User:Cullen328/Sandbox/KD

I did not claim that Qattusu was wrong to advocate keeping the article, but remain convinced that the tactics Qattusu used in that debate were wrong. You acknowledge that "his more hysterical objections to the articles deletions were possibly counter-productive" and you have said it here better than I.

Off2riorob told no lies - on first reading, I misunderstood things and wondered if you and Qattusu were the same person. Blame me for asking the question if you wish, but don't blame Off2riorob.

I admit that Daphne Caruana Galizia may well be notable, and that if so, a neutral well-referenced article about her would be a good addition to Wikipedia. I have never said otherwise.

Comparing Sam Leith's birth date to Obama's, Hitler's, Darwin's and Shakespeare's is a real stretch. Not even the birthers contest Obama's birth date, which all informed people know was published in the Honolulu newspapers within days of his birth. I assume that ample references are available for Hitler and Darwin as well, as many reputable biographies of each have been published. I don't know how good the records are regarding Shakespeare's birth, but I am certain that Shakespeare scholars have explored the subject in great depth. These people are indisputably notable and have extensive biographical coverage readily available. Sam Leith, on the other hand, is known pretty much solely for his published writing, as far as I've seen. All we ask is evidence of some significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Please note that bios printed by the newspapers he writes for are not independent sources. Newspapers promote their own writers. So, there's one passing mention in an article about his family. Is that all there is? If so, it is not at all unreasonable for a Wikipedia editor to question his notability in Wikipedia terms. Surely, he is notable to his regular readers. But the question is whether he's notable enough for a biography in an encyclopedia. I readily admit that there may be adequate sources out there that have not yet been brought forward. Please add them to the article. Improve the article, don't attack the messengers.

You charge that experienced editors are "very selective" about applying policy. That's inevitable when dealing with 3.8 million articles. We pay attention to the articles that come to our attention and attract our interest. A birth date only needs a reference when an editor asks for a reference. The legitimate request has been made, so either an acceptable reference should be provided or the birth date should stay out of the article. If a Wikipedia article has a reference to a full length published biography of the person, no one is likely to question the birth date. When an article is utterly lacking in-depth independent biographical references, as does Sam Leith, then questions are entirely legitimate.

Attacking Off2riorob because of his poor spelling is utterly unpersuasive. It is his thoughts and his understanding and his interpretation of policy that you should address, and cheap shots about his spelling don't do much to advance your case. Your analysis of his feelings and motivations is also out of place. He has well over 75,000 edits here, and I am sure that less than one tenth of one percent concern you in any way. Here on Wikipedia, we comment on an editor's contributions and statements regarding the matter at hand. Psychoanalyzing an opponent is frowned upon, to say the least. Please desist from such commentary.

If you think that I am siding with Off2riorob because I always instinctively agree with whatever he says and does, then you are wrong on that score as well. He and I have disagreed on more than one score, sometimes passionately. However, we treat each other with respect. We expect the same from you.

Please cease your personal attacks on my talk page. Any further such personal attacks here will be deleted immediately.