Talk:William P. Quigley

WP:ABOUTSELF
Um User:David Gerard, have you read WP:ABOUTSELF?  nableezy  - 23:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I was going by WP:SELFPUB on that same page, which says: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. There's a lengthy explanatory footnote for that sentence also. Again, you're in a mode of "can find an excuse" rather than "should" - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You think his being married to an oncology nurse is not suitable for inclusion in his biography?  nableezy  - 23:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you absolutely need a deprecated source, you don't have a source. If you must use a primary source, surely any other would do. If it's not in any of those, why not? - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:ABOUTSELF allows for the use of deprecated sources when written by the subject of the article. Your deprecation argument is explicitly rejected by WP:ABOUTSELF.  nableezy  - 23:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And no, you are very much in that mode, removing mundane details that no reasonable person would challenge. Because of your crusade against Counterpunch.  nableezy  - 23:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * By saying the same exact thing you said to me? Review it yourself. Thanks! Back to the question, do you think that Quigley being married to an oncology nurse is not relevant to his biography?  nableezy  - 23:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored it; it is clearly permitted by WP:ABOUTSELF; it is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, it does not involve claims about third parties (both parties are authors to the article), it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , maybe review the talk page before continuing to remove perfectly valid sources.  nableezy  - 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

and comment on this latest batch of editing by ?  nableezy  - 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's in a published magazine it's not a self-published source. I realise the RFC on treating Counterpunch in this manner hasn't concluded, but so far it's affirming the obvious, i.e. an edited publication isn't self-publishing - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is agreement here that ABOUTSELF applies, and your position has no backing in policy. But since you instead choose to continue edit-warring, that leaves me with something else I need to work on. And oh, if you werent so lazy, you could find in two seconds another source confirming that Mr Quigley is not lying about being married. But no, you choose to edit-war. Ill see you in another venue.  nableezy  - 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nableezy that WP:ABOUTSELF applies, per my comment above where I walked through the criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)