User talk:Peter Karlsen/Archive 2

Reverting vandalism

Thanks I appreciate you reverting vandalism to my talk, but I personally prefer to keep it. Thanks again, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Joan McAlpine

I don't mean to deface your page but wanted to leave a message: [removed per BLP]. It [removed per BLP]. News of the World firewall doesn't allow me to give the link but I assure you the intent was not vandalism. Apols if I caused problems on the page but the McAlpine page is not very accurate anyway and I would recommend taking it down, since she's linking to it from Facebook at the moment for political purposes (she's a candidadate in the next election). Please delete this by all means. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.153.17 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 October 2010

Per WP:BLP, all information about living people must be supported by reliable sources. Unreferenced "contentious" material is reverted immediately, and editors blocked if they continue to add it. Nebulous references to purported sources, such as "documented by Scottish staff the Daily Mail and News of The World" are unacceptable. Also, Wikipedia does not delete articles merely because external websites link to them. If there are specific inaccuracies in the article that you can identify, please discuss this at talk:Joan McAlpine. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2010

(UTC)

Re the vanadalism to the Joan McAlpine page by {{unsigned|93.97.153.17. Why is this anonymous person allowed to repeat the libellous, allegation on the User Talk page? The comments should be removed from the talk page as they were from the Joan McAlpine page. Thanks

I have checked the guidelines for editing talk pages and it says that this is permissable if comments fail to meet the editing criteria. I have therefore deleted the anonymous comment above because is is libellous and was put there by someone who has been vandalising the Joan McAlpine page - they cannot get the defamation on the Joan McAlpine page therefore they repeat it on a talk page. Not on surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruichlady (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 October 2010

I've restored the comment by 93.97.153.17 on this talk page for context, with the specific allegations removed. While WP:BLP applies to some degree on every Wikipedia page, we're most concerned about articles, since they are presented unattributed as encyclopaedic content. Talk page comments have little more credibility than posts on internet message boards. Peter Karlsen (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

User: Jpcea00

Hi Peter, I made a contribution about Lima Metro, the objective was to catch up with the actual situation of the system, and I´ve been banned. I didnt past the correspondant links where the information comes, thats the problem?

Thanks for your time.jpcea00Jpcea00 (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't been banned from editing. The reversion of your edit was caused by a malfunctioning bot [1]. You should discuss the problem with the operator at User talk:Cobi. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Quadripoint AfD decision

What were the reasons for your "keep" decision?Skookum1 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Contributors to the AFD discussion, except for yourself, argued that the subject was significantly covered by reliable sources, and therefore notable, and unanimously supported keeping the article. I'm satisfied that the participants are almost certainly distinct and experienced editors familiar with the applicable guideline, not sockpuppets or new users trying to keep an article based on WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kind of Blue

Can u help me deal with an amateur editor that keeps changing sourced content on this article? I made a post at the editor's talk page concerning the edits, but it ignored it and continued with the same edit (I would like to avoid reverting edits made to that article three times, so I would appreciate some help). Dan56 (talk) 05:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, although I reverted obvious vandalism on it once, the article is outside my area of expertise and interest. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Slightly aghast reading the warning at the top, but nevertheless: Thanks for reverting Robert Delaunay and (many) other pages. Keep up the good work. Superp (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of basketball

I just thought you might like to know how the article from this AfD you participated in is doing. It has been cleaned up and is nearing completion. And it looks good.

By the way, the guy (User:A Radish for Boris) who nominated it for deletion was discovered to be a sock puppet, and has been indefinitely blocked. So I guess the AfD was invalid to begin with.

Thank you for your support. The Transhumanist 05:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Account issues

Hi. Someone e-mailed me today with allegations that you're a sock of Erik9 / John254. I don't really have the time or patience to investigate this, so I figured the simplest solution should be employed here (i.e., asking you directly). So, is this true? Were you previously Erik9/John254? If so, can you request that your account be blocked, please? Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not Erik9/John254/Stevertigo/... If someone's disrupting Wikipedia in a manner similar to a banned user, then by all means give them the boot. But I don't have a case to answer. What kind of banned user spends their time improving Wikipedia by sourcing and maintaining BLPs like Liran Kohner [2], helping to eliminate copyright violations [3], and making other incontestably constructive contributions? What have I done incorrectly, besides a few newbie mistakes? If someone was banned, then surely there was a reason for it, and they could be identified by more of whatever got them sanctioned. In the absence of such, we should concentrate on improving the site, not wild goosechase sock hunts that are destructive to the community. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving Cent discussions

Thanks for removing the Protected edit user right proposal from Cent. For your general information, when removing old discussions they are placed in Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive as a record of the discussion. Sometimes discussions are listed which are not appropriate, and they may be removed without archiving, though a note that the listing was inappropriate should be made in the edit summary as a record. I have placed the discussion in the archive as, even though it was a proposal, which generally is not acceptable, the edit summary didn't make clear that the listing might fail WP:CENTNOT. More information is available at WP:CENT.

By the way, your talkpage message is a little heavy and unpleasant. Do you think someone who intends to vandalise your page would be deterred by that message? And what impression of the site do you feel is being given out? It's worth noting that the WP:Don't be a dick essay was felt inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate is an alternative essay, and you might consider if you are being inconsiderate with your message. SilkTork *^YES! 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I will blank the edit notices for my userspace, and archive future removals from the centralized discussion template. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Peter Karlsen (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

User:174.27.246.236

I have reported User:174.27.246.236 to the User:174.27.246.236 due to his/her repeated inserting of unsupported claims of Satanists at the Starwood Festival. I suspect that this anonymous user is actually the return of blocked User:RasputinJSvengali, and is also using the IP User:67.177.27.74. You criticized his/her editing on the article Kelly Ripa. Rosencomet (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)