Talk:Roy DeCarava

message: I have protected this page from editing because there is a dispute about the contents of the "Biography" section of the article.  Those that are involved and also uninvolved editors are encouraged to discuss here potential content of the article.  Once consensus is reached, the article can be unprotected and edited accordingly.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that there's a dispute, a single account has repeatedly blanked the article, despite attempts to communicate with them. And the account in question is now blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've protected the page because the recent edits are apparently the result of a "real-world" dispute related to the biography of the subject of this article.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Please explain what it is you are trying to correct. This page has been repeatedly vandalized by blanking, and our attempts to contact the user(s) involved have been unsuccessful. We can't fix it if we don't know what's broken. You can also send a request via email here: Wikipedia:Contact us §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: No, the article was cleared of all biographical content several times and left empty. And at least one of the accounts had the same family name as the subject (and you?). I attempted to reason with them assuming there was a serious problem with the content, but I never received a reply. So I ask again, what exactly is the problem? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: OK. I'm not sure what you mean by the "last sdbkny edit", since most of the last edits were disruptive and made by the account in question or IPs. We could ask for the page to be unprotected and you can edit the article, keeping in mind that all the information should be properly sourced. Or, if there is a specific part of the article you have issues with, we can take a look at them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Most of the issues I addressed in this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roy_DeCarava&diff=541752663&oldid=541667059) are again part of the article and should be fixed.  TheMindsEye (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In your opinion is that the version we should revert back to? I don't have a problem going back in time, very few of the intervening edits have much value anyway. If you think that's the version we should go back to then by all means let's. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have requested that the page be unprotected. As soon as that happens I will restore the revision in question. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that is a consensus version.  That revision contains the content which User:Leslie Roy DeCarava disputed.  After I blocked them from editing, this editor contacted me by email describing that content as incomplete and inaccurate.  It is also almost entirely unreferenced.  I encouraged this editor to contribute to the discussion here, but there hasn't been any response.  Consequently, I will unprotect the article, since the dispute doesn't appear to be active at this point. But I would highly recommend instead of reverting to the old version, that only content that can be supported by reliable sources be added back in.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with the article the way it is now, since it's no better really than what we had before the bio section started to get blanked. I'd much rather the current version gets worked on so we avoid going back in time, although most of those revisions were vandalism anyway. As to , you are free to edit the article, keeping in mind our guidelines on conflict of interest and policy on biographies (I understand Mr. Carava is deceased, however most of that still applies). Feel free to ask for help if you get stuck. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection