2009/9/8 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: BLP doesn't actually let you do that. It only allows for removal of unsourced contentious material. Mass proding will likely get you blocked under the disruption clause. -- geni

2009/9/8 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>om>: True, but that isn't a BLP issue, it is a general article issue. You can't use that argument to support deleting unreferenced BLPs on sight unless you argue for deleting all unreferenced articles on sight. (I might an actually support that argument - the sources in an article should be the actual source of the information and only the author knows that so they should be the one citing the source.)

David Goodman<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. Turning half of our Garbagemonkeys into [[WP:Sourcerors]] may be one of the best ideas I've heard all day. -Stevertigo

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Charles Matthews<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: Sounds like a good idea. Start it as a how-to or essay first? Checking "what links here" and other language encyclopedias are the things I see people missing out most. Plus not simply searching Wikipedia to see how often something is mentioned in other pages but not yet linked. Carcharoth

i agree with you very much that Welcome, but ... messages as currently used would be considered an insult or condescending by almost anyone. "Here's your speeding ticket. Have a nice day!" You might try using custom messages. I have variations on several that I use, but i always to adapt them to make it clear I am talking about their actual article. A sentence that what you need most to do is to .... with something actually specific, instead of the boilerplate, will help those who have a chance of understanding, and sort out the ones who never will, or never intend to. Obviously, if someone is playing games with us, it's another matter, but there too I often use a custom message, usually a variation on "enough already!" I have sometime gotten the comment "OK, I took the earlier ones for meaningless computer output." I learned to do this from watching others who did, notably Durova. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Emily Monroe <bluecaliocean(a)me.com> wrote: I understand of course that there are things which legitimately need to be removed and without any deliberation. We generally aren't talking about speedy deletes, but the grey areas that require deliberation. As deliberation requires discussion, the plain fact is that discussions themselves must run their course and not be violated or gamed one way or another - in the deletion context we understand deletionism itself is the default modality. The main issue with BLP is the *time bomb fallacy* - the unnerving notion that bad articles and statements are like bombs that need to be removed within minutes or else things will blow up Seigenthaller-style. Since BLP policy inevitably goes back to Siegenthaller, we would do well to remember that the slander in his bio article was there for a lot longer than just a few minutes. If someone saw the article even a month before he did, they could have corrected it, and the eventual inevitable blowup over Wikipedia's "reliability" would have come from somewhere else. The point is to *slow down, and respect ongoing discussion.* I pointed out the disparity between the speedy-deletionistas and the slow-undeletionists at [[WP:DRV/SV/ONS#Fastness-ness and slowness-ness]]. Just having an XFD template at the top of a problematic article generally mitigates any issue of liability - we are being upfront and attentive about dealing with any substantive issues. Regards, Stevertigo PS: Please be sure to keep the byline/attribution on the quotes you are responding to.