I have reverted your blanking of this article. If you don't like an article, you can nominate it for deletion, but you should not just blank it. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're a fucking clown. Perhaps you should READ the rule that you quoted to me. I did EXACTLY what was required to this article. If I may be so bold concerning biographical information: "Poorly sourced material should be removed immediately." I'm sorry if the guy is a friend of yours, but NOTHING in that article could be verified via a legitimate source. Perhaps you should re-write it in the CORRECT fashion, and cite VERIFIABLE sources.Osirisrising (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have never heard of the guy, but if we're quoting policies:
- - WP:BLP says only "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced."
- - WP:DEL: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem" - for instance, ((verify)) or ((notability)).
- - and you could read WP:CIVIL, too.
- JohnCD (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a moot point. Someone above agreed with me. As for civility, your attitude was pompous from the word go. You OBVIOUSLY know the individual in question, otherwise you would have realized that the article in question didn't belong. Hmmm... Looks like I interpreted the Wikipedia policy CORRECTLY. Have a nice day.