User talk:UncleDouggie/Archive 2

Re:Melton Discussion
The individual is practically a WP:SPA who is very familiar with the Scientology topic area mostly focusing on promoting Negative POV on Scientology. This is not his first thread of this type on Talk:Scientology and this is really a lunatic suggestion. This editor is well aware of the topic area just by bringing the Cult apologist terminology. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of all that. There are many subjects, and this one is near the top of the list, where we are guaranteed to always have editors with drastically different points of view. It's better to just accept that and make peace rather than wishing for the other side to go away. The ultimate protection against an article being gutted are the various Wikipedia policies and you don't need to disparage another editor to show that you're on the right side of a policy. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD on Avni Healthcare
Hi UncleDouggie. Regarding your CSD tag on Avni Healthcare. I have changed it to G11, because the article is more spam. Lord Porchcrop POWER 09:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I flipped a coin between A7 and G11 and it landed on A7. ;-) —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Douglas Knehans
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Douglas Knehans, did not appear to be constructive and should be reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you!

Seriously, take a look at WP:BLP. That article has a mass of claims, with virtually no sources (except a couple, which I left). The reason I noticed that article, was it mentioned (under "Citations") International Biographical Centre, which is a scam, whereby people who wish to promote themselves pay lots of money to buy a book which pretend pretty much anybody is a "who's who". A number of other enteries are equally dubious. In an article, especially a biography of a living person the onus is clearly on those who wish to include the information to justify it. It is far better to have a stub of verifiable information, than a mass of information, which mixes up what's reliable, with what's doubtful. That stub, can be built up, with the addition of sourced information. Wikipedia is not a place to deposit CV's, resumes, or professional profiles. It is not a place for self-promotion. It is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has substantially increased our concern with sourcing. Per WP:BLPPROD you now, can no longer create new articles on people, without sources. So, it only follows if you can't make a new article without sources, and can delete such, it's also reasonable to remove those portions without sources. The information isn't lost, and can be restored, but should be restored with sources.

I find it very frustrating that Wikipedia is reliant on bogus scams like International Biographical Centre in numerous articles. I want to clean those up, and have attempted to get others to help. Unfortunately, nobody has helped out. I don't wish to spend hours fighting/editing over each article. What I wanted to do is simply remove the information that is either unsourced, or badly sourced. Unfortunately, people like you insist on coming around, and making that impossible. So, instead of moving on to fix numerous other articles, I'm forced to accept Wikipedia is going to permanently have large numbers biographies based on unreliable sources.

I think should not be re-adding unsourced content back to WP:BLP's. I would like Wikipedia to have biographies that are more reliable than your typical resume. --Rob (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I missed your edit comment. I've restored your version. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and sorry if I came off as being rude in my comments. --Rob (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of redirect
Hello, UncleDouggie. I see that you tagged Starwood Hotel and Resort) with db-redirtypo. However, a redirect which has been in existence since 20 January 2007 does not qualify for this speedy deletion criterion, as it is not "a recently created redirect", so I have declined the speedy deletion and taken it to WP:Redirects for discussion instead. I admit that this is such an obviously useless redirect that it might be tempting to ignore all rules and delete it, but I think we should normally follow accepted procedure, reserving IAR for cases where doing so would cause significant damage or inconvenience. After four years, leaving this redirect in existence for another week is not going to do any harm. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I thought if I did that I'd be laughed out of WP:RfD, so I took a shot at the CSD first. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

RefTools fixed
RefTools should be totally back to normal now. Kaldari (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)