User talk:Bradfordparkavenue

Douglas Coupland
Greeting. None of your interferences are substantive, and none of commentary is supported by encyclopedaic (or scholarly) credibility. Rote citation of guideline is not substitute for proper editing, likewise the word 'editor' is not ballast for lack of credential of panjandra contributors. Best regards. BradfordParkAvenue 11:22, October 28th 2009

Hi there. I assume from your edit summaries that you were formerly the anon 66.183.24.133 - good job getting a user account, I think that you'll find it makes editing easier. Anyway, I put a comment over at User talk:66.183.24.133, but I'll repeat it here. Best regards, --P LUMBAGO 08:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Just to explain a bit further about my changes at Douglas Coupland.  I (and other editors) have removed the lead material that you've added because it's sourced to a lecture that Coupland gave that can't be independently assessed.  If you can find some sort of reliable source that documents it, or can find an alternative that makes similar points, then we can add something like the excised text.  But the article does have to conform to a neutral point of view - the excised text seemed the work of a fan (which made its sourcing to a lecture by Coupland somewhat surprising) rather than a sober encyclopaedia.  Regarding the lead's closing sentence, I was trying to avoid literary jargon ("identity") in my rewrite.  Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit.  Please don't hesitate to contact me if you'd like further clarification.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  07:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Would you please stop adding material that isn't reliably sourced? The material is currently sourced to an inaccessible lecture whose content cannot be judged. Furthermore, the lecture appears to have been given by Coupland himself, and he is unlikely to be viewed a impartial judge of his own reputation as a novelist. That said, if the material is describing a commonly held perception of Coupland's work, then it should be very easy to find replacement sources. You might find that the policy document on biography (and specifically biography style) is of use in this particular case. Anyway, so long as you are unable/unwilling to provide such a source, the material will just keep getting removed. --P LUMBAGO 08:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello once again. I've removed the lead text yet again because you have still not provided the glowing description of Coupland with a better source than an inaccessible lecture that he actually delivered.  An alternative way around this would be to properly attribute the description as a quotation by Coupland, though again it'd be difficult to check this given the source's inaccessible nature.  And the lead of an article on Coupland would not be an appropriate place for Coupland himself discussing his literary credentials.


 * Changing the subject, you should note that both of us are approaching our three revert limit for today. Also, in case you're not already aware, we do have guidance on civility (see also here).  The following of your edit summary remarks are not helpful on this count:


 * (Revert) Please stop vandalising valid Wikipedia entries to pretend to intellectual credibility. I have explained encyclopædic propriety on "Discussion."
 * (Restored) Stop making vandalising deletions accompanied by moralising epiphets & unlearned application of citation policy
 * Undid (OpCit): abuse of citation policy to cover vanity edit: self-promoting & inflating of contributor profile
 * Use of disapprobatory langauge and the Royal possessive bespeaks respectively vandalism & self-aggrandisement: Restored


 * Regards, --P LUMBAGO 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello yet again. You seem to be misunderstanding WP's criteria for inclusion of material.  Material that appears here, especially potentially contentious material, needs to be supported by sources, and these should be cited in articles.  This is particularly true of material that relates to the biography of a living person.  The text that you are repeatedly adding to the Douglas Coupland article falls into both the contentious and BLP categories.  If, as you claim, it is encyclopaedic and supportable, then you should be able to find an appropriate, alternative source.  Citing a lecture whose existence cannot be confirmed, and which was delivered by the very same person lionised in this article, clearly does not fall into the category of reliable sources.
 * For reference, what's going to happen now is that I'm going to revert your change one more time, and if you choose to restore the unsupported material I will request protection for the article to prevent further unsupported edits. This may also result in your being blocked as an editor.  What I'm asking here is not difficult, so please try to engage constructively with the article.  If you have any question about what I'm asking, please just drop me a line at my talkpage.  --P LUMBAGO  09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Douglas Coupland
Hi again Bradfordparkavenue. As I mentioned in my last message to you, I have now taken steps to try to resolve this editwar in an alternative manner. I have filed a report at the Administrator's Noticeboard. You can find the report at the end of this link. Sorry to have to report you, but you are simply not engaging with the issue that I have repeatedly raised. --P LUMBAGO 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JohnInDC (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to extend the edit war by logging off and making the same edit via anonymous IP. JohnInDC (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over tags at Robert Twigger
You have twice removed tags marking the Robert Twigger BLP as unreferenced and as written in promotional style. I am happy to discuss the rationale for these tags with you.

1. Unreferenced. Per WP:V, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. This means that editors are not at liberty to write articles from personal knowledge, but must cite sources. Another consideration in this is WP:DUE – our articles should not mention facts and aspects that have not elicited comment in any published sources. The tag is there (1) to warn readers that some of the information in the article may be unreliable, because it is unreferenced, and (2) to invite future editors to do work on the article, by seeking out reliably published sources backing up the statements in the article, or by deleting any statements that clearly cannot be verified.

2. Promotional. The articles contains some elements of WP:PEACOCK language that are not appropriate in a neutrally worded biography; all the more so as this language is unsourced. Examples: "Twigger's writing also receives awards from the popular marketplace" "He has also been designated senshusei by the aikido Yoshinkai in Tokyo." (says who?) "His interest in polymathy has led to a detailed study of the subject." "In talks he has given on "Lifeshifting", Twigger has emphasised the need to centre one's life around meaning-driven motives rather than financial or status-driven motivation. Drawing on experiences working with indigenous peoples from around the world, he has spoken on 'work tribes' and 'modern nomadism'." (Is there evidence that anyone cares that he has spoken about these things? If it has not been reported in reliable sources, we should not mention it, even if true.)

The point is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Our article should mirror what reliable sources have written about Mr Twigger; no more and no less. I hope this makes sense. Best wishes, -- JN 466  00:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, to sign your talk page posts, type ~. Once you save, this is then automatically converted into your signature complete with time stamp. (Hint: ~ is hard to type by hand. You'll find a ready-made ~ below the edit window, where it says "Sign your posts on talk pages:". You only have to click on it there to insert it in the edit window.

I'll be watching your talk page and will be able to see whether you have replied. You can also contact me on my talk page if you like; just click on the yellow "466" in my signature. Cheers, -- JN 466  01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of cleanup templates
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Twigger, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.


 * Please do not remove the cleanup templates (unreferenced and promotional) without addressing the issues or discussing on the article's talk page. Thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  09:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Robert Twigger, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please fix the issues or discuss on the article's talk page before removing cleanup templates. Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. -- JN 466  22:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Robert Twigger. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not exacerbate matters by editing as an anonymous IP to evade the block: diff, diff.  Esowteric + Talk  08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)