Talk:Emanuel Xavier

Fair use rationale for Image:AMERICANO- EMANUEL XAVIER.jpg
Image:AMERICANO- EMANUEL XAVIER.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this date verified
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emanuel_Xavier&diff=148609204&oldid=147999608

Fair use rationale for Image:EmanuelXavier2006-edit2.JPG
Image:EmanuelXavier2006-edit2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article revisions
By all means let's get this article revised, but let's make sure that WP:RS and all other policies are stringently followed. Qworty (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm revising it now. (I've also replied on your talk page). WP:RS is a guideline, btw, an adjunct to the verifiability policy. I take the latter deadly seriously and apply the former as best I can and as common sense warrants. I hope you'll agree that the need for sourcing verifiable content varies in urgency depending on several factors. If it doesn't have BLP implications and isn't contentious or doesn't constitute an extraordinary claim, for instance, the urgency is much lower. Much of the article is salvageable, although I'm sure it won't become wonderful overnight. Rivertorch (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I'm done for the moment but shall return. I think that the most pressing problems have been resolved, and I would issue a plea that the remaining issues be dealt with gently, not through more blanking. More sourcing and considerable additional revision is needed, but there's no crisis that I can see. Rivertorch (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your fine work here! I think you've definitely moved things in the right direction. Qworty (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Contentious material
What we have here is an instance of WP:AUTO being perpetrated over the years by a variety of WP:SPA users who are in fact one in the same. The unsourced material is therefore contentious. And according to WP policy, contentious material can be removed at any time. The other legitimate editor working on this article appears to disagree, however, and favors merely tagging the contentious material. I really don't know what to do about this. The article is going to get ugly with so many tags. I would personally prefer, with an article such as this one, to include ONLY that material that is properly sourced. Qworty (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As the other "legitimate editor" on the scene, I'll try to respond to what you've said. For starters, I believe you're applying the term "contentious" in a novel way. You appear to be suggesting that material can be contentious merely by virtue of who adds it. I disagree. Wikipedia does not prohibit single-purpose accounts, and their edits should be judged by the same standards as anyone else's. Unless we've been banned or are evading a block, we're all legitimate editors here.


 * Nonetheless, WP is full of articles—good, bad, and in between—written by editors with conflicts of interest. If we notice a COI at the time, we can respond quickly to ensure that the content of the article doesn't suffer. If we don't notice it till long after the fact and it has made for a problematic article, we're essentially stuck with two choices: nominating the article for deletion or doing our best to fix it. Since the first choice would be inadvisable in this case, I have opted for the second. I made extensive efforts yesterday toward that end, I've expressed my intention to do more, and I reiterate that intention again now. The sort of fixing I've been doing, as you no doubt have seen, has involved hunting down sources and citing them, rewriting content to eliminate the sort of promotional and peacock language that editors with a COI add, and removing content that is unverifiable or for which I have not yet found a source or which might conceivably be construed to have BLP implications. That's all by way of improving the article and building the encyclopedia.


 * In contrast, you have taken a vastly different approach. First, you effectively blanked the article, reducing it to two sentences and removing all other content—even the completely uncontroversial, verifiable parts and the parts that were actually sourced. Even the reflinks section in which the sources resided. Even the infobox. And the image. And the category links. And the link to the article subject's own website. To make matters worse, you systematically eliminated a large number of references to the subject in various other places in article space (such as here, here, and here) with the summary "nn", apparently meaning "not notable". Since then, you have conceded that Mr. Xavier is notable but have taken no steps to restore those references. I queried you about that point on your talk page but you have not responded. What you have done is to tag 64 individual sentences in the most extreme example of overtagging that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. "Ugly with so many tags", you say? Yes. Point proved. Problem is, I don't know what your point is. You say you'd "personally prefer, with an article such as this one, to include ONLY that material that is properly sourced". Well, I'd personally prefer to do that with every article on Wikipedia. But it doesn't happen with a snap of the fingers; it takes work. I'd be delighted if you'd join me in working to improve the article. If you prefer to pursue a different course, then I'm willing to go it alone or ask for help from a WikiProject or two. In either event, I'd be grateful if you'd undo the tag bombing. (I assume you're aware that sections and even whole articles can be tagged, instead of separate sentences.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added an academic reference on Emanuel Xavier: Morales-Díaz, Enrique. "Identity of the 'Diasporican' Homosexual in the Literary Periphery." In José L. Torres-Padilla and Carmen Haydée Rivera, eds. Writing Off the Hyphen: New Perspectives on the Literature of the Puerto Rican Diaspora. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008. 295-312. ISBN 978-0-295-98824-5.--Lawrlafo (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Taking stock
In light of the recently enacted community ban of a longtime contributor who is alleged to have pursued an on-wiki vendetta against the subjects of certain articles, I am prompted to ask experienced editors who can spare some time to examine this article to ensure it complies with basic policy (i.e., verifiability, original research, neutral point of view, and BLP content) and whether the maintenance templates at the top should remain. While I have no evidence whatsoever that the banned user held any animosity towards the subject of this article, details have emerged about the user's behavior at other writers' articles that raise red flags concerning his behavior here.

In February 2012 the user identified several problems with this article and engaged in extreme tactics to correct them, blanking large portions and then tag-bombing. I and another editor questioned such tactics, and I subsequently spent many hours reconstructing the article, digging up sources, and engaging the user in a discussion that, while more or less productive, now leaves me shaking my head. Since finishing my own revisions, I have not been watching the article closely, and I see that he made a number of further edits.

For anyone who's really interested, related discussions from last year include the preceding two threads on this page, as well as these three: 1, 2, 3. Please, let's not discuss the banned user here. (WP:BLP applies.)

I am cross-posting a notice at three relevant WikiProjects (1, 2, 3) in the hope of more people seeing this request. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking through the histories, Jan 2011 seems to clean, before ostensible input from Qwerty. There seems to have been few people watching this article before then, several very disruptive POV IPs working heavily on the article, radical deletion tactics, possible COI from the subject and a great deal of puff included in this BLP from the start. Pretty tortuous. Thanks Rivertorch, for all the work you've put in. Span (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thanks also to the other editor who looked it over. Rivertorch (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emanuel Xavier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426111440/http://www.emanuelxavier.com/bio.htm to http://www.emanuelxavier.com/bio.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)