User talk:Omega Mind

From WikiAlpha
Jump to: navigation, search

There is no Csd here. Geo Swan (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I put a __NOINDEX__ on the Gibbons's article, so my draft can't be searched for. Geo Swan (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're in a position to dispute my CSD claim, since you created the article. Even since you added more content, the article still serves the sole purpose of disparaging its subject. I'd like a third opinion here. Ω MindTALK 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The most prolific contributor here is User:Mathewignash. Is that whose opinion you want? User:Richard is the site owner. I started contributing here in 2012, and am coming up on 10,000 edits.
  • Apologies, I said there was no CSD. I must have been remembering "WikiAlpha is an alternative to Wikipedia, where the main difference is that our deletion policy is far more lenient with regard to notability requirements," the first line of the Main Page... But that paragraph does point to WikiAlpha:Criteria for speedy deletion. However "disparaging the subject" is not one of the six criteria.
  • Just to be clear, I don't know Gibbons. Do you know Gibbons? Are you arguing for the deletion of this material because you know Gibbons?
  • Now, if you know of RS that show something admirable about Gibbons, by all means go ahead and add coverage of that material. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
To quote from WA:CSD, under Vandalism and Spam: "This includes... pages that serve to threaten or disparage their subject with no other purpose." The Gibbins page certainly meets that criterion, so the page should be deleted without discussion, according to WikiAlpha policy. I don't know the different active editors on this site, but I imagine most level-headed unbiased editors would agree with my view on this (happy to be proved wrong - feel free to invite Mathewignash or whoever else to chime in). Ω MindTALK 09:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree. The article accurately describes Gibbins. I didn't find any references that spoke about him donating to charities, or doing good works. OJ Simpson, or William Calley, might complain that the wikipedia articles on them "disparage" them. But the truth is a defense against libel and slander. You didn't include the rest of the passage that includes the word "disparage". It says "...for no other purpose.". Well, for crying out loud, the obvius primary purpose of the article is to inform readers of what is known about Gibbins.
  • I asked you to clarify whether you knew Gibbins. I am going to repeat that question. Do you know Gibbins?
  • So, care to say what your wiki-id was, on the wikipedia? Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You made some more changes, to these two articles. Since you are focussing on them do you think it appropriate for me to ask you whether you would be considered to be in a conflict of interest, on the English language wikipedia?
    • You don't seem to have made any efforts to get anyone else's opinion.
    • I think my wikipedia ID is obvious. I asked you what yours is/was. Is there a reason you don't want to say? Geo Swan (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only issue at hand here is what content is appropriate for a WikiAlpha article. The fact is that the British courts found Massel guilty of defrauding and extorting Gibbins, and that her outlandish claims had no basis in fact. So why would you insist on keeping in all that content that was shown in court to be false? It may be accurate that Massel made those false claims, but it's irresponsible to use WikiAlpha as a platform for them - especially with no caveat about their fraudulence.

I would be happy to work together with you in good faith to reach a consensus on this. But it would be completely inappropriate to keep the article on Massel as it stands now. Thanks, Ω MindTALK 15:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)