User talk:Florence Wightman

Proposed deletion of Betsy haug


The article Betsy haug has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC) It is very offensive, indeed. People are important, even if they do not appear in other references. Sometimes, you have to be the first point of reference. MOREOVER, THE ACCUSATIONS ARE FALSE, INAPPROPRIATE AND UNRELATED. You have no legitimate grounds.

Ways to improve Nina stroganova
Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Florence Wightman, thanks for creating Nina stroganova!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Facebook is not a reliable source. Please see WP:RS

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Facebook is far more reliable than wikipedia! One source is her own resume, the other, my personal knowledge, as I knew her. She is in many history books. I think you are nuts.

Ways to improve Betsy Haug
Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Florence Wightman, thanks for creating Betsy haug!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Facebook is not a reliable source, ibdb has hardly any data, and broadwayworld only has a brief mention. Where does this information come from. If this is what you know about her, that would not be acceptable. We require, independent, reliable sources. Also please review WP:OR. Thanks,

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Facebook is way more reliable than Wikipedia. As I clearly stated somewhere, the information came from Betsy Haug herself, it is her "official" biography. It leaves out many things she did. She was one of the most important figures in her field, so she certainly deserves an entry. I don't have time to be a Wiki-expert.
 * I am more than happy to help you write an article, and explain how we use sources to references, but if you don't want to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, that's going to be very difficult. Do you want help finding acceptable sources? Mduvekot (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Because they are so wrong. They are part of what makes wikipedia so sadly useless as a reference. Any good encyclopedia has a short biography of a notable person. This business of requiring "references" from online sources only leads to limited or misinformation. I have seen entries on people that had no substance whatsoever, and were just a list of copied tidbits from "sources." This is original material, it needs no references. References would be programs, reviews, things that cannot be online. The fact that I provided two major websites that verify the existence of this person and significants parts of her career should be more than enough! Anyone in entertainment has only their life to document.
 * We do not require references to be online, we require that articles are verifiable. We usually do not accept programs, announcements, etc. but we do accept reviews as sources. We accept all kinds of references, as long as they are published by a reliable source. That rules out Facebook, because anyone can post something on Facebook, and Facebook is not a publisher with a reputation for fact checking. It is probably one of the worst places to go for factually accurate information. On the other end of the spectrum we have peer-reviewed academic journals. You may have seen some bad examples, but the work that we're proud of, our featured articles are really great examples of how to write a biography with independent, reliable sources. Take a look at Joseph Grimaldi for example, or our Featured content. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is utterly wrong. Programs are factual statements, reviews-if they exist-are subjective, and it is wikipedia where one can post anything, Facebook is user-created and original. I have created several other wikipedia entries and no one has ev er given me the trouble you have, so you need to go away and mind your own business, you Putin.
 * Well, I think that ends out friendly banter. Good luck and farewell. Mduvekot (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Betsy Haug, 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. Melcous (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I will remove it as it is malicious of you to replace it, and totally deconstructive. Either help with a solution or leave it alone!!!

Deletion discussion about Betsy Haug
Hello, Florence Wightman,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Betsy Haug should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Betsy Haug.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Mduvekot (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC) IF YOU DELETE IT, I WILL POST IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. IT IS IMPORTANT. IT HAS TO BE THERE. DO NOT DELETE IT. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE. THERE WAS NEVER ANYTHING FRIENDLY IN YOUR "banter". STOP ACTING LIKE A FASCIST DICTATOR. IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE. HELP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Melcous (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have never before encountered such hostile, unhelpful "editors" before, and you should all recuse yourselves.