User talk:Esoxlucios
I am going to remove your addition, once again, because it does not meet the requirements of our biography of living persons policy. Information added to biographical articles must use reliable sources that meet our verifiability policy. You are sourcing this addition to a blog, which does not constitute a reliable source here on Wikipedia. As well, the external link you are adding is clearly an advocacy page that does not meet the requirements for editorial oversight. I am going to cross-post this to the talk page of the article, Esoxlucios, so that everyone will see that the same standards apply to all. Risker (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Response from Esoxlucios: I am amending my addition, citing sources that meet the requirements of our biography of living persons policy, which sources must be reliable sources that meet the verifiability policy. In this instance, it is improper to state that Nottingham was regarded as a thoughtful jurist with a brilliant legal mind, yet disregard that he was equally regarded as a despotic tyrant by many members of the legal community in Denver and which information is equally reported by those same reliable sources.
In addition, the external link[1] that I added --regardless of the viewpoint of the site owner-- collects actual case documents, filings, articles and other memoranda that are either original or true and accurate copies and, therefore, is a valid historical source. Esoxlucios (talk) Further, I would add the the external link has been regarded as a "quality source" by the main steam media. See, e.g., http://chieftain.com/articles/2008/10/31/news/denver_bureau/doc490ad23327901153763439.txt; http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=102294&catid=339; http://cbs4denver.com/local/Nottingham.prostitution.edward.2.852629.html; and http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78975 to name a few.
3RR edit war on Edward Nottingham
You seem to be about to breach the WP:3RR policy on Edward Nottingham. Please find consensus for your changes before inserting them in the article. Editors who breach the 3RR policy may be blocked from editing. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Response from Esoxlucios
I have read the WP:3RR policy and am not persuaded. My edits have been guided by WP:BRD, where editors are exhorted to "not accept 'Policy,' 'consensus,' or 'procedure' as valid reasons for a revert." Pursuant to BRD, warring editors are encouraged to find consensus through discussion and persuasion, rather than threats, harassment and indefensible reverting.
For some inexplicable reason, two or three editors of this page seem determined to reduce all negative information (limited to "allegations") about this former to judge to a "criticism" section, yet include subjective positive statements about him in the biography section. For example, while one of the reversion comments by Martinphi claims, "it's obvious the quotes were cherry picked for negativity," it's equally true that the extant quote, "He was referred to as 'one of the best legal minds on the bench'," was cherry-picked. I am not clear on why this double standard is being insisted upon.
The latter quote is not only not an objective statement, it is not representative of Nottingham's reputation in the Denver legal community, of which I am a member: For every attorney who states that Nottingham was a brilliant jurist, you will find another who will say that he was a despotic tyrant. Often, attorneys may say both. Not one link, resource or comment in this article in its present form provides even a scintilla of a suggestion as to Nottingham's true reputation in the legal community. As such, it is an inaccurate portrayal. If you want the biography to be faithful to the truth, you need to include all reasonable perspectives or include no perspectives at all.
Conflict of interest?
On doing some review of your contributions and the "Know your courts" website, it was noted that the website contains some documents originating from a person with an email address that contains your username. (I am not being more specific in order to protect your identity and prevent spam from going to the email address.) This raises the question of whether you are adding links to your own personal website.
Please read our guidelines on conflict of interest and use of external links. All editors are expected to abide by these guidelines. If you are, as I expect, associated with the "Know your courts" website, then you should not be adding links to it into articles. You may post a link on the talk page of the target article, inquiring if other editors believe it will be useful; if independent third parties believe it will be, then they may add the link.
I will keep this talk page on my watchlist, in case you have any questions. Risker (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Response from Esoxlucios:
May I suggest changing your userName from Risker to Sherlock? Of course KnowYourCourts.com is my Web site; there has been no deception on my part. However, irrespective of
the Web site's ownership or whether my opinion may be found somewhere thereon (either as site editor or merely an anonymous contributor), the Web site is a historical reference of case filings, memoranda, complaints, including articles that have been removed from the Web. No subjective preference has been given for which articles to post --if an article was written about Nottingham, it is published on the page. For that reason alone, it is an appropriate resource for this article and especially for any individual wishing to undertake further research. As noted above, the site is regarded as a reliable source by members of the main stream media.
You have not provided any authority or persuasive argument for why I "should not be adding links to [my Web site] into the article." The conflict of interest sets forth that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I am not promoting my "own interests," but rather am linking to an undeniably comprehensive information source as noted above, where visitors are still encouraged to form their own opinion.
As I intimated above (yesterday), I am perplexed why several editors believe that a biography should contain only adulation. For example "He was referred to as 'one of the best legal minds on the bench'" is a cherry-picked quote that is not representative of Nottingham's reputation in Denver. For every attorney who states that he was a brilliant jurist, you will find another who will say that he was a despotic tyrant. Often, attorneys may say both. Not one link, resource or comment in this article in its present form provides even a scintilla of a suggestion as to Nottingham's true reputation in the legal community. As such, it is not faithful to the truth.
Sorry, but no
Clearly you have misunderstood. Discussion means that people have an opportunity to respond. Eight hours is not enough time for that, especially on a weekend night. Two to three days is more reasonable. There is no deadline for this information to be in the article. More particularly, you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest in inserting links to your own website; please do not do that again, or I will have to consider having it added to the Spam blacklist.
Continue to discuss on the talk page, workshopping what you propose to add to the article. There are indeed other editors interested in the subject, you just have to give them a chance to speak up. A few hours is not sufficient.
Response from Esoxlucios:
Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why my proposed edits --whether additions or subtractions-- have been undone immediately (sometimes as quickly as three minutes) by the same person who insisted that I should discuss here first. Said differently, that person has declined the opportunity to discuss but is quick with the Undo button. If there are others here willing to engage in discourse, I'm all ears.
Although my motives have been questioned in bad faith by another editor, my objective is to help ensure that this biography is faithful to the truth about the subject of the article, whether that truth is good, bad or indifferent.
Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward Nottingham. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Famspear (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Edward Nottingham#Proposed edit by Esoxlucios
I have started a section for people to discuss your proposed edit. Please give this discussion a few days to run, while others have a chance to participate; I'd suggest at least until Wednesday night, given that most Americans will be somewhat distracted on Tuesday. It's entirely possible that you will quickly get agreement to add your proposed edit (or a modified version of it) very quickly. The objective here is to work together, and to understand that there is no deadline. Risker (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)