Talk:Selig Percy Amoils

message: I have again removed the information copied from http://www.innovativexcimer.com/about.htm. The creator of the article wrote on my talk page:
:Information on career received from Selig Amoils via an email - does this count? Paul venter 05:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I thought I'd better point out the obvious - Selig Amoils provided the same biographical details to Innovative Excimer Solutions and myself - copying? I don't think so.  Paul venter 06:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Kindly read Wikipedia:Verifiability properly. It states quite clearly "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth. Paul venter 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key here is "reliable sources". -AED 23:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
*It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies. 
*It is relevant to the person's notability; 
*It is not contentious; 
*It is not unduly self-serving; 
*There is no reasonable doubt that it was provided by the subject'''
unquote  Paul venter 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphasizing what you quoted: "It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies" (which is also outlined in the introductory statement to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) and "It is relevant to the person's notability." -AED 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like all good pharisees you interpret the rules to suit your POV and blandly ignore all else. Paul venter 20:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've solicited other opinions and it appears that they agree with me. -AED 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: .....and therefor you must be right.....silly me!!  Paul venter 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

message: Someone asked for a third opinion at WP:3O, but it seems that someone has also asked for input via an article RFC and at the villiage pump.  I don't know what to do beyond repeating the opinions you got there, namely that the date of birth goes in parentheses after the name; and unless the e-mail from the person is published someplace it doesn't count as a reliable source. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] 

message: RE: "Scientific Progress vol 14 no. 2, 1981". This citation appears to be incomplete as I can find no such journal by this name. Removed per WP:V. -AED 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be that your resources are inadequate?.....Paul venter 20:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely that you've provided inadequate information per Wikipedia:Citing sources. -AED 04:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable source

message: I have no wish to take part in the general discussion on this article.  However, I wish to stress that it is wrong to remove properly sourced material from an article.  The suggestions that it is insensitive to record someone's Jewish ethnicity in an article, or that the subject of a biography should be consulted about its content, do not conform to Wikipedia policy.  See WP:BLP, WP:AUTO and WP:V.--Runcorn 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone considers that WP:BLP has been violated, please put a notice on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.--Runcorn 11:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing properly sourced material

message: When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.Paul venter 05:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me a source for his date of birth? If not, discussions of WP:BLP are moot. Trebor 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The date came from Amoils himself and shouldn't be challenged. Paul venter 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, if the subject supplies his DOB and says he does not mind having it on the site, and there's no reasonable doubt that it's him e-mailing then it could probably be included. But it would need to be confirmed by at least two editors - preferably directly, as a forwarded e-mail could be altered. Trebor 16:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank you Trebor for your vote of confidence in my honesty! Actually, I've grown tired of battling idiot editors - it tends to bog one down and reduces any creative output. So have fun on this page - I certainly won't be back.... Paul venter 03:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia verifiable, y'know. Nothing important. I don't quite know what you mean by "creative output", but if it means filling an article with information directly from the subject and not in a third-party source, then I think reducing this output would be a good idea. So it's nothing to do with a "vote of confidence", just ensuring that information added is accurate. Trebor 09:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth