User talk:Ecogrow

Welcome!
Hello, Ecogrow, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! DES (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kevin Galalae
What follows are some comments I posted on User_talk:Cerebellum. Since you opened a 2nd thread there, i am assuming you did not notice this, and so am repostign and expanding it here. DES (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not the reviewer for this draft, but i have reviewed a number of AfC submissions in the past, and I took a quick look at it. It seem to me that is is written from the PoV of a supporter of the subject, not from a neutral point of view. Specifically, several of the subject's actions were clearly controversial -- ad the very least two governments seem to have been opposed to his actions, and no doubt others objected also, but we don't seem to get any opinions or views from those who oppose the subject's views. Moreover, very controversial claims (such as "the chemical and biological methods used since 1945 by the United Nations and countries around the world to undermine human fertility.") are presented as unchallenged facts. Extraordinary claims (such as " the Canadian authorities have coopted doctors to falsify Galalae’s medical record" and " He was falsely charged with harassment, thrown out of his own home, separated from his children, cut off from his own bank account, deprived of all his computers, thrown penniless into the street, and bound by recognizance conditions designed to bankrupt him financially and emotionally") are sourced to a wiki and what appears to be a highly partisan source. This is not good enough for such claims. Indeed this is probably a violation of our Living people policy as well as of verifiability. DES (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To expand this, a Wikipedia article mus not seem to be telling only one side of a story. It must state facts, and those must be sources to clearly reliable sources. Any opinions must be explicitly attributed to a source. If there are different points of view on a fact, both or all should be included and properly sourced. The most common or mainstream view must be given the most weight. Extraordinary or highly unusual claims or statements must be supported by citations to exceptionally high quality sources. Does that help make the issues here clearer? DES (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In particular, open wikis, such as Wikispooks (or indeed Wikipedia), are not considered reliable sources, because they have no editorial control process, and anyone can supply or edit information, so they should not be included in the list of sources cited at all. Neithe should blogs, in most cases. Partisan sources such as activistpost.com should usually only be cited for their own opinions, but not to support facts (there are exceptions). DES (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for that Des. You're right, in that I did not spot the previous thread. I think I understand now what is required by way of editing. Over the next few days I will see what I can do to get the article into an acceptable form. All the best Ian Ecogrow (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk page conventions
When you respond on the same subject as a previous post, respond in the existing section please, indenting with one or more leading colons to indicate who is responding to whom. A post on a different topic gets its own section, like this one. This helps keep related posts together, and makes it easier for others to follow the conversation, and reduces the chance of missing significant replies. I combined your response to me above into the same section as the msg to which it was a response. DES (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)