This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In the version I am looking at, all the sources are written by the article subject. These should probably be in a bibliography. Some genuine third-party sources need to be found to establish notability and to back up article claims.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Sourcing is indeed an issue here. However, it CANNOT be (pathetically) prodded for "lack of sourcing" because sourcing is provided. The correct avenue is therefore WP:AFD rather than WP:BLPPROD. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
THank you for the tip on emphasizing a point by using caps and insults-- most useful.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree - it does take a very special kind of stupid to only understand such measures, but that has been AMPLY demonstrated here. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest you try to be nice to poeple. It's very simple. One need not be rude, as you are above. Calling people names and repeatedly putting them down really gets you nowhere. For example, when you said above "However, it CANNOT be (pathetically) prodded for "lack of sourcing" because sourcing is provided.", you could have just said "However, it CANNOT be prodded for "lack of sourcing" because sourcing is provided." The latter would have been a good response, while the former muddyies things up with an ad hominem attack, which you actually do not need as you made a pretty good argument in your response. All in all, you could have responded very adequately without the caps and the ad hominem attacks. You might notice that I don't feel the need to say anything about your intelligence or to call you names. This is because I am a secure individual. I'm going to guess that you will come up with a witty reply that includes more ad hominem attacks, but while you're typing it, please be aware that I really do not care. If on the other hand you would like to have a substantive discussion without personal attacks, I'm always up for that. Have a nice day. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
