Talk:International Fortean Organisation

message: I really don't know what is going on with the edits here. This edit  removes my wikify notice and actually de-wikifies the entry turning it into a real mess. There are a series of reverts going on here and we are getting to the point of WP:3RR. If there are copyright violations please point me to the site and if there are issues then remove the offending text don't just drop something else in. (Emperor 12:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Emperor, while your editorial efforts are appreciated, you rv the article to an older version which immediately brought up advertising and copyright flags which the current version did, and does, not.  See the organization's website perhaps.  More information on Charles Fort does need to be added along with material on Tiffany Thayer and the Fortean Society.  The current version, while brief, is referenced.  Since you list yourself as being connected to the UnCon and the FT's website perhaps an inadvertant non NPOV is in play here and your revert edit looks like a rvv. SageMab 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My efforts are purely to improve this entries (and other Fortean ones) - I can assure you there is no NPOV issue here (in fact I am unsure if I am being accused of being biased for or against INFO with my edits) - my main concern is that this entry kept being put back to a version that was only unwikifying it but also making a real mess of it. So my concerns are largely on the formatting front. If there is content you object to then remove it and work within the current article rather than dropping some other badly formatted version in. This entry needs wikifying, it also needs editting to be more neutral. If you are concerned about my edits then I can ask someone from the Paranormal Project to take a look over things and give a second opinion. (Emperor 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this page 

message: Thanks Emperor your points are well taken.  You were not being accused of anything but in your edit you had added material from the organizations' website which could be misconstrued as advertising or maybe a copyright violation of their site.  Since you are from a sister/brother organization to INFO you might be thought of as not having NPOV but, if it is, it is not meant to be not a non NPOV by you as I do not question your good intentions.  Your editing efforts are appreciated.  The article still needs links to Heinlein, Robert Anton Wilson, Philip K. DIck, Keel, Thayer, Fortean Society, Fate.
````SageMab
:I'm afraid you give me too much credit - I don't know what the relationship is between FT and INFO and I don't really know enough about INFO to contribute much more than general advice on structure, formatting, etc. I've done a bit of formatting and added some links. My main suggestion would be to try and trim down some of the details (I don't think we need to know about all their changes of address for example) and there are a lot of statements made which will need sourcing to satisfy verifiability. Note also that notability also needs to be addressed using independent reliable sources. I'd rather this was addressed now as it is probable passing editors might flag this and that gets to be a bit of a pain (and can leave the entry open to being put up for deletion, which would be a shame). I'll keep an eye open for possible sources. (Emperor 02:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this article continued 

message: Why is it appropriate to include postal addresses in this article? Why is it appropriate to list all these people? Reads like name-dropping. In fact the whole article appears to be written as an ad for this organisation. Yes I'm sure someone can claim every sentence is a "fact", but just being true doesn't make it NPOV - a POV can be pushed by choosing some "facts" and not others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.29.253 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we have to assume good faith. On the specific points I don't see a big problem with the address they need only look on the website for it (although there might be a policy on this - there is one on everything after all!!). The names seem fine - I find such information very useful as it helps you assess things based on the people speaking (how important they are and the fields they cover). My only niggle would be it is a big long list of names, which doesn't make for good reading, and it might be worth reformatting it as an actual list under a new section and that way you can add in extra information on what their talks were about which would make it even more useful. (Emperor 12:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare Beef