User talk:McCranky

Need help correcting corrections
Please Someone has continually undone edits and citations I made to the article about Peter Blauner. And there is a lede paragraph on the page that says the material below is blatantly promotional and requires verification. Since virtually every line now has a source, I'm not sure what the problem is. Also, I notice that one of the editors who deleted what they called "a blurb" in the lede, criticized a citation as a weak source, referring to it as the "publisher's website." In fact, the citation was from a book with the publisher's name and year of publication. I would like to politely ask what is the problem? And more important, how can the derogatory reference at the beginning be deleted? Citations have been provided and very little that could be called promotional material remains.

thank you McCranky (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC) slomoriot@aol.com

April 13, 2015
 * Maybe it wasn't communicate clearly that the citation was of the book and not the website. You can read here and here to find out about inline citations, and here about reliable. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding  to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @  05:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Numerous citations have been added and factual references have been removed from an entry about Peter Blauner. But there are still derogatory paragraphs at the top of the page referring to the article as sounding like a news release and claiming more verification is needed. Since just about every fact is supported by at least one source (including ISBN numbers for books, it's hard to understand why these criticisms remain. How can they be removed?

thank you

McCranky McCranky (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Despite the fact that numerous citations and attributions have been added to the article, Peter Blauner, a warning remains about some or all of the sources being unreliable. Why? In a number of casesMcCranky (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC), more than one source has been cited. And many other articles on wikipedia have far fewer citations.

thank you McCranky (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi; please read my response to your questions at the article's talk page. The cites to the publisher's website aren't the best sources; if no others can be found, then there's little reason for the article to include descriptions of these books. Thanks, 32.216.147.44 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stringently following editor's notes, most of the primary sources for the article about Peter Blauner have now been replaced by secondary sources. First the article was given the warning that it contained blatantly promotional material and that it needed verification. Sources were added, and the note was changed to say that the sources were unreliable. Different sources were added, and the note was then changed to say the article relied too much on "primary sources." Now many of the primary sources have been replaced by secondary sources, yet the critical note remains. Why?

McCranky (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the template. A lot of the issues have been endemic to conflict of interest editing; that said, you've made it a point to address them. The article's weakness--though I don't foresee it being vulnerable to deletion for it at the moment--is a lack of sources referring directly to Mr. Blauner. There need to be articles solely about him, from WP:RELIABLE sources, to establish notability for the purposes of the encyclopedia, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE. I've discussed this on the article's talk page. Thanks, 2602:302:D89:D609:B15C:85A5:7132:56FD (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)