User talk:CameraCameron

Darrell Dexter
Hi there, just read the message you sent me about the Darrell Dexter article. If you think you can help improve this article, or any other for that matter, go ahead and see what you can do. I would hope that no editor would suggest otherwise, as that's not what Wikipedia is all about. Since you're new, you should probably read through the policies and guidelines a bit, and also WP:MOSBIO for Wikipedia's manual of style when it comes to biographies, before jumping right in an making major edits. Don't worry too much about making mistakes, there are always other editors who will check the edits, and will work with you if you run into any problems, or answer any questions you have. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site, so just because a newspaper reports on something, doesn't means it's notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. (see WP:NOTNEWS). The format that another editor had mentioned on the talk page looks decent, but you may want to look at articles for other premiers to get some ideas about what to include. If you have any questions, or need any help or advice, just let me know. Cmr08 (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cmr08, I will certainly need help, if the Edit War is anything to go by. I agree completely on the difference between and encyclopedia and a news site. A page like this will likely attract partisans, which we should stand on guard against. CameraCameron (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like the drunk driving information in the article anymore than you do, but it's attributed to relaible sources, meeting the standards set out in WP:BLP. A Wikipedia article isn't a subjects official bio, it's an encyclopedia article, which means it should cover the subject from all angles, not just the positive side. You mentioned something in the edit summary about this info being biased. Can you explain how it's biased? The info is correct, it's backed up by reliable sources, so I don't see how it's biased. In fact, there are probably editors, who would consider the biased edit to be the one you made, since you gave undue weight to the subject by adding positive material, while removing the only material that could really be considered negative about the subject. I'm not saying I believe your edit is biased, because I don't, I'm just saying some people could take that view. I'm not going to put the material back, but don't be surprised if another editor reverts your edit since it was sourced material. Don't get me wrong, it's great that you're adding material to improve the article, but if you're going to remove significant information, attributed to reliable sources, I would suggest you take your reasoning to the talk page before just going ahead and removing it. Cmr08 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cmr08. I removed that info because it seems sensationalist, which is something Wiki warns against, and because there are two different kinds of libel. One is where an editor prints something that is untrue, and the other is where they frame a narrative of a series of verifiable information to paint an inaccurate portrait. In in WP:BLP Wiki writes "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" and the addition of this info and the editing of the title to stress this info, showed editorial bias. I'll work on beefing up Year Two tomorrow, and it will include both positive and negative encyclopedia worthy info. I also plan to make the text more concise, as there's some very tedious info in the Early Life section that seems more "official bio" than encyclopedia. In the future I will explain the edits on the Talk page as that seems a prudent community-building step. CameraCameron (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I have misplaced my password and will now be CameronCamera CameronCamera (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)