User talk:Lrmf

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Matthew VanDyke with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_VanDyke&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. M aen K. A. Talk  21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke
Hi. I've noticed you have edited Wikipedia solely in relation to Matthew VanDyke. As part of your editing, you added lots of uncited/unverifiable claims about the subject, indicating you seem to know more about this subject than what's generally published. You've also removed some criticism of the subject despite the fact that it is not provided WP:UNDUE weight. Are you in fact Matthew VanDyke? Or do you have a close relationship with this subject? Cheers, JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an interest in the subject and the events surrounding it (the war in Libya), and created the page. I contacted the subject and sent him a list of questions to solicit information so that I could create a more comprehensive wikipedia entry. The criticism was removed simply because it is a single man's blog posting and opinion commenting on the subject, and is WP:UNDUE weight. There is no reason for it to be included on the page, and it violates Wikipedia's standards.


 * I see. Well, information must be verifiable in reliable sources, so I'm afraid much of the information has to stay out until it's reliably sourced. As for the criticism, I don't think the small paragraph presents any WP:UNDUE weight at all, especially since the head of a notable journalist organization is opining about the subject's actions (reliable as any op/ed would be, and here properly used). In fact, you seem to indicate its inclusion at all would constitute undue weight, which is baseless. I encourage you to contact WP:BLPN anytime in regards to this matter in order to get a handle on a consensus to include or exclude. In the meantime, the contents of what you'd like to remove are 1) reliably sourced, 2) not particularly libelous, and 3) do not occupy a large portion of this article; as such, please don't be in too much of a hurry to remove this particular critical content. There's no deadline! Cheers, JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)