Can I ask why you think an off-hand comment about Wikipedia is worth mentioning here? We should avoid getting overexcited about a pundit mentioning Wikipedia, simply because we're editing Wikipedia - it wouldn't be very helpful to the reader if every article included "and here's what they thought about Wikipedia!", irrespective of merit. --McGeddon (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is a comment in a discussion on digital archives and their preservation. His comment illustrates how he made an entry which was hearsay and could be removed into information that became a matter of public record and thus verified by using his own words as an example. It is as relevant as any of his comments on feminism.--Davdevalle (talk) 10:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His (weak) article on feminism is only worth mentioning because of the fact that it "provoked anger". I'd agree that it's funny to directly quote him talking about a line he didn't want to see printed in Wikipedia, but I don't think we're really serving any encyclopaedic purpose by doing so. If another columnist picked up on it, and there was some minor controversy around it, then great, but we shouldn't be trying to make our own personal points here. --McGeddon (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments and argument but I think it's not a merely personal point. It may become a source for a larger entry about the 'bogus' nature of wikipedia and other encyclodedias. I also found a related article on Letts and wikipedia. On the self-referential part of the press and wikipedia. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/opinion/stephen-glover/stephen-glover-on-the-press-401205.html. Is there some other entry for all this? The matter of other 'columnists', makes it then into the problem of self-reference and the sense of 'bogus' sources. If someone wrote a blog on http://jonslattery.blogspot.com/2009/11/danger-of-wikipedia-do-you-want-world.html) to support it is this perpetuating recursive false trails? It is a comment made by him about Wikipedia, where else should it be but accompanying his entry?--Davdevalle (talk) 10:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliability of Wikipedia of Wikipedia already covers this kind of thing in great detail, and you're welcome to add to it. But it probably wouldn't benefit from the anecdotes of bewildered journos writing "I say, there was something about Cheryl Cole, imagine if my son became an Archbishop!" or "humph, my friend at the Mail had a shorter article than his equivalent at the Guardian, this doesn't seem very sporting!" - this is very basic, unresearched stuff.

With zero press or public reaction to Letts complaining about Wikipedia on a radio show once, I don't really think it's worth mentioning this anywhere (and I speak as someone who loathes everything the Mail stands for, I'm just viewing this neutrally). --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your neutral perspective. I think the style of the other entries on Letts is similar. I am not sure that the relative lack of 'public reaction' sourcing is essential. As you point out the issue that is in the public domain. An encyclopedia is a source as well as a repository of knowledge.--Davdevalle (talk) 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest that we should document every single thing Letts has ever said in the public domain, however trivial, which would be unbearable. We need some external guidance for what is and isn't relevant, and the presence of third-party press coverage is a good yardstick.

WP:BLP says that "possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment", and that we should "not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints". The minuscule amount of information in this one-off non-story about how Letts was once surprised by Wikipedia doesn't balance the pointless embarrassment to his son. --McGeddon (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort on documentation, you need to contextualise your opinion about what you think an example of relevance is. Re vandalism, pointless embarrasment? What? There is no harm in this at all. The example is one where the 'son's opinion is already digitally archived in BBC archives and can be played endlessly by anyone out of Quentin Letts own mouth. There is an intrinsic irony in this and the referential nature of such events is of value to the whole matter of Digital Archiving. I am intrigued by the policing of contributions under the guise of editorialising and the rhetoric of vandalism and disproportionate space. I suggest there is more harm in the implicature of Letts views about Feminism than his mild comment on the problem of Wikipedia. Your belittling of the matter as something of 'miniscule information' is at odds with your idea that it is also vandalism. I find it hard to see how it can be both. I remain convinced that this opinion of Letts is of equal value his opinions about other things. He isn't a 'bewildered journo'. It is relevant to the discussion of archives and that the source for this is to placed with the person who presented such a quote. Davdevalle (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction here - yes, vandalism is very serious to Wikipedia editors, but a journalist complaining about Wikipedia vandalism isn't necessarily serious to Wikipedia readers. A public figure mentioning Wikipedia is rarely worth reporting in Wikipedia, and WP:SUBJECT specifically says "For example, a radio host mentioning on one show that he read his Wikipedia biography is not a very important event in his overall career." This radio appearance does not appear to have been a very important event in Letts' career, if the only source we have is the original recording, and no secondary sources ever bothered writing about it.

If you're not convinced, I'll raise an RFC on the article talk page - that something is an "intrinsic irony" shouldn't overrule Wikipedia policy, no matter how funny it would be to do so. --McGeddon (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is convincing whom here? The example was not one of vandalism that Letts gave, he was stating his worries in a programme about digital archiving. This illustrates his worries factually and is sourced. There thousands of unsourced interpretive points all over Wikipedia. The 'policy' you believe concerning vandalism is your interpretation of a contribution. I fail to see why you want to edit this contribution and delete and censor this information and play into the agenda of artificial forgetting. The idea of events on radio are somehow less important that a book published or articles is odd. What kind of event are you assessing here as being important? I adopt the position that this particular 'event' 'comment' discussion is an apposite instance of an event that enshrines idiomatically the ethos of Wikipedia as a unique form of knowledge for all to engage with and use. I fail to see how the emphasis on textual commentary and a practice more suited to medieval gloss than the always available audio archives and sense that digital information gives has more credence on a programme actually discussing the virtue of artificial forgetting. This is where digital forms are more interesting and dynamic than text. An encyclopedia is to aid the growth of knowledge Letts comment is a source here of the problem of digital preservation and artificial forgetting. He cited his own son's contribution which has since been edited out. His son is wise and bold enough to handle his original editing of his dad's entry. In 40 years time there may not even be an Archbishop of Canterbury and having a crush on Cheryl Cole might even be a bit of street cred for a future prime minister! The entry is about something Letts did and not just one of his opinions!Davdevalle (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I've raised an RFC here - feel free to comment yourself. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removed, as I think I made a boo boo in reading what happened on the Jesus Christians thread! Sorry—Preceding unsigned comment added by Choodle2 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 9 October 2010

You appear to be involved in an edit war, according to the reverts you have made on Quentin Letts. If you edit disruptively including breaking the three-revert rule you may be blocked without further warning.

• If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.
• Alternatively you can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
• Do not edit war even if you think you are right. --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you begin that process by editing based upon 2 cursory comments? Why didn't you leave it in until a suitable time had passed and then offered me an opportunity to edit or agree to exclusion of the comment? Your editorial style is authoritarian. You opened an RFC and got little comment you then opened it again! I have commented upon both of those cursory comments and you have just edited it out twice without comment. You are using wikipedia process, ie editorial precedent and edit war analysis to justify your analysis and subsequent decisions to edit. An extraordinary approach.--Davdevalle (talk) 16:30, February 27th 2011 (UTC)

Given the WP:BLP nature of the paragraph, it seemed safer to cut it while the RFC was ongoing - Wikipedia policy requires all BLP issues to be very strongly sourced, and (at least at the moment) this one is not. If the RFC reaches a clear consensus that it's worth including this quote (and yes, I reopened it because the first one received so little input either for or against it), we can add it back in.

I'm using the Wikipedia processes of talk page discussion and BLP caution to resolve the issue as cleanly as possible here, I'm not committed to any particular outcome. (If anything, the RFC is a sanity check to make sure that I'm not misinterpreting any sources or policies.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who you were trying to talk to when you posted this to my talk page. WP:DISPUTE should point you in the right direction, if there's a problem, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have - it sounds like we're just coming at this from different perspectives. As much as I'd enjoy a debate about artificial forgetting, that isn't what I'm doing here, and I don't mean to be belittling your viewpoint - I'm just applying mundane Wikipedia policy to decide whether or not a paragraph should be included in an article, the same way I'd apply it to "Quentin Letts likes Jaffa cakes" or "Quentin Letts thinks that Richard Dawkins is evil". --McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material you're removing is well-sourced, in accordance with our sourcing policy—it is sourced not only to secondary sources, as we require, but also to Icke himself. I'm sorry you don't like it, but if you continue to remove it you're likely to be reported for editing warring. Edit warring is particularly inappropriate when performed by a single-purpose account, because it tends to suggest personal involvement or the imposition of a strong point of view, whereas Wikipedia articles have to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of how anyone feels about that personally.

By all means make your arguments on the talk page instead. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did make my points on talk page. Read what I have said about it not being about sources SPA is nonsense. I am content with my argument that the material in the opening paragraph is better in the key ideas section. You should resist your need to ridicule. NPOV is needed at the opening. All the other stuff is better further down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davdevalle (talk • contribs)

If you revert again, I'm going to report this. Your edits have been removed by two editors; the material is sourced; it has been there for some time; it represents a neutral point of view, and conforms with WP:LEAD; and the article has GA status, which means it has a degree of consensus. Please read WP:BRD, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and WP:3RR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised an RFC here davdevalle (talk 18:45 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The username is familiar, I'm sure we've worked on some of the same articles in the past, but I don't know this editor well enough to comment on any "tactics". It looks like you've raised an RFC over whatever concerns you had, which seems like the best thing to do here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha. I have requested that the RfC be closed, and a new RfC opened in its place focusing on a brief, neutral assessment of the dispute that does not discuss other editors and focuses solely on the content. You appear to have confused the two RfCs (article content and user conduct, with the third concerning Wikipedia policy and guidelines). This confusion is not necessarily your fault, considering the process is somewhat esoteric and procedures of this kind are written and documented by people who have poor communication skills. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Irish Republican Brotherhood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Eddy Offord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tracks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandy Denny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that copying blocks of text from anywhere and pasting it into a Wikipedia article, unless it is specifically released under a Creative Commons licence or the copyright has expired (usually 70 years after the death of the author) is a copyright violation, and any such cut-and-paste will be removed as soon as it is discovered. I have partially or wholly reverted your edits to Cathal Brugha, Éamonn Ceannt, God Save Ireland and Manchester Martyrs for this reason. Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the "two days after": I looked at the start of the previous section and saw "on the evening of 22 November 1867" and mistakenly thought that that was the day of the executions. The page that you linked to in your citation shows that the paragraph in the letter began "So yesterday...", not "yesterday" as you claimed in your edit summary. Taken all together, the text 'Frederick Engels wrote to Karl Marx predicting that “yesterday morning the Tories, by the hand of Mr Calcraft..."' is very obviously a copy-and-paste from http://radicalmanchester.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/the-manchester-martyrs/ and I am disappointed that you would try and deny it. Scolaire (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I included almost all of the letter and not just the first paragraph as is quoted in Michael Herbert's blog how can it be a cut and paste from there?Davdevalle (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You included it in your second edit, not in your first edit, which was obviously a copy-and-paste. Why are you wasting your time and mine with this? Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You inaccurate claim that it was the page I linked it prolonged this. The edit I left there is what matters and how I cited it.Davdevalle (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bedford High School, Leigh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davdevalle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davdevalle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Davdevalle. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jack Shepherd (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Budgie. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davdevalle! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Just Like a Woman that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk

Thanks El Cid. I agree with your point. I was tidying up Gary Burton on I Want You which was a correction. I then added the extra item as you point out so yes a misuse of minor edit. Thanks Davdevalle (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! It's a very 'minor' (excuse the pun) issue, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention, with no intent to scold you. Cheers and happy editing. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]