User:Filll/AGF Challenge Saint-Try to help Oacan reconcile his theory with the sources


 * 1) -- Naerii  02:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Politely. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Maybe some of his family history is true, but he'll need to find better sources for it. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Wikipedia must stick to what can be verified through reliable sources. Fair to Oacan would be to get him to stop including his version in the article, but also encourage him to join sensible discussion. Who knows, maybe there is actually something to his grandma's research. If good journalists could still make a living out of professional research, they might look into the matter. But they would still have to publish any positive findings before we could include them. The primary ethical issue is to build and maintain an accurate encyclopedia. Grandmas are rightly famed for many positive things, journalistically thorough investigation and encyclopaedic accurate research not being among those. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:22, April 13, 2008
 * 5) Sources, sources, sources. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) --Dial (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) the odds of actually finding an adequate source is so extremely low that I am not sure how much to encourage him. And Im not even sure it would go into the article on the saint. There may be thousands of descendants by now, & it isn't notable to list one of them specifically in the article about him. DGG (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Encouraging reconciliation would be my choice, but it's the most difficult avenue to take. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Realize if he had sources, or could find them, cool then for WP. If he doesn't have them, then his unsourced claims don't go in.  Simple rule.  If he ignores the basic conditions set, block him.  Professor marginalia (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) If the editor can find sources; then I see no problem. If he has no sources other his aunt, politely tell him he can't add the info.  RC-0722 247.5/ 1  00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Dorftrottel nails it for me again - as a last resort, allow the inclusion of the theory as a POV in the article and lock Oacan from editing it. Harsh I know - but what else do you do?Akitora (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Stifle (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) SKS2K6 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) If the editor can find verification and reliable sources and the information is not WP:UNDUE, it can be added where appropriate. -- Shruti14 t c s 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Allow them to document references to support their claim and challenge all else. Preceeding signed by: Bnaur   Talk  02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Try to start a dialog about sourcing and why his aunt's unpublished or reviewed genealogy isn't acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. Help him with ideas for reliable sources that might corroborate her findings; helping him look wouldn't hurt either and would go a long way towards establishing a trust relationship.  Remove any information that cannot be verified and try to engage him in helping clean up those articles his editing has affected.  If he is still resistant to removal, a cattle-prod block might convince him that Wikipedia is serious about its sourcing standards.  If he's unable to abide by policy after working with him, a topic ban may be appropriate.  Shell    babelfish 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Otherwise delete it. WP:OR says it all. Joelster (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) As per Joelster and Dorftrottel. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Trishm (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Directing misguided authors to reliable sources can't be a bad thing.
 * 22) Although realistically this would involve more work than I'd personally be willing to do.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Kla22374 (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Sorry, we need to stick with reliable sourcing here. Handle it politely if needed, or otherwise to restore valid content and work with the editor to find reliable sourcing. It may also help them personally to point them to sources who may help check his aunt's work. If they really are related then this would benefit them apparently. If they aren't related they are likely better off knowing that as well. 71.139.36.216 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oacan is being disruptive and needs to back down. The article should probably be rolled back to previous version supported by reliable sources and Oacan compelled to have his aunt's work validated by a genealogist. If Oacan persists a 1RR rule for them or stronger measures may need to be enacted. -- Banj e  b oi   10:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) I think that Wikipedia should just stick to reliable sources Amandaaa99 (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 27) There may be some truth in the aunt's genealogy. Better see where all these sources can meet. Good faith from our side could change Oacan's outlook.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Feel at home 10:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)