Talk:Paul Watkins (Manson Family)

Footnote

If the footnote is no longer operative, then we cannot use it to cite support. We either get a new citation or it has to go.NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. See WP:DEADLINK. DMacks (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is citing a website that does not open. For all we know it NEVER opened. Particularly with the Kasabian article and strict BLP, if it cannot be backed up it needs to come down, stat.NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See and follow the suggestions in WP:DEADLINK for finding a copy of the source or an alternate source. DMacks (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, I don't believe that the source ever existed. That's my position. So I pulled it down. If someone would like to put it up, cool, they can find a new citation.NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll probably be blocked pretty soon for removing cited info. DMacks (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

and be back ten minutes later like always. But not before taking some of you with me!NoNameMaddox (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP and the reference

I find it a little disengenuous for anyone to remove text from the article on the claim that there was no working link in the reference when indeed there was. Were that a valid reason, I would refer you to WP:DEADREF, which has detailed information on dealing with a dead link, none of which include removing it first. Removing it on grounds of WP:BLP was invalid. The subject of the article has been dead for 18 years and the person who called the show was not identified. What is wrong with removing the word "aimless" yourself, Squeakbox, if you object to it? It took more effort to write your edit summary than it would have to change one word. Meanwhile, there is no precedent for including a BLP tag on an article for a person dead nearly two decades. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Your anti BLP stance and reverting text that fails to match the refs you are using is disturbing. You are not dealing with Col Scott here. Any article that mentions a living person is subject to BLP, to claim otherwise is disengenuous. And there is all the precedent in the world for tagging any article that mentions a living person as BLP. And I suggest you desist from griping at others because they don't do your work for you. We are volunteers here, not paid subordinates. Get a grip. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was clear that I wasn't dealing with ColScott himself. Please be so good as to dial back your presumptiousness, there is a decided lack of civility in your comments and a great deal of contentiousness. Don't make conclusions regarding someone's stance. Content in an article about a living person may fall under WP:BLP, but when the article is about a dead person, there is no precedence for tagging the entire article as a BLP concern. You are splitting hairs - is that because you acted first and didn't check whether the link was indeed dead? As for the accusation of griping because you didn't do my work? It's a community article, therefore statements such as this ref leads to a dead link so removing unreferenced material too, please do re-add with a reliable source and it does not mention the word aimless you need to rewrite the text to match the source have much less the air of collaborative effort and much more the air of an order from the boss. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing the BLP flag

I'm removing the BLP flag. All articles, insofar as they mention living persons, must conform to WP:BLP. However, this does not mean that the "living" flag is suitable for articles where a living person is mentioned. Don't edit war over this, please. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)