Talk:Thomas Naylor

WP:SPS
This article relies heavily on WP:SPS. Needs much work. --TR05401 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's lots of WP:RS info out there. But if one wants to delete probably true info or find info that will trivialize the subject, it's easy enough to do, isn't it? Anyway, I'll clean it up a bit. But then we I discussed your single purpose account modus operandi here (at a related Vermont secession article), didn't we? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

- Inserted comment & response
 * I am unaware of having any such discussion with you.
 * You've launched into an allegation regarding first posts by an editor. Kind of a damned if I do, damned if I post scenario, no?  Perhaps this immediately condescending, accusation laden tone of yours, an editor who stresses how many edits they've made, is a part of the problem when dealing with someone who's just started to edit and is learning their way.  If you're a leader here, your style is unwelcoming and seems to convey a sense of ownership (as in you'll "clean it up a bit") and the charge of impropriety is further evidence of that style in what I've been finding in your own record.  You've brought up my record so it prompted my own examination of yours.
 * I still do not see how you can justify using in a BLP an extremely POV website devoted to promotion of the individual, who appears to be a retiree who operates at the fringes here in Vermont and has no impact on the body politic, government or any of the other odd issues that he raises at his website. Certainly what has been inserted here with few direct links to the exact material on his website should be backed up by some neutral secondary source if at all possible, no?  Wouldn't that be an improvement?
 * There is much at his website that he has written that is not included this article and I'm not surprised.
 * I'm unconvinced at this point that Thomas H. Naylor is sufficiently notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article unless an oddball, as he is considered here, is notable for that alone. Being a former academic, a writer, a founder of a "civic group" that he says has no members or, as he describes himself, a "professional troublemaker," make him notable. Nor do "press clippings" of what turns out to be self-published work, as I've now found in the article, amount to sources that confirm that he is someone notable for accomplishment beyond blowing his own horn. --TR05401 (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I clarified above that I - not we - discussed your single purpose account issues and clarified what the link to that discussion was.
 * Anyway, I agree that the info Naylor provided should be backed up with better sources; but such biographical info often is used in articles. More importantly, you don't just delete him as a source and claim there is no evidence; you replace him with better sources, keeping him as a source if, say, the other source is a minor local paper whose editorial control is iffy or if it's a better source that has material contradicting what he says. (Then either text or footnotes might note the difference.) Feel free to replace info sourced to him with the same from more objective sources.
 * Your behavior makes it look like you are setting up the article for another AfD as your successful one of Vermonter and Naylor friend Dennis Steele. A pretty sophisticated move for a new editor. Given the history of "new" editors trashing in rather well-versed Wikipedia speak various Vermont secession-related articles, one does become suspicious of such editing behavior over time. But perhaps you just don't understand all aspects of editing, so I'll assume good faith :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

-
 * OK, I just made a few preliminary changes to improper way the article was edited. First, I easily found three difference sources for the Associate Press article, and one is supposed to look for such links before just deleting dead links. (Also note that there was another ref already in the article as to "founder" factoid.) Second, to make it clear that info now attributed to his bio should be better sourced I added verification needed. Let's give people a few days to do that. Third, I did divide up the books in the bibliography, but that probably needs more work to properly support the last sentence of lead, where I put by citation needed for now. More to come. Patience, now that problems have been noted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thomas Naylor. 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/20160216195215/http://www.shelburnenews.com/ to http://www.shelburnenews.com/

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 03:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thomas Naylor. 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://archive.is/20130223085535/http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/index.php/2012-04-15-09-16-38/messages/series/2010-scholars-conference to http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/index.php/2012-04-15-09-16-38/messages/series/2010-scholars-conference
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005014003/http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/02/12/secession-in-the-air/ to http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/02/12/secession-in-the-air/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009011732/http://www.solidprinciples.com/index.php/archive/the-divided-states-of-america/ to http://www.solidprinciples.com/index.php/archive/the-divided-states-of-america/

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) 00:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)