Original message: User talk:Elembis#John Edward

I think the relevant guide is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, which says negative information in a biography of a living person must have reliable citations. That means we can only say Edward's claims "have been met with derision by many" if we can find reliable sources for such a statement. Of course, criticism from professional magicians, film editors, psychologists, grief counselors, etc., would (in my opinion) be more relevant and important than criticism from people in general.

I hope that makes sense. Don't hesitate to ask followup questions. — Elembis 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belbo. Lest you find yourself frustrated in what is happening with your edits at John Edward, you might like to check in with these people: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Regards — BillC ^talk 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest you review the policy on resolving disputes. And please read Canvassing, which says "Canvassing is the systematic contacting of individuals in a target group to further one's side of a debate. In Wikipedia, canvassing, also known as "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian spamming" or "cross-posting", is the attempt to influence the outcome of debates by soliciting comments from like-minded editors." Dreadlocke ☥ 02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this was too cryptic for you, making it sound like an accusation - it certainly wasn't meant to be. It's informational, in order to help you understand certain specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines that seem to apply to your edits as well as suggestions by other editors. You appear to be a new editor, so I was trying to be helpful - please take it in good faith. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you need to reply from here to someone else's talk page, I suggest you copy the source of the post rather than the processed Wiki text. It would result in a more readable post. I fixed it where you replied to the above post for you. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... I assume you're a reader/fan of Foucault's Pendulum? MastCell 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Vandalism says "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." I'm sure removing someone's barnstar counts, and even if it doesn't it's extremely impolite. Please don't do it again. — Elembis 03:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried (if not very well) to be fair in editing John Edward and discussing the article on its talk page, so I was surprised to see these edits, which I think are uncivil. Meanwhile, I apologize for any impoliteness I've shown (unintentionally, I assure you) and for appearing to not recognize other users' contributions appropriately — I think we're all trying to improve the article, even when we disagree. Maybe a request for comment would help us reach consensus on our current disagreements over Edward's article. What do you think? — Elembis 04:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Will (Talk - contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added Template:POV to the John Edward article. I am quite interested in solving any POV problems the article has, so I invite you to voice your concerns on the talk page, to "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why", and to "make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article" (see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute). I believe (but may well be wrong) that POV issues discussed in Talk:John Edward#Pro Edward POV have been resolved, and in the absence of a dispute on the talk page, the template may be removed. Thanks! — Elembis 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]