User talk:Mrsuperk

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from KORC (AM). 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 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. Dravecky (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to KORC (AM), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dravecky (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The name of the president of the company that owned radio station KORC (AM) is factual, relevant to the article, and public information, appearing on both the FCC records as well as press coverage of the transaction. - Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the name of the president of the company that owned radio station KORC (AM) because it's an important part of this history of the radio station, has been previously published in press accounts of the radio station, and no actual compelling reason for removing the name from the article has been given. You can't just ask to have referenced vital facts removed from an article, especially apparently neutral facts, even if you ask very politely. Perhaps if you were to explain why it's so important to you that the president of the company (and you'll notice I'm not using the name here) not be named in the article... (Please reply here, on your talk page, not in the edit summary of the article.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dravecky, for your explanation. Obviously I am new to all this but trying to learn. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion. Please explain "it's an important part of this history of the radio station". Earlier you cited that the name was referenced publically in press coverage. While that may be true, the president of the other company ISN'T mentioned in the wiki article, yet is in the same press coverage (that I found). Second, WHY is a president or director of a company relevent historically, especially since neither the company nor director are well known, notorious, or otherwise public figures? While I realize the information is public, that fact alone does not make it relevant. Factual I will give you. But ultimately, the name in no way enhances the value of the article as I see it and the removal in no way contradicts the facts, prevents access to them or even distorts them. In the case of the other individuals named later, the name is the legal entity by which the ownership was held. And, I *believe* the names of the current owners may have been entered by the new owner themselves (not sure). So I subscribe to the idea that neither president is named, rather than 1 or both. As legal entities, I believe them not relevant. And (perhaps in slight contradiction) if there had to be one named, and you personally knew the real history of the station, you'd know that the history of the station really lies in the owner previous to me, who held it for 10 years and was active in the community, and not me, who held it remotely for less than a year.

Personally, as a living person, I prefer NOT to have my name in the search engines. Initially, even the press releases didn't seem to show up for searches of the name, and FCC docs do not generally appear in the index as far as I can tell. As you can imagine, previous to the search engines being what they are today, many things personal (names) did NOT show up then, that do today. I am attempting to remove my records from all sorts of places that, initially, to my knowledge, didn't expose my name to the search engines. Personally, regardless of public records being available, the ability of people to search my name and have a history of being in a director role of a company that owned a radio station, actually causes harm to my employment. Being 'over-qualified' in someone's eyes, in today's economy, is not a benefit. I suppose I could say "it isn't me" but there are few people with MY name. And now that the name appears in wikipedia, it shows up significantly in duplicate records on MANY sites (that either syndicate or scrape wikipedia) and obviously this makes the task more difficult. Please reconsider my request to remove the name. Thank you. Mrsuperk (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that my omission of the name of the owner of Jarvis Communications was an oversight, one I have since corrected. As to your desire to have  name removed from an article because it happens to match your own? That's not going to happen, even if you do happen to share this name, because it's both neutral in presentation and a public part of the ownership history of this radio station. While it's true that an anonymous user based in Vancouver, Washington, added the new ownership information, they would have only been following the pattern clearly established in this article (and countless others) that details station ownership. - Dravecky (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I respectfully disagree with your methods and intentions. You seem to be angry about my NOT wanting my name to appear online, and I see that as unreasonable if that is the case. It isn't because the name matches, it is because I am potentially the ONLY one with that name (it's me in case I have confused you in any way) and I believe that I should have the right to own my name and where it appears - shall I copyright it? :). I feel that the name appearing is actually distracting and not helpful to the record. As to the fact that it is done regularly is a false argument. Doing something unnecessary for the sake of consistency doesn't make it value-adding. I don't feel I have been unreasonable, and your repeating of the name here seems even more antagonistic. I wish you luck with your efforts and hopefully you continue in a positive direction. You seem to have taken my request and my opinion personally and it was not intended that way. I think I have very clearly laid out a support for my reasonable request. You seem to be a bit 'territorial' for lack of a better word and taking this personally. I presume as an admin here, (and by looking at the history of your profile) you take some heat for some decisions. I am not trying to be petty, personal, nor disruptive. It did take me a short while to figure out the wiki process, but it was never meant to be antaganistic. I hope the same for you. Good Luck. Take care.Mrsuperk (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been removed.
I have removed your (and the other person's) name from the article. We don't include information just because it's a matter of public record, the information must also be relevant. As neither you or the other person meet our notability requirements, our WP:BLP "presumption in favour of privacy policy" ("Privacy of personal information" / "People who are relatively unknown" / "Privacy of names") there is ample precedent for not having your names in the article. Exxolon (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For future reference, you can request assistance with this kind of problem at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - in an emergency, please make a post at WP:ANI. Exxolon (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply regarding name
The discussion regarding the name was on the talk page of the article - see Talk:KORC (AM). The main reason for restoring the name was that you are not actually the person named in the article (a nuance I missed initially) - if you were the actual person you could legitimately ask for your name to be removed, however merely sharing a name with someone else isn't grounds for this. As the information isn't negative (you have the same name as a radio station owner, not (for example) a brothel owner) there's no compelling reason under BLP grounds at this point to remove a name from an article merely because you share the name.

If you disagree with this inclusion, as I've suggested before request assistance at biographies of living persons noticeboard. You can instead request administrator assistance at our administrator noticeboard or incidents requiring administrator attention noticeboard if you so wish. You could also open a request for comment either on this single inclusion, or on the inclusion of directors of companies generally.

If you need further assistance, please post a note on my talkpage or see our help desk. Exxolon (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)