Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 2

message: Please review WP:BLP.  All content about living persons must have a verifiable source.  "Bloggingbaby.com" does not meet the criteria.  Removed content is not here, per WP:Attribution.  Joie de Vivre 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, This information was provided in the Discovery Health show 16 kids and Pregnant Again, which featured the Duggar family. Michelle and Jim Bob both discuess how they met, married and the use of birth control in the beginning of their relationship. 67.183.159.230 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but AFAIK, videos are not attributable.  Joie de Vivre 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced content

message: These were just kind of floating in the ref section.  Not sure what statements they are verifying.  Please source statements correctly. 
*September 2003 Parent Magazine
*5 May 2004 CBS News Interview
-- Joie de Vivre 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed references

message: Multiple editors continue to add unattributed content to this biographical article, even after it is removed with explanation.  Please review the official Wikipedia policy at WP:Biographies of living persons for explanation of why unattributed content cannot be included.  Please review the WP:Manual of style and especially WP:Attribution before making changes to this article.  Joie de Vivre 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official policies concerning content

message: 3) Per the WP:Manual of style:
*Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized.  
*References go outside punctuation, not inside.
The version to which you keep reverting reinstates all of these errors, which took me a long time to fix.  Joie de Vivre 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax/ Grammar/ Etc ( wording )

message: U added links to prostelyzing, contraception, etc. This page was just for info about the Duggars having alot of kids. MAny ppl come here after watching Disc & TLC ch specials about their large families. But now u've made it in2 a page that is preaching ministry &/or advocates the bible.  Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: U Added Religious References

message: I am coming to this debate with absolutely no previous knowledge of the subject so I hope to be able to provide unbiased insights.   After reviewing the two versions of the article, one by Lilkunta and the other by Joie de Vivre, it appears to me that Joie de Vivre’s version most closely complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines in regards to style and WP:NPOV as well as presenting the information in a more encyclopedic manner.  As someone unfamiliar with the subject I did not find the links to Christian views on contraception or proselytizing to present a POV slanted toward the Bible or Christianity but rather an attempt, as most links are, to allow the reader to gain additional understanding of the reference if they should be unfamiliar with the subject.
I think that both sides should adhere to the ideal that the edits being made are being done in good faith and without a hidden agenda.  It seems to me that a request to honor another editor’s work by preserving as much of it as possible in revisions is not unreasonable.  Rather than editing by using a blanket reversion instead consider adding any new material to the latest version of the article and only deleting or changing the material that you find objectionable.
I urge both disputing parties to put aside their differences and come together in an attempt to provide an article that is encyclopedic in scope, verifiably referenced in compliance with the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and neutral in tone.
I would be willing to act as an unoffical mediator if acceptable to both parties.--Ulysses411 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be glad to allow you to mediate any ensuing discussion.  Thank you for offering your help!  As I said earlier, I encourage Lilkunta and everyone else to add any material that they feel is missing, as long as that material meets WP policy and style guidelines.  Again, thanks.  Joie de Vivre 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I reverted Lilkunta's recent changes, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (quoting):
:# "Answer a post underneath it: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. The one at the bottom is the latest. (Do not intersperse your comments within the comments of others.)
:# "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."
::* "Don't praise in headings: You may wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit!
::*"Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.
::* "Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.  
All editors should be aware of (and follow) these guidelines.  Joie de Vivre 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask Lilkunta to observe Talk page guidelines and stop placing their editorial comments inside my comments.  I am not trying to "censor" them by moving the comments, I am trying to maintain the readability of the page.  I would not edit their comments at all if they would just place their comments at the bottom, underneath all of the previously-posted comments in the section.  I also want to ask Lilkunta to stop removing the indentation of the paragraphs.  Indentation is used to make it easier to differentiate between the comments of different editors.  Joie de Vivre 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend ceasing to deal directly with the disruptive user—no more reverts of reverts, etc.  Instead, give your attention to structured processes which are conducted with civility and have administrative oversight.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted changes to Talk page

message: I reverted Lilkunta's changes, as above, because they reinstated several things which are either strongly discouraged or outright prohibited.  See this diff for the explanation of my changes.  Joie de Vivre 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask Lilkunta to observe Talk page guidelines and stop placing their editorial comments inside my comments.  I am not trying to "censor" them by moving the comments, I am trying to maintain the readability of the page.  I would not edit their comments at all if they would just place their comments at the bottom, underneath all of the previously-posted comments in the section.  I also want to ask Lilkunta to stop removing the indentation of the paragraphs.  Indentation is used to make it easier to differentiate between the comments of different editors.  Joie de Vivre 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted changes to Talk (2nd time)

message: See above.  Joie de Vivre 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend ceasing to deal directly with the disruptive user—no more reverts of reverts, etc.  Instead, give your attention to structured processes which are conducted with civility and have administrative oversight.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted changes to Talk (3rd time)

message: I would like to recommend that both of you take a break from editing the Jim Bob Duggar page and its associated talk page for 5 days as a cooling off period.  Both of you seem emotionally invested in the article at the moment and I think a break will help calm things down.  While this break is going on I will post a request for review both with the Mediation Cabal members as well as to members of the Wikipedia Biography group.  Hopefully these impartial editors will be able to offer insights into the article and perhaps another editor will make changes to the article during the break that will satisfy both of you.  If during this break you feel the need to address your concerns further please post them on the case page.  So for clarity since people from different time zones are involved please refrain from further edits, reversions and comments until Sunday, April 8th.--Ulysses411 04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Joie de Vivre 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amendment: I did not attempt to delete what they said but instead added a note about how I did not in fact make that comment here.  Joie de Vivre 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a break

message: I just want to state my support for User:Athaenara's recent rewrite of the article which occurred in the interim period.  Thank you, Ulysses411, for mediating between myself and User:Lilkunta.  As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved.  Joie de Vivre 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad I could be of assistance.  I will go ahead and close the case today.  Should new issues arise feel free to contact the Mediation Cabal again.--Ulysses411 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, I will.  Joie de Vivre 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite