User talk:Gnome de plume/Archives/2017/October

NickRoper Edits
Hi there Gnome de Plume,

I made edits to the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Levy_(chess_player) however you seem to have removed every single edit citing the entirety as unreliable. I have however re-read the guidelines for living people as provided, and can assure you that the article edit complied with every requirement. I fear that you may have seen that some of the citations took you to Twitter and simply deleted the posts without reading them - I'm genuinely surprised that you could have given the edit a full appraisal in the time between me making it and you deleting it considering there were some 15-plus citations!

Each fact stated in the edit was linked to an ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. For instance, facts about there being no money left in the bank was linked TO THE ORIGINAL BANK STATEMENT THAT SHOWED THIS. Just because that statement happened to be on Twitter, I don't see that as a reason for you to delete it. Would you be happier if I linked to the statement being hosted on a blog? or on flickr? The LOCATION of the bank statement makes no difference, it is the CONTENT that you should be analysing. COnsidering Twitter's rules on the accuracy of information required, one would think Twitter is one of the best places to link to.

Other facts linked to articles published in TheRegister, which is considered by Wikipedia to be a non-tabloid source and thus passes the requirements for edits to an article for a living person.

In summary, I think that you have made a number of assumptions in your removal rather than actually consider the facts presented *and backed up with proof of the original documents* - you literally cannot get more FIRST HAND source material, which is both the letter and spirit behind Wikipedia's rules.

The editing rules state that rather than removing entire edits should you have a query regarding the quality of a citation, you are only supposed to remove or query the individual part of the article that you wish to question. Removing four paragraphs of an edit that is strongly referened and sourced with original material is highly unusual, and one must wonder what your motive for doing so is.

However, assuming you are genuinely trying to help the community by making the page more accurate, the solution you should undertake is to CAREFULLY READ THE EDIT MADE, VISITING THE LINKS CITED. If, after doing this as you are required to do, there are STILL certain facts for which you personally are NOT happy with the proof - even though you will have seen with your own eyes the original documentation proving the fact cited - please highlight which individual citations they are, and I will supply an alternative source for that or those facts. Again, this is your community duty, and is the first step required BEFORE simply deleted entire swathes of an article someone has worked hard on.

I trust you have the ability therefore to restore the edit you incorrectly deleted, which I now expect you to do, and to revise your snapshot judgement after actually reading each source in full - something which would take you longer than the period between my submission and your deletion, which is clear proof of your failure to follow the community rules.

NickRoper (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Update:

Reading your reasoning for the removal, you have stated that "anonymous twitter accounts are not acceptable sources". You clearly did not READ the edits or the sourced material. If one states a fact as such "An anonymous account revealed the bank statements on twitter", then not just the most acceptable source, but the ONLY acceptable source is to link to that account on Twitter. You seem to somehow suggest that one should link to a news article that reports that the statements were released on Twitter - this would plainly be ridiculous.

If the Twitter links were citing facts and using the anonymous account to verify them, that would be a different scenario, however what is actually being referenced is the FACT THAT THE ACCOUNT posted the information. That can only be verified by citing the account itself. You appear to have misunderstood either the reason why the anonymous account was cited, or the information contained within the citation!

What you've done is like saying Wikileaks is not a suitable source for a fact that says "Wikileaks publishing information about Will Smith" because Wikileaks is anonymous... ignoring that that fact itself was ABOUT Wikileaks - do you see?

If you are still confused by this, it is possible for the Twitter links to be replaced with links to articles that detail what documents the Twitter account released. Please advice is you would prefer this. Regardless, you should NOT have deleted the entire article, only edited those sections which you feel REQUIRE a citation but where the only one provided is the anonymous twitter account at the centre of the leaks.

Please therefore ONLY remove the sections of the edit that you believe REQUIRE a full citation but that you are not happy with the source of the fact BEING the citation... NickRoper (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to get additional input. In the mean time, please be aware that content that has been removed as potentially violating WP:BLP should not be restored without explicit consensus to do so.  Gnome de plume (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)