User talk:Aaron Booth/Archive 5

John Archer article

Hi Aaron: I got your message and truly do not understand...so if you could specifically point out what was considered biased I would appreciate it. I did go back and re-read it, but all I really did was credit him with a movie appearance. Thank you, Regards, Johnny — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyreb37 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• The issue was with the use of the word "prominent." See WP:EDITORIAL and WP:WEASEL -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aaron: Thanks for the reply! I understand what you are saying, and did read up on the link for Editorial and Weasel words. My intent was simply saying in that movie he played a prominent (or one of the leading) roles. However, I do realize you have a lot of experience and I defer to that. I will endeaver to do a little more reading as I learn more and continue contributing to Wiki. Regards, Johnny Johnnyreb37 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)johnnyreb37

• I just left you a Welcoming table of links that can be of use knowing what exactly to start doing a little more reading. (There is a lot of information, in particular in the manual of style, which can all be daunting to just dive into. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon?

Hi Aaron Booth :)

I just wanted to let you know that what I had written on the Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon page was neutral and I found that it was a mistake removing it. I think you thought I was the person who wrote in capital letters, but no that was not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshifan98 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• There were a few issues with the article that I corrected, most of which wasn't you. This is the edit of yours that I was referring to. In particular, the phrase "a famous" is subjective and therefore not neutral. The other part of the edit (the lesser issue) was the entry of "In March 2013 it became the only Indian TV show to be on Entertainment Weekly Magazine. Where it was requested that they made a remake of the show for the American Audience." The problem here was twofold. The primary being that the statement is unsourced. Particularly a statement that puts something above everything else, as this statement does, needs to be cited in a reliable source. Even if sourced, the mention is likely not proper for inclusion in the lead section. It would be more appropriate for inclusion in another section. (Best option would be to create a "reception" section, and make the awards section a subsection of "reception" and include the mention, again if cited properly, in the section) I hope this helps clear things up a bit. I know when there are quite a few changes made at once that it can be difficult to distinguish exactly what is being referred to in the edit summary section as well as talk page template posts. Let me know if you have any further questions about this article, or anything else about Wikipedia. You may also find Wikipedia:Teahouse to be of some use to you. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Unspecified April 6th

why are you making up names NOW and new backstories ...its sort of MUTE it wont help a sinking ship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalblueskies (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I have absolutely no clue what you are referring to, can you be any more specific? -Aaron Booth (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

An Barnstar for You!

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, Aaron Booth! You're receiving a Brownie because you reviewed 22 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The extended version running time has to be there in the Harry Potter Years 1 & 2 infoboxes.

Hmm... Wikipedia's verification policy must not mean anything here.

People keep deleting the Theatrical Version/Extended Version running time comparisons in the Harry Potter movie infoboxes. I have added that information for the first two Harry Potter films a total of 3 different times, and I'm not ashamed to admit it, because I have the Ultimate Edition DVD Gift Sets that confirms this info. I did not make that up. I put precisely what is written on the back of the Ultimate Edition slipcases. Year 1: 152 min Theatrical Version, 159 min Extended Version. Year 2: 161 min Theatrical Version, 174 min Extended Version. If you look at The Lord of the Rings film pages, it lists both the Theatrical Version and the Extended Edition running time for all 3 films, so... as of December 2009, Harry Potter has to have this too.

There is no reason whatsoever not to have the Extended Version running time in the Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets film infoboxes, and if you haven't seen the Ultimate Edition boxes for proof, I'm sorry. You don't have to take my word for it at all. Purchase a copy of these Ultimate Editions and read the lower right-hand corner on the back of both slipcases... if Wikipedia has any intentions of abiding by its own policy, then cannot go against an official source put out by Warner Bros.

74.197.200.162 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Christopher

Verifiability is not the only guideline on Wikipedia. If the additional runtime is significant enough then it can be included ion a "release" section within the given article. However, long standing consensus on Wikipedia has been that the ONLY runtime to be listed in the infobox is the original theatrical release. One such discussion would be here. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Charlr6 is right.

Thanks for providing that link to The Lord of the Rings runtime discussion. I read that whole paragraph Charlr6 posted, and... sorry, but I have to agree with him 100%. If the Extended Versions of movies are not allowed in the infoboxes, that's a pretty big breach of people's rights on the site, and I'm just as offended about it as he is, if not more. (I actually checked out The Lord of the Rings pages after reading that and I am absolutely appalled that the Theatrical Version/Extended Version runtime comparison has been omitted from THOSE infoboxes as well.) I remember how pleased I was with Wikipedia for including this information, but now that I know it's not allowed - forget it. I can guarantee you that people (other than me) are going to keep putting in those running time comparisons for The Lord of the Rings... over and over again... until somebody accepts it.

What you need to know is that most films only have two (2) versions: Theatrical and Extended. Therefore, they should both be listed. It's not that hard. The way you and Darkwarriorshadow describe Extended Cuts of movies make them sound like they're illegitimate, or unofficial somehow. Only George Lucas' Star Wars films have been put through three or four revisions, and with something THAT complicated, I would, in that one instance, agree with you that it can't all fit in the infobox. Now, if it's TV exclusive extended cuts like for The Lost World: Jurassic Park, or The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, fine... those can go on a bottom heading (but frankly, I haven't even seen THAT documented).

If theatrical cuts of movies are going to be treated like they have a Big Brother monopoly over the entire thing, as being the 'ONLY' versions listed, then I am deeply disappointed in Wikipedia, and I will NOT look up any more movie information here. I won't, as they say, 'engage in an edit war' myself, but I will make the statement that Wikipedia has got a serious problem on this issue, and if you ask me, until it gets straightend out, it DESERVES an edit war.

I used to frequent Wikipedia a lot for major motion pictures, but now, I'm going to start looking at other sites for this. Don't bother replying - I will not be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.200.162 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your edits on Tom Holland

Hello,

Last night you edited the following sentence in Tom Holland article: ...in September 2012 Tom started a two-year course in the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology notable for its numerous famous students. Your Summary was: " numerous famous" is a subjective phrase. Regardless, anything but a mention of the school in this article is beyond the scope. I don’t think this is a significant edit per se to have a discussion about it but I don’t think that your arguments are credible.

First, numerous famous students phrase is not “subjective” – just look at BRIT School article: the names of those numerous famous students are there. Secondly, that mention is quite relevant: the fact that the subject attends a prominent specialised school rather than an ordinary one is a significant detail in the context of his professional biography. If fact, such “mentions” are well-established in Wikipedia, and I think the practice of following a consistent policy is a good thing. Take, for instance, such a high-profile article as Adele (one of those “famous students”).

Adele graduated from the BRIT School for Performing Arts & Technology in Croydon in May 2006... where she was a classmate of Leona Lewis and Jessie J... Adele credits the school with nurturing her talent… AdVal (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2013

• Having notable alumni is suitable for inclusion on the article for the school itself. It is not notable on an article about a current student or alumni unless it refers, as does the Adele article, to specific individuals that had a direct connection to the work of the subject. For example, if Holland worked on a project there with Adele that is in itself notable, or she had a particular influence u[pon his career. Just having gone to the same school as someone else is not pertinent here. The article is about Tom Holland, not on The Brit School or its other students. -Aaron Booth (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is no evidence, at least in the Adele article, that Leona Lewis and Jessy J did have “a direct connection to the work” of her. The article is about Adele, "not on the Brit School or its other students" (like Jessy J) – if to follow your logic. So be consistent – edit the Adele article accordingly (as well as other numerous articles with similar claims about a lot of “schools” where actors and singers have had their education). Then you’ll probably learn from other editors that your personal general interpretation of the issue is not necessarily an absolute truth and should be tuned to the particular cases. In the context of our exchange, however, I should note that you haven’t addressed my main argument that the words “its numerous famous students” serve to characterise the quality of professional education that the subject gets. That’s why these words are relevant in the Holland article because they are actually about him.

I have to say, however, that after looking through the Revision history of the Holland article that your small recent edit is not my concern. It appears that you have made a number of more substantial edits that deserve a serious consideration. In particular you have removed information that could be considered essential for the Holland article. I cannot help but wonder about your motives – just because I believe that Tom Holland is not a random Wiki subject to you. Sorry that I need to be more personal that I could ever imagine being in Wiki context but it seems relevant.

You act in Wiki under your real name. You obviously use it for your own promotion providing the link to your personal site which is very handy (unfortunately, those Wiki readers who want to know more about Holland cannot go to the site that contains a lot of info about him – because you had removed the link). Thus one can draw some conclusions from available information. It’s obvious that you’ve been a fan of Billy Elliot the Musical and have a special interest in people who’ve been related to it. You have even declared that you “have either a close personal or professional relationship to” a number of young actors who - like Holland – were “Billys”. I don’t know what you (an actor of a regional American theatre) mean under “a close personal or professional relationship” with young celebrities (about whom you’ve been writing Wiki articles) but whatever you mean I am interested to know whether Holland should also be included into your declaration about possible conflicts of interest.

So let me ask you a direct question: have you had any “relationship” outside Wikipedia with Tom Holland – who arguably now has the highest public profile out of all former “Billys”? Did you try to establish it? At the moment I am not implying anything – just trying to understand whether you have some reasons to be… slightly biased. AdVal (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, you should read through WP:MOS, WP:COI, WP:EL and WP:WWIN.

As far as my conflicts go, I am intentionally very open about them. These people (not all of which are currently, or have ever been, associated with Billy Elliot) are people that I have ever

• Worked with
• Been hired to create and administer an individuals website and incoming electronic fan mail.
• Know personally whether it be through another friend in the business, or through a friend outside of the business, someone I have assisted in their professional career or in the career of an immediate family member of the person, or someone I see or communicate with on a regular basis.

Mr. Holland does not fit into any of those categories as I have never met, spoken with, been employed by, or worked with him. I do not list every individual that would fit under one of those categories as a COI, but I list the COI that I do have under WP:COI which have Wikipedia entries that I edit (other than standard grammar or other minor fixes). It isn't incredibly difficult to find out who else I may be associated with since I provided a link to my website.

As far as external links go. The policies governing what is acceptable for one's own User page, and what is acceptable in an article. See WP:WWIN and in particular WP:EL.

As far as substantiating an argument by citing another Wikipedia article: Wikipedia is not a finished project, and therefore is far from perfect. It is maintained, improved, updated, authored, and monitored by volunteers. There is no way that myself, or any other individual here could possibly go through ever page on a daily or even yearly basis for that matter.

I am usually fairly clear about my edits in edit summaries, even when I don't always have to be. If there is something in particular said, or done that you need clarification on, I am happy to oblige. Beyond that, I would again suggest you begin with those pages that I lead off this response with. -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me on the relevant Wiki pages – but I think I have already known this stuff, and moreover, I looked through it again before starting this exchange – just because I knew that it would lead us to considering some your editing acts in terms of those very pages. Once again you demonstrate that you tend to refer to general stuff in your replies – instead of addressing the concrete issues concerned with your editing practice. I am afraid, such tactics doesn’t always work. So let’s finally consider some your actions with reference to the facts.

On 28 March you made a number of substantial edits of the Holland article.

• You removed the link to the Hollands site from both “Infobox” and “External Sites”. Your Summary: “not his official site (of which he apparently has none), therefore not suitable for inclusion as such”. According to WP:ELOFFICIAL, the criteria are: “(1)The linked content is controlled by the subject; (2) The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.” The site in question is a joint site of Dominic and Tom Hollands (prooflink). The content obviously covers Tom’s professional activity in great detail (more about that – below). Tom Holland is obviously too young to control the content of the site himself and this is being done by his father. This means that both criteria are met, and I don’t understand how one can come to the opposite conclusion. By the way, I didn’t imply that you shouldn’t have the link to your site at your User page – quite opposite: it’s acceptable and in addition it made my research easier. What I did mean was that the situation’s funny, if not weird: you (without doubt, very notable actor) have the link to your site in Wiki, and Holland with all his awards doesn’t.

• You removed the entire section called “Eclipsed” with essential info about the subject. Your Summary sounds hard: “rm not notable blog by not notable subject. only through association, and even if notable it wouldn't be appropriate in this article”. First, this is a badly structured statement: “not notable” – “even if notable”. It is either notable or not; if you’re not competent enough to determine that – don’t interfere then. In fact, your “summary” was wrong (according to WP:ELNO) on all its claims: the blog was devoted to Tom Holland (that’s why it’s appropriate to refer to it in the article) and was written by obviously “a recognised authority” – his father Dominic Holland who’s a notable professional writer and showbiz personality. What is even more astonishing: the removed section included information about book "How Tom Holland Eclipsed His Dad" – and you didn’t even mention this in your Summary (I wont be surprised if you being a devoted BETM fan know about the book and perhaps even have bought it?!). How on earth could the mention of the only book about the subject written by “a recognised authority” be removed from the article? It’s unexplainable. I would understand if you were not happy with presentation of that section, for instance - this is always subject for discussion. But removing in a whim the essential information altogether is not a proper edit. It has compromised the article.

Of course, even doubtful edits are not a crime. However, there is evidence that you went much further and mixed up Wikipedia business with your personal issues. This is a serious stuff. You have declared in your reply regarding your COI: “Mr. Holland does not fit into any of those categories as I have never met, spoken with, been employed by, or worked with him.” I am afraid this is not completely true. You did contact him, and more than once. On 28 March, obviously just after making those edits, you tweeted to the subject: Text removed per WP:DOX

Text removed per WP:DOX Did you want him to look at the article to recognise that now, after your edits (dealing with "a mess"), there is no mention of the book about him and no link to his site there? Or you wanted him to see your derogatory (“not notable blog by not notable subject”) comments about his father and about the blog devoted to him? Such a bully-ish tweet aiming at 16 y.o. schoolboy is clearly unethical even in general terms but in the context of Wikipedia such behaviour of the editor can only be acknowledged as improper. I believe it deserves some publicity and disqualifies you from dealing with the Holland article.

Of course, an obvious question arises: what your motives were? I can be mistaken (and I don’t care very much about those motives) but a rather obvious explanation can be suggested. In your reply you have presented yourself as a kind of a friend, colleague or even agent to those young celebrities that were mentioned in your COI statement. It may well be so but a superficial look at your public tweets gives another impression. The typical exchanges:

Text removed per WP:DOX

Similar exchanges with Text removed per WP:DOX and other subjects of Wikipedia articles written/edited by you can easily be found. This is a typical pattern of “relationship” of “fans-celebrities” kind (the fact that the “celebrities” are young – much younger than you - and not that famous yet should also be taken into account): you as a fan make flattering remarks and try to be a little bit helpful; they acknowledge your loyalty and are polite enough to return the favour:

Text removed per WP:DOX

You have even Text removed per WP:DOX Of course, it’s your business and your right – although I don’t know how you can write a properly neutral Wikipedia stuff about your real or virtual friends. Perhaps, nobody cares – as long as those Wiki articles are not popular (up to 10-15 viewings per day for most of your friends). Tom Holland is another, more serious matter as his Wikipedia article gets about 1000-2000 reads daily. So, you tried to Text removed per WP:DOX – for instance:

Text removed per WP:DOX

However, it seems that unlike Text removed per WP:DOX didn’t appreciate your nice words. He didn’t respond, didn't follow you and didn’t recommend to his almost 27000 followers to follow you. What could you do about that? Perhaps, we now know the answer.

The conclusion: your “apparent” COI in respect to Holland is obvious (WP:COI). There are reasons to think that an “actual” COI is there too. I think you should refrain from editing the Holland article and I am prepared to defend this view. AdVal (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, first off, an interest is not a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Second, I will disregard anything someone has said to or about me on Twitter or elsewhere. I am not going to speak as to the thought of anyone, whether or not I know the person. The only connection I have to that particular show's UK production is one of my good friends I grew up with here in Minnesota trained over there prior to the opening of the Broadway production. In that time he met some individuals over there. I have met a few people from other productions through him, or through my work, or former co workers. A connection through another person does not constitute a conflict of interest. If that were the case, I would have to declare a COI with James Earl Jones, Patti LuPone, Scarlett Johnson, Jerry Lewis, Ian McKellan, Steve Carrell, etc. The list would be endless. I also do not have to identify a COI, even if one were to be present. I provide a brief list as well as links to identify myself. Also, you might realize that you only cited one tweet that I made directly to Mr. Holland. When there are two mentions in a tweet, generally the first one is the individual at which the tweet is directed. Also, context is important when dealing with 140 character snippets. You obviously, in regards to the other ones provided, do not have access to my personal phone conversations, email, Direct Messages, Facebook, skype, and other correspondence. The nature of what most people, my self included, in the entertainment field is promotional. This either serves the individual directly or indirectly. Giving a "shout out" to my followers, is never a random thing. I generally only do that with people I know personally or professionally, or they did me a favor.

Second, rather than requesting an oversight deletion, I just chose to peripherally respond to your Twitter comments, and courtesy redact your quotations. There is a reason why WP:DOX is a policy, even if someone, such as myself, edits under his legal name. While they are still available in the edit history, I removed them from here. From now on, you should only refer to someone's edits, posts and comments on Wikipedia.

Now moving on:

• [1] is not written by the subject of the article. Therefore, it would only be suitable for inclusion if the author meets WP:BIO, as well as the content would have to be considered a recognized authority per WP:V. The site would also have to comply wholly with WP:C and WP:BLP. External links on BLP's are held to a much stricter standard than other articles.

• It is also not WP:ELOFFICIALas it fails to meet the requirements. Both of the given requirements leading the section must be met. The one it fails, negating the purpose of debating the second, is The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. The blog is not an official site controlled by Tom Holland. His father, is not Tom Holland. And regardless, it is not notable under Wikipedia standards (the subject or the blog) through associated.

• Without going back to the article itself, the Amazon link you provided falls under Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services. Amazon sells things, therefore it can't be used to reference the item being sold (unless amazon itself is being cited). If the book is cited then we use is ISBN and full citation for the item itself. We do not list where a reader can, or is suggested to make a purchase of the item. Also, by the nature of an external link, if the book is not available legally online, for free and without registration, it should not be in the external links section. Possibly in a further reading second if it were to have been written by the subject, or a notable scholar.

Finally, looking at your minimal contributions here (68 in article space to be precise, over primarily 3 pages), and your encounters with other, more experienced, editors, such as myself, are indicative of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and it's policies as a whole. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you lecture me, mainly on general or non-related matters – instead of addressing the concrete points that matter in the context of this discussion.

First, WP:DOX refers to “Posting of personal information” and “private communication”. Personal information is defined there as “legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information" (although “if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums”). I haven’t “outed” you with respect of any mentioned information. You use your real name in Wikipedia. You present your twitter account at your Wikipedia page. Your tweets are public, not private. Especially, the tweets to the subject of the Wikipedia article (in which you had referred to Wikipedia yourself!) are not your personal private communication and are relevant for this discussion. Therefore, your removing of that tweet from the present discussion under WP:DOX is unjustified (there are no legitimate reasons for requesting an oversight deletion either, and the references to WP:DOX are not relevant at all) and can only be treated as an attempt to hide your improper (in my opinion) action concerned with that tweet and avoid responsibility for it. You didn’t provide any answers the following very important questions (I reproduce it for your convenience again):

Did you want him to look at the article to recognise that now, after your edits (dealing with "a mess"), there is no mention of the book about him and no link to his site there? Or you wanted him to see your derogatory (“not notable blog by not notable subject”) comments about his father and about the blog devoted to him? Such a bully-ish tweet aiming at 16 y.o. schoolboy is clearly unethical even in general terms but in the context of Wikipedia such behaviour of the editor can only be acknowledged as improper.

If you really believe that there is nothing wrong in that then surely you can provide concrete answers on all points (including ethical dimension). These questions have to be addressed (in my view that tweet in the context of your Wiki edits borders with harassment), and I am going to use the legitimate means that exist in Wikipedia for that. I just need to find time for that.

Secondly, your long explanation regarding your “promotional” activity through twitter, etc. is not relevant to our exchange. Although, you have only confirmed that you write in Wikipedia about people with whom you are in close personal or business relationships, and this means that you definitely have at least “an apparent” COI. However, as I already pointed out, I am not interested in that. I only addressed all that stuff (concerned with your tweets and “relationships” with young stars) trying to understand: why you are so eager to be negative in respect to the Holland article and to him personally, why you consistently try to diminish his father, etc.? It’s unusual behaviour for the person who is BETM fan and is friendly with many BETM people, especially former Billys. However, I can repeat once more: at the end, your motives are not that important but your actions are. So, perhaps I was not right talking about that – it only provided you an excuse not to answer the legitimate questions regarding your actions such as that inappropriate tweet directly related to Wikipedia.

Thirdly, about your patronising remark referring to “more experienced, editors, such as myself”. Yes, in Wikipedia you are more experienced – I just cannot afford to spend here even a fraction of time that you do. In addition, I am not a native English speaker which means more time and effort needed. However, I have enough experience in real world to know what I am talking about. At the end, the quality of arguments is what should matter, not an amount of “edits”.

Let’s look at your arguments concerned with your edits under the question. You seem to think that if you insert a lot of references to all those WP:…s then it is convincing and should be taken without discussion. That’s wrong. Wikipedia business is not exact science (I know what an exact science is as I have a PhD in one of such sciences. In addition I know how to write and edit texts as I’ve published hundreds of articles in general and specialised press – including dozens in peer-reviewed journals, and serve as an editor in proper media). Wikipedia guides provide recommendations and huge amount of them need to be used thoughtfully, depending on the concrete context. You seem not to understand that which means that I can return your words regarding “of a misunderstanding of Wikipedia, and it's policies as a whole“ to you.

• Once again: the site of Hollands wholly complies with WP:ELOFFICIAL and with other guides you mention meeting all the criteria. Your only concrete objection is “is not an official site controlled by Tom Holland. His father, is not Tom Holland.” As a person with a strong interest in underage celebrities you should know that parents are legally responsible for their children. So it’s not only OK when the minor doesn’t control his public site but this is a proper situation. Sometimes that right is delegated (by parents!) to agents. As to your claim regarding notability, it’s highly subjective and seems to be based on your negative attitude to Hollands that you've been demonstrating very consistently.

• Your long lecture about improper usage of a commercial link for the book is not relevant at all. You seem try to claim that you removed that link because it referred to Amazon. Alas, this is another claim that is not true. I put the link to Amazon only here – to make it easier to identify the book. Of course, there was no such a link in the article. It’s the link to a feature article in the Independent (which is a national quality broadsheet) that should present the book (there are other proper links as well). As to your argument that the book should “have been written by the subject, or a notable scholar”, it’s just bizarre. Children normally don't write books - they are too young for that. Dominic Holland is not only father (knowing his son better than any other “scholar”) but a professional writer, scriptwriter and journalist who in addition knows very well the showbiz world as he is a notable figure in there himself. Perhaps, it’s not obvious from US – but it's obvious in UK (by the way, last time I saw him on a British national TV channel was when he talked for about 10 minutes about Thatcher's death). Anyway, just read Wikipedia article about him! There is no other person better qualified for the book about Tom – it’s absolutely obvious.

I don’t think I can add anything else at this your page. However, the matter is not closed. AdVal (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• A parent is not the subject. Acting as a guardian, is not the same as the individual acting as one's self. His father's site, since not run by the subject of the article, is not run by the subject of the article. If he didn't write it, then he didn't write it. That is Wikipedia policy that has come out of consensus. If you feel the policy is wrong, and needs an exception, then you would be best served bringing up a discussion in a more appropriate forum, such as a project, or WikiTalk page. But as is, since the link does not meet both requirements under WP:ELOFFICIAL, the link cannot be included in the Tom Holland article. It is completely appropriate in the article on the author of the blog, his father. Your issue seems to not be with me, but with Wikipedia as a whole. So I would direct you to start up a discussion at a more appropriate location. You would be better served arguing such policies on the talk page of the article or Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film, and in particular Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard as well as Wikipedia talk:External links.

• Regardless, the one tweet that you felt was problematic, I removed even though it did not violate any Wikipedia policy in any way.

• "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be."

-Aaron Booth (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I will follow your kind advice and will discuss the matters in the appropriate places. Here, I can only say in conclusion:

• My research on a specific piece of your public Wikipedia-related activity was justified by its context: it’s the only way to establish whether you have COI. To challenge some your concrete actions aimed at the subject of Wikipedia article doesn’t mean harassing you. It’s not you who can be thought a victim of the alleged abuse in the context of the story.

• You might remove that inappropriate tweet but it’s Internet, nothing disappears there. In addition, that your act was easily predictable.

• The argument “His father's site, since not run by the subject of the article, is not run by the subject of the article. If he didn't write it, then he didn't write it“ looks strange. First, as I pointed out before, the site is joint (prooflink was provided earlier). Secondly, in most cases showbiz’ stars don’t run their sites themselves and don’t write there themselves. For instance, River Alexander's site (you takes care of his article where the link to the site is present) is obviously run not by this 13 y.o. boy but by his publicist. The other examples are countless. Tom Holland father has legal rights to control how his son's image is presented at his site. It's a legitimate and most authoratative source of reliable information about underage rising star and there is nothing in Wikipedia policies that prevents from providing the link. AdVal (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 13:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

Will you help me with the Dance Moms article?

Would you like to help me with the dance moms article? I have been working on it,removing unsourced claims, fan cruft and the like. I had read you message on the dance moms talk page so that is why I asked. Thanks.--BeckiGreen (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that article really needs a lot of work. I will start taking a look at it and work on it. Anything in particular you had in mind? -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to make it more encyclopedic, if that makes sense. If you read the talk page or the edit history for dance moms, you can see the kind of statements that I removed. There seemed to be a lot of fan cruft stuff in there that I removed,like that Melissa had an affair,cheated on her husband, stuff that violates BLP's. anything you can do would be great. Before I started working on it, it looked like a fan page with nasty opinions. Thanks for your time.--BeckiGreen (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help today on Dance Moms with the Pyramid revert. I know the user did use good faith,as you wrote. I would have reverted it myself,but did not see it until afterwards. I don't know what source someone would be able to find to add it back,since the pyramid changes every week. I went to the LifeTime Dance Moms web page and there is nothing I could find about the weekly pyramid, but I dont think the pyramid belongs on the page anyway. Thanks again.--98.87.95.221 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in. I left the message above.--BeckiGreen (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help on Dance Moms. I saw on the talk page where you did a who is search, I was going to do the same thing last night,but I had to go to sleep. Also user Ivaroa keeps adding a direct link to the Candys Apple's Dance studio webpage in the summary of the Dance Moms article. I don't think you are supposed to add a link to a website in the summary of an article? I've seen links to web pages for shows at the bottom of an article but not in the article itself. I am also going to have to change user Ivaroa's use of adjectives again, she adds statements for Maddie like-is the winningest petite dancer on the program, which I cannot find a source for yet,and it does not sound very neutral. I guess it is user Ivaroa making these changes, she never leaves a message in the revision history. Please feel free to correct me if you think I should not remove what I discussed above. Thanks again.--BeckiGreen (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Maddie line would be neutral if it was properly sourced. Also, "winningest" isn't actually a word. -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Rufio! Rufio! Ru! Fi! OOOOOH!

Apparently, you reverted my re-addition of the unsourced Homestuck mention in Dante Basco (which you had previously removed (for being unsourced)). Well, it's a fair cop. :) I had figured that maybe I could just put it back and no one would notice. That plan's trashed, but I did manage to track down something that could be loosely described as a source. I basically need to show that 1) Rufioh Nitram the Homestuck character was inspired by Dante Basco and 2) Dante Basco is a fan of Homestuck, yes? Well, this post from Dante Basco's blog has him 1) saying that he has been "immortalized as a troll" and 2) that he has "stumbled into this homestuck world". The picture is of Rufioh Nitram, from this flash page of Homestuck.

The reason I haven't rushed to add the line back to the article is that firstly, I can't be bothered to figure out how to cite sources right now. It's hard, remembering all the markup techniques. Maybe later. Secondly, I'm not sure if this counts. Primary sources are generally kind of frowned upon, right? While Dante Basco is without doubt a reputable scholarly source in regards to the origin stories of Homestuck trolls, I'm a bit worried that pointing to his tumblr with Homestuck things in it to show that he's into Homestuck might constitute original research. Since you were the one to axe that line in the first place (and left a link to your talk page on my talk page), I thought I'd just ask you. Does this work as a source? 62.44.228.229 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been on much recently. You are right that primary sources are frowned upon. Particularly personal blogs and social media sites. If something is suitable for inclusion (for example a list of an actors commercial credits, unless one of which is particularly notable (for example a mention in the Alex Trebek article on Colonial Penn Life Insurance is notable), would be a good example of something not suitable for inclusion) there would be multiple third party sources for the entry. While individual entries don't need much, if any, in-depth coverage, they do need to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as WP:RS and WP:V. Is there another source that you can find for the entry? -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Aaron Booth:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Aaron Booth! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Aaron Booth:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aaron,

Thank you for helping me set up the wiki page for the Sociological Association of Ireland. I have recently made some minor edits, by way of updates. The box at the top of the page says the SAI page needs links, inline links and references, but it has all of these now, so can we remove this box? Cheers.Liamled (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)