Talk:Ken Anderson (quarterback)

message: The article may be improved by following the WPBiogaphy 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: Having just experienced instant deletion of all my expository details about an athlete (Ken Anderson, pro quarterback) before finishing them (mine were additions, not modifications, or changes), I can see that a judgment finding some of the wording "personal," "subjective" and therefore "non-original research" would apply (though perhaps not to every word), but the quickness of the action suggests a violation of the "potentially libelous" charge.  If so, I'm clueless without some indication of the words that might provoke litigation against Wikipedia or this author.   (For my own protection, maybe I'd better learn what they are.)
*My question concerns whether Wikipedia itself can be considered and used as an acceptable source in some instances.  (For example, my comments included some links to other entries in Wikipedia that would have supported the substance of certain claims and/or assumptions.)
*A secondary question would be the appropriateness of citing Wikipedia precedents as justification for the author's additions.  (For example, the intact sentence by another contributor--"The media did not like [the athlete in question]"--is a very general and possibly subjective assertion that would seem to call for explanation (which I provided before the deletion of my words only.)  I realize that this sort of "he did it--why can't I?" kind of argument could become an ultimately thankless, inexhaustible sort of "game" between contributor and the patrolling, or monitoring Wikipedia volunteer, ultimately trying everyone's patience.  (Consequently, I can accept the deletion of one of my entries on the grounds of its not meeting the "noteworthiness" test even though I've encountered individuals who actually "boast" about their inclusion in Wikipedia when my familiarity with the individual testifies, unmistakably, to the contrary.)
In conclusion, I'm humbled by my assignment to "Start" status, especially at my age, and will read the recommended pages of regulations, requirements, criteria carefully.  At this stage, I wonder if the "Original Research" prohibition, while understandable in the whole, might be overly astringent and counter-productive in some cases.  I'm not a historian (literature, the arts, rhetoric are my areas).  Still, the close, extensive, personal observations of an individual--or the revelations and discoveries possible only through "oral history"--can contain knowledge and truth (not merely "information" and "facts") leading to a depth and breadth of understanding not possible through reliance on the most "objective" secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caponsacchi (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:OR for your answers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected contribution  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion