This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mongo Feels Better (talk | contribs) at 07:50, 2 December 2012 (→Ankit Fadia: VIVA[REDACTED] - Lets get redaction happy!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:50, 2 December 2012 by Mongo Feels Better (talk | contribs) (→Ankit Fadia: VIVA[REDACTED] - Lets get redaction happy!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is January's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
Untitled
I received your message, questioning on my recent edit on article of a living person. I actually the reference which I used was not a blog, it's a live working site using WordPress content management system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47art (talk • contribs) 17:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see anything about that site that suggests it is a reliable source. I can't see any information about the authors or any indication of what editorial oversight it has. It looks self-published to me. If you dtill disagree I can take it up at WP:RSN. January (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
For now, I am removing the reference. Are you asking me to add details like Author, Published date etc. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47art (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, that material should not be restored at all if all it can be cited to is that reference. January (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, Can you clear little bit more ? What actually was wrong ? The content or The reference ? and Please tell the reason too and the steps should be taken in the future to omit this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak47art (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Both, as the content is not supported by a suitable reference. Per WP:BLP, articles on living persons require a high standard of sourcing, particularly for anything related to a controversy. Also it is WP:UNDUE to have almost the entire article consisting of a controversy section. I'm going to request some advice on the article as it's had problems before, I would appreciate it if you would not restore the material in the meantime. January (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Discussion at WP:BLPN#Ankit Fadia. January (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ankit Fadia
<Attack on BLP subject removed>
Please consider deleting the Ankit Fadia article.
Mongo Feels Better (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, nothing I can do about that. The criteria for being the subject of a Misplaced Pages article is notability, not merit, and the community has already agreed that the subject is notable (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankit Fadia). January (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Your reverts of the Ankit Fadia article state that you're "removing material not supported by sources or cited to unreliable sources" So with that, there are 1741 mentions of Chennai Online, do you plan on deleting those passages in Misplaced Pages articles mentioning Chennai Online as a source?
Granted there are one mention of Wendy McAuliffe and its in the Ankit Fadia article but there are 35,700 results for "Wendy McAuliffe" ZDNet in Google, and at her current venture about page http://www.populatedigital.com/people/ mentions "Wendy began her career as a journalist for ZDNet, the UK’s leading online technology newswire, during which time she became a leading authority in online privacy and child protection online." so that's another unreliable sources?!?
Surely an article about Ankit Fadia by Suelette Dreyfus is a reliable source, but you nixed that too.
<BLP violation removed> Mongo Feels Better (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- You added, "For example, according to Wendy McAuliffe at ZDNet UK, Fadia's Hacking Truths website was judged "second best hacking site" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, though no ranked list of "hacking sites" has ever been published by the FBI" cited to . That article says "It was recently judged the second best hacking site in the world by the FBI." It does not say that no ranked list of "hacking sites" has ever been published by the FBI. For Chennai Online, you added "In 2000, Chennai Online reported that Fadia's consulting clients included several of the largest technology and financial services companies in the world. No other online or printed source corroborates that report". Chennai Online says "Fadia provides customised cyber security training and consulting solutions to an impressive list of clients all across North America, Asia, Australia, and the Middle East," so what is "No other online or printed source corroborates that report" sourced too? The Suelette Dreyfus article is cited as a source for "nor does any of Fadia's published up that date work involve cryptography or cryptanalysis" but doesn't say that anywhere. . As for your readdition of Attrition.org, Misplaced Pages's own article on it says it is self-published.January (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- The part about the timing of the Avril Lavigne incident is original research, as pretty much all of your additions appear to be. January (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
So for ANY of this information above to be included in this article about Ankit Fadia, it has to be written up in a major publication where another writer has researched this and published? Seriously?!?
<BLP violation removed>
Mongo Feels Better (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- "So for ANY of this information above to be included in this article about Ankit Fadia, it has to be written up in a major publication where another writer has researched this and published?" Yes, that's exactly what no original research means.
- This is the third time I've had to redact part of your post, so I think you'd best stop posting on my talk page if you can't do it within policy. If you really want to continue this conversation you can e-mail me, although we're obviously not going to resolve this to your satisfaction, if the article looked the way you want it would violate multiple Misplaced Pages policies. Basically, this is just not the right place for what you're looking to do here. January (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
OK then, get used to redacting your page, and your edits, I've got plenty of time, resources, and IP's
Mongo Feels Better (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Joseph Rescigno.jpg
RE: The Misplaced Pages page "User talk:Valuenyc" has been changed on 24 November 2012 by January, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Joseph Rescigno.jpg.
I am completely confused about process here and about license tagging and I really spent a long time trying to figure it out from the help files. I hope I clicked the right link to address the person who questioned this, and I'll be very grateful for any advice/guidance.
The photo in question is owned by the subject, Joseph Rescigno. However, it has a *credit line* for use by anyone who re-uses it. I thought it was always courteous to include the name of the photographer even though the subject bought and paid for ownership of the photo. Please point me to whatever language I should use. I'll be happy to adjust it. If it means that the photographer gets no recognition, I'm very surprised but I'll do it. That is within my power. Is that creating this issue?
Many many thanks, Valuenyc
- The licence tag and the credit line are fine, we just need confirmation from the copyright holder that they have agreed to release the image with that licence (this is the usual practice when the image is uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder). This is usually the photographer, but if it is a work for hire it may be that Mr Rescigno owns the rights. The copyright holder should contact permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to confirm permission, there is a suggested wording at WP:CONSENT which can be used. January (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
