User talk:58.152.249.240

BLP
Hi - I noticed your edit summary in this diff, and also in the one before it, referencing the BLP policy. I'm not going to revert your edits as I actually agree that you are improving the article (that stuff was unsourced and vague), but just wanted to note that I am not aware of any wording in WP:BLP that implies it applies to going concerns - my understanding is that is strictly applies only to named, living (or recently deceased) individuals. Can you point me at anything that says otherwise? Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  16:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My ISP doesn't give me a fixed IP so I can't find the relevant conversation. Anyhow, this theory was related to me by an admin several years ago and it makes logical sense. The potential bad outcomes for Wikipedia and an on-going business with respect to badly sourced contentious material are very similar to potential negative consequences for Wikipedia and a natural livsing person similarly situated. I would also note that by definition the stories of businesses are stories of individual people (sole proprietorships), small groups of people (partnerships), and large groups of people acting as one legal person (corporations). Is this all an airtight case? No it is not. But it is enough for me to have higher standards and less tolerance for unsourced material on articles about going concerns than defunct businesses? Absolutely. Thank you for talking to me.58.152.249.240 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from, and I actually agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I think if it was seriously defamatory about the business nobody would disagree with you, but with assertions about whether or not there were glitches with early releases of a product, I think it's more of a stretch. I'd have just gone with 'unsourced and vague' as an edit summary - that would be uncontroversial, and sufficient reason to remove the material. Anyway, enough teaching you to suck eggs... Girth Summit  (blether)  17:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s. - I don't suppose I could tempt you with a template encouraging you to create an account? Then you could refer back to conversations like that for future reference...
 * I see the drama associated with having a username. I watch all the important noticeboards and I want as little of that. There is a ton of incivility, bad faith, flagrant rule breaking, extremely tendentious editing, and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Editing as an IP gives me some distance from that. I am mostly about the content and a little bit about policing bad actors. I am not about the venom. 58.152.249.240 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying, and you're right, there is a lot of unnecessary venom; on the other hand, there's good stuff about having an account too - it's not all about the dramaboards. I've built some pretty good relationships with editors here who I've interacted with - I've even gone on to meet a couple of them in real life (partly to get images to use in an article we worked on; partly for beer). I respect your choice though - and the fact that you are prepared to put effort into improving articles without any kind of (admittedly pseudonymous) recognition. As an aside, I've witnessed some of the problems that IP editors can encounter with trigger-happy patrollers reverting on the grounds of IP=troll - if you even encounter anything like that, feel free to ping me and I'll do what I can to de-dramatise. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  19:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I have met those same editors! :-) 58.152.249.240 (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)