User talk:JFseekingtruth

Joe Francis
Hi - you created a main space article called /Joe Francis - I'm not sure what the idea is here, so I've moved it to your userspace - User:JFseekingtruth/JoeFrancis. If it's information about Joe Francis it should probably be in his main article.  E LIMINATOR JR  17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably the best idea then, is to edit it in your userspace. With criticism of living people, articles need to be immaculately sourced and verified.  It might also be worthwhile reading Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living people.  If you believe your article meets these policies, then you can move it to Wikipedia's article space.  Message me if you need any help doing this. Thanks,  E LIMINATOR JR  17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please do not make massive text deletions like the ones you are making to Joe Francis without discussing on the talk page for the article. Your own user space does not qualify as Wikipedia article.

You may want to review the Wikipedia rules on Verifiability, Neutral POV and No Original Research to be able to explain why you believe the material is objectionable. Generalized statements like: the material is "subjective" -- are not valid objections in Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ed warring on Joe Francis
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Famspear 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear JFseekingtruth: This edit appears to be your third reversion today. Yours, Famspear 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on Joe Francis
I have reverted your edits on this article on the grounds that they were not done from a neutral point of view, due to statements such as "Francis made a vital discovery that would eventually lead to his success" (emphasis added) among others. As well, if you are going to break his legal difficulties out into a separate article, you should at least provide a bare bones overview in the main article so people can get a sense of what there is. For an example of this, I would suggest you look at Joseph Stalin, which has references to other articles which go into much greater detail. Tabercil 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe Francis
So does that mean that every single thing you restored deserves to be there? Come on? A little common sense here. Does every single person who stakes a claim against Joe Francis deserve to be in the article, and does every social commentator deserve to be relegated to actual content and not a footnote? That was certainly not a fair re-edit here. Jaydon Farrely 21:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mayhaps not all of it belongs in the article. But to summarily remove all of the legal conflict that Joe finds himself in now is painting too rosy a picture. Tabercil 21:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See it wasn't removed, it was put in its own article. Why is that such a damning thing?  There is certainly no rosy picture of his life, but take a look at the history of the article and see that every time some comment on a bad thing is edited, it is reverted, and every time someone has something not so bad to say, it is deleted?  What does it take to make Wikipedia a forum for information and not another blog with leading and bias data stacked in one direction? Jaydon Farrely 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not summarily remove all of the information. What you do is to reduce it down to a core nub, then have a link to the article which details the full legal mess. Anything less is insufficient. Tabercil 22:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)