Talk:Louis van Amstel

Neutrality / Reading like a story concerns
I put together this entire article and I do not see any points that express a personal tone. Everything is neutral. And it does not read like a story. The biography goes through his life chronologically in an orderly way and the personal life section is also orderly. I don't see anything wrong with this article, so please leave it alone. I worked very hard on it to make it detailed and to fit the wikipedia standards.

I demand you take those three things down at the top of the article. They are NOT true. Thank you. Jww047 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected this article for 1 day due to edit warring. Please discuss the disputes here or take to WP:DR or WP:3O. I reverted to another revision after protection, I apologize, but I had WP:BLP concerns with the protected revision and policy is to err on the safe side.--v/r - TP 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. I worked very, very hard to put this article together and make it fit the wikipedia standards. I researched many different sources to gather essential information to make a clear, concise wikipedia article. I gave everything a source as well. Then, certain users come on here and delete the information I put in, giving no reason why, and then rewording all of it with incorrect information. I admit, some of what I put in was a little wordy, so I went back and fixed it. The users still kept deleting the information I put in and putting invalid information, such as his coming out to the public in April 2010, which is false. I asked reasons why they were doing this, I asked to compromise, but they continued to delete things in a stubborn manner. My intentions are good. I just want this article to be as best as it can be, but when essential information is erased and replaced with invalid information, I get a little upset. I apologize for my actions being too severe. I just ask for the users to stop and for this article to be left alone, because I know it is fine and fits the wikipedia standards. Thank you. Jww047 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Jww047Jww047 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC) <--No, look at this version--three sources. Do I really have to explain what's wrong with them? Look over this page and you'll find it. You can start by reading Bbb23's comments. A BLP is a biography of a living person. Look up on this talk page and read the template that says "This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons." The links are to the relevant policies. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but the article is not so fine. I've gone in and trimmed that "Personal life" section since it suffered from excessive (and irrelevant) detail, seemed more like fantalk than encyclopedic information, and is (still) sourced badly--the two main references are his own bio and an 'article' on Perezhilton.com. In a BLP, that won't do. However, you are right about the 2010 thing, at least to some extent: it's not mentioned in the Windy City Times article, where it is supposably stated, and I will remove that as well. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has significant problems with sources. Actally, the main two sources are his bio and the windycity thing, which is an interview. So, essentially the sources are him, one told directly from him (he wrote his own bio), and the other through the interview. That's why the article reads like he wrote it. I also agree with the April 2010 coming out business, but it was indirectly supported by the source, and the previous 2009 coming out assertion was sourced by nothing (that I could see). I don't have a problem with any of your removals, though. I trimmed a lot and reordered a lot, and I was still getting a lot of flak, but the article reads too much like a gushing piece of introspection.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As you saw, I really only focused on that "personal life" part. I agree with you on the rest, but I feel a bit odd stepping into a protected article to edit it. The edits that I made are, I hope, in congruence with our BLP policy in that they removed possible BLP violations. The rest of the article, while puffy and poorly sourced, didn't seem to me to be running afoul of our policies and guidelines so much, and I would hope that normal editing, after protection runs out, will sort those things out. Thanks for your notes, Bbb, and for your continued interest in BLP matters. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You just completely removed EVERYTHING from the Personal Life section that I spent hours researching and working on. There was a lot of information in there that is a huge part of Louis's personal life and is 100% relevant to his life, and all of it missing makes this a lousy, non-informant article. Why didn't you just reword it instead of deleting everything? Please, undo that. Please. Jww047 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Jww047Jww047 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, hours of researching? The scholarship here consists of the guy's own resume, an interview, and a gossip site, and the text rehashed some of what was found there. The stuff may well have been exciting, but half of it was not encyclopedic, and since this is a BLP, proper sourcing is a must. I urge you to look at Bbb23's comments, above, on references for a BLP. This is not a fansite--this is an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had many other sources than that. I don't see what is wrong with them. Can you please explain to me what is wrong with them and what is a BLP? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I used his own bio as a major source, and I reworded it to make it neutral. I followed the rules. And there is so much more to his personal life than what you have. Can we try to fix it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't use his own bio as a source. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I don't understand. Please explain this to me. You are not answering any of my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you don't understand. We have answered all of your questions, multiple times. One more time: click on this link: Biographies of living persons. Then read what it says. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here it is right here: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. The bio was written by the subject. Therefore, I can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you have not answered my questions at all. You've just given me links to wikipedia rules articles which I've already read AND followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. And you seem to have missed the "see below" part, right after that quote, which points to WP:SELFPUB. I mean, do you seriously believe what someone says on their resume? And do you really expect other readers to believe that? Drmies (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Why would he lie on his biography? You want me to trust strangers who write about his life over himself? That makes NO sense. I feel like I know more about my life than any writer out there can write about. It is a PRIMARY source, written by himself. Why would he lie about that? Why? That makes no sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is completely ridiculous. Seriously, if you can't believe something he wrote on his own website, then you can't believe anything and therefore nothing qualifies as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a newspaper, a real one? Or a book (made out of paper, preferably not published by Lulu)? Or an article in a scientific journal? Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Myspace
Drmies, I assume your edit summary questioning the using of myspace was not in reference to the change you made, but to the use of myspace in the Dancing with the Stars and other sections. Actually, it's not really any different from the rest of the article, which mainly cites to self-published sources. There are eleven cites to Van Amstel's myspace page. If you look back at the way the article was before I started editing it, you'll see that the whole sequence of Dancing with the Stars appearances was all over the place, and I combined it into one section. Plus, I was focused on more obvious issues that needed to be addressed.

In any event, although most of the asssertions backed up by myspace (I haven't checked every one) are relatively non-controversial but often still self-serving, it doesn't meet the criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF. Of course, removing all these assertions and anything else that is cited to self-published sources would pretty much gut the article. However, slashing an article back to its bones because of these kinds of issues sometimes has to happen. I know I've done it. I'd appreciate any thoughts you have on these issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I request the Personal Life section to be longer because what you have is hardly anything. It makes the article non-informant because it's missing a ton of information. If you tell me what kinds of sources are appropriate, I will find them and use them to make the section longer and include only the essential information. I would appreciate it if you stopped ignoring me because I am just trying to help. Jww047 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Jww047Jww047 (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Request denied until sources are presented that meet the requirements of WP:RS, the guidelines for reliable sources. No MySpace. No Facebook. No Twitter. No Perez Hilton. No tabloids, forums, gossip site, blogs, chatrooms. We are not ignoring you: this talk page is full of comments and remarks, but you seem not to want to read them. And while there is insufficient sourcing for even the most basic things that are currently in the article, be prepared to watch this article being trimmed even more. Finally, "tons of information", you may be better off writing for a medium that requires less in terms of sources. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we don't do chit-chat and gossip. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been reading everything. I have a hard time understanding why words spoken out of Louis's mouth are not reliable. I never used myspace, facebook, twitter, blogs, chatrooms, forums, or tabloids as sources. And I honestly do not know where the Perez Hilton thing came from. I used his own biography, written by HIM, and interviews with words spoken by HIM. I found these interviews through his own twitter account which he uses, and he was telling us to read them. How is that not reliable???
 * Bbb23, I give up. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, so now I can fix the article, right? Jww047 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)Jww047Jww047 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (laughing) Wrong. Drmies can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he means he's giving up on explaining things to you over and over. You're both extraordinarily stubborn and extraordinarily wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be stubborn. I just don't get it, and you haven't explained anything to be, you've just given me links to other pages. Maybe the reason you're not explaining anything to me is because you can't because I'm right. If I'm wrong, then prove me wrong and say in your OWN words why my edits are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jww047 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it... Jww, you can to a limited extent use his own webpage, etc. to say that he says certain things about his life, not to state them as facts. The distinction is in the neutrality. The reason BBB and Drmies have pointed you to other pages is those are the relevant policies, and they spell out in detail what you need to know. It is important that articles be mainly sourced to third party material, not primary sources - this is a Wikipedia requirement. You sound as if you don't like that requirement, but it is a rule, and one that is taken seriously. The sorts of sources that are acceptable include newspaper and magazine articles about him, books about (or with sections about) him, and some reliable websites (ask if you have a certain one in mind). Lady of  Shalott  23:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I backed out your change because it was on top of mass reversions Jww made. Jww has been blocked for a month. I restored the article to the state it was after Drmies's last edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, thanks for letting me know. Lady  of  Shalott  00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trimming some more chit-chat from the article, and I am replacing the autobiography references with cn-tags. I'm not looking for sources: first of all, they should be easy to come by and an experience editor (in this area) can easily separate the wheat from the chaff, second, I've never worked in this area before and have no intention to do so. ;) Maybe MQS is a fan--he's certainly knowledgeable and I'll drop him a line. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Louis Van Amstel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708223608/http://dancingwithlouis.com/images/bio.pdf to http://dancingwithlouis.com/images/bio.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis Van Amstel. 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/20080419151503/http://www.louisletsdance.com/ to http://www.louisletsdance.com/

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) 17:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the four types of dance are?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Asking for a friend, as a complete stranger to dance I have no clue what it means when the article says that he opened a dance studio that uses all four types of dance.

Cheers. --Zeeweatherman (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)