeman of anything. All that this article does is present the charges and events surrounding Bill Freeman. Admittedly, there's no real providing for Freeman's own defense, but until someone (for instance, yourself) provides a source for his rebuttals, there's no real way of reporting on what they are.
The reason you are being accused of vandalism is because you are simply removing the content without any discussion as to WHY you are doing it. This apparently being the first time that you've discussed your reasons for it, let me tell you that if you had indicated on the article's discussion page, reachable by clicking on the discuss tab at the top of it, what your reasons for removing basically the entire article were, I'm sure someone would've looked into it. As it stands, what you were doing appeared to be just simple vandalism, something people like myself and the editors who were putting the content back in have to deal with in droves every day. Without you presenting a reason for your edits, we have no choice but to assume you were doing it just to screw around.
I encourage you to talk to other editors about this -- this would be an okay place, but the best would be, again, on the article's discussion page. Provide for defense of Freeman, or heck, prove that the three links provided are a load of crap. You need to let others know what your reasons are, though.
-- I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jay Converse
I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant Neutral Point of View violations. What the article does is present controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that.
I echo Jay's words. The first thing I noticed was that the article's talk page was red-linked, meaning it was empty. Usually if there is some controversy surrounding an article, it is debated on the talk page, allowing other editors to provide their input and to get a feel for the history of the debate.
The article itself is doing no more than summarising the sources given as external links. As we cannot (or rather, should not) conduct Original Research, all statements in an article should be sourced, and the article as it stands does that. If you wish to counter what you believe to be falsehoods, you should find some source and quote that.
However, I should note that NPOV doesn't mean that we find one definitive and factual version, it means that we provide different viewpoints within the same article depending on how widely and how validly the differing views are supported.
Rather than blindly reverting to and fro, open a discussion on the talk page and try to come to some compromise wording, or failing that, agree on wording that puts forward both points of view and provides sources to back them up. It would also be helpful if you avoid making allegations of lies and dishonesty - so far as I can see, the article accurately reflects what is stated in the quoted sources.
It might also be wise to seek help from a more experienced editor before continuing.
Peter (Skyring)