On 1/7/06, M. Anderson <symphonia(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
User: Aubbit
IP address is 68.225.182.79
Hi all,
I don't know how I should go about requesting a
deletion of a specific entry - I tried the FAQ but it
confused me even more. I have a bit of a problem.
I have been accused by admins of 'vandalizing' and
'blanking' a specific Wikientry: Bill Freeman.
I am doing neither. I am a personal friend of Mr.
Freeman, and I find the article extremely offensive,
as do his other friends. The person writing this
article (who reverts it back every time I edit it) is
obviously biased, and is revealing very untrue and
unneccisary information about Mr. Freeman and his
wife.
I merely am trying to edit out the offensive bits,
which keep reappearing the next day. I have read the
policy on 'neutral point of view' and such, and I
believe the user writing the article on Mr. Freeman
has violated that ten times over. Yet I am being
blocked and accused of vandalizing and blanking,
simply because I am trying to protect a friend who
does not deserve an article like that.
If possible, I would like this article deleted for
good, because it does more harm than good. If anyone
could help me with this, or work something out, please
let me know.
Thank you,
Aubbit
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I just went and looked over the article and I do not see any flagrant
Neutral Point of View violations. What the article does is present
controversy regarding the subject of the article, and there are links at the
bottom, which you keep removing, that corroborate and expand on that.
I think you misunderstand what the neutral point of view is. It is not
there to simply present the most basic of facts. What it is there for is to
prevent outright accusing Freeman of anything. All that this article does
is present the charges and events surrounding Bill Freeman. Admittedly,
there's no real providing for Freeman's own defense, but until someone (for
instance, yourself) provides a source for his rebuttals, there's no real way
of reporting on what they are.
The reason you are being accused of vandalism is because you are simply
removing the content without any discussion as to WHY you are doing it.
This apparently being the first time that you've discussed your reasons for
it, let me tell you that if you had indicated on the article's discussion
page, reachable by clicking on the discuss tab at the top of it, what your
reasons for removing basically the entire article were, I'm sure someone
would've looked into it. As it stands, what you were doing appeared to be
just simple vandalism, something people like myself and the editors who were
putting the content back in have to deal with in droves every day. Without
you presenting a reason for your edits, we have no choice but to assume you
were doing it just to screw around.
I encourage you to talk to other editors about this -- this would be an okay
place, but the best would be, again, on the article's discussion page.
Provide for defense of Freeman, or heck, prove that the three links provided
are a load of crap. You need to let others know what your reasons are,
though.
--
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.