User talk:Filbert007

This is Filbert007's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography) (May 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nthep was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Peter Wyngarde instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

If the current article has issues then please take them to the article talk page Talk:Peter Wyngarde and discuss them.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nthep (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wyngarde

I appreciate what you are trying to do but you are going about it the wrong way. There is a cycle on Wikipedia called Bold, Revert, Discuss You've made edits to the article on Peter, they have been reverted by others so now you need to discuss them at Talk:Peter Wyngarde saying what is wrong, why, what is correct and providing reliable sources that justify what you say. At the moment you seem to be replacing content which appears to be reliably sourced with "this is what Peter's version of events are" and that isn't acceptable. The article is a biography not a hagiography, it needs to be balanced and the content accurate even if the subject finds some of it uncomfortable reading. Nthep (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what you might think I am trying to help but you want to have a discussionabout content and I don't, I'm just interested in the process of making it happen correctly. I have made a note at WP:BLPN where others more interested in the content than I can help. Nthep (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep's right. I'd also like to let you know that creating a second article of something already on wikipedia is considered Content Forking and it's really something we avoid. Also, since no one person owns an article you might want to re-write this post , it gives the impression that you're making a legal threat, and on Wikipedia Legal threats are expressly forbidden and can get you blocked. Essentially, on an article that's about a living person, Wikipedia requests that anything said about an individual have reliable sources behind it to back it up, for that reason, it's pretty hard for people that actually know the person in question to partcipate, because they'll invariably know things about the person that have not been reported reliably. Why not take a break from that article, edit others, get more familiar with how things are done here, then come back. Since you obviously know this person, it would be good to have you in as an editor. KoshVorlon 16:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KoshVorlon: from the discussion on my talk page I see the legal issues as the right to vanish from search engines under EU law, nothing directly against WP. Nthep (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, the last two phrases:

We currently have four more ‘Incidents’ pending (Refs: 9267494628489; 8364293-034736; 32649036575 & 1193774526489) with online search engines etc., and are also in the process of preparing libel cases against two prominent authors. We will be requesting that Wikipedia also remove any reference to this incident without delay. While we don’t wish to go down that route in this instance, we will if necessary.

Once again, if you’re able to provide more detailed and verifiable source material than you have listed at present, or if you’re able to dispel anything or all of the information/source material used and l listed in our biography, then you’ll hear no more from either Mr Wyngarde or I. Otherwise, we’ll have no alternative but to insist that the offending material is removed.Our legal adviser has suggested that we give you 7 days from today’s date to consider whether you intend to stand by your Article. Otherwise, you should allow our version of this biography to stand.

Create a chilling effect and give the effect that this individual is looking to persue legal action which is expressly forbidden. That's what I was referring to when I made mention of WP:NLT. I'd re-write that if I were him. KoshVorlon 18:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Filbert007 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your response. This is a difficult situation for Mr Wyngarde, which I hope you'll appreciate when I explain.[reply]

We have seen on more than one occasion that journalists working on behalf of major national (British) newspapers have relied on your biography, with all its inaccuracies, when preparing editorials about Mr Wyngarde. This misleading article is therefore being repeated again and again, causing untold distress, both to Mr Wyngarde, and his family and friends. To allow this offensive piece to remain on line any longer serves only to increase the likelihood of it being used by other lazy journalists still further in future. I find it quite unbelievable that anyone could even CONTEMPLATE trying to defend this article when it's obviously causing so much damage - both personally and professionally. Even the author of this 'biography' has admitted that they have little faith in the sources on which they rely. That speaks volumes! With these kind of standards and values, it's hardly surprising that Wikipedia has become a byword for unreliability. I'm disgusted and you should be ashamed! At least you should have the decency to post a warning on the page advising readers that they're being fed a fairytale - and a dangerous one at that! Filbert007

Filbert007, please sign your posts by type 4 tildes at the end of your post ( ~~~~ ), also please carefully read our guidelines for any article about a living person , we take it pretty seriously over here, the first and foremost guideline is that the article contain reliable sources for any claim made, otherwise anyone can remove that claim. I do see one claim with IMDB as a reference, and that claim fails as a reliable source and it will be pruned out. The rest appears to be reliable, by comparison, your draft article has 9 sources.
* Your first source uses Original research in an attempt to debunk a reliable source, which is not allowed in Wikipedia at all.
* Source 2 is again, reliable, but once again, OR is used to contradict a reliable source, as above , this can't be done.
*Source 3, is a reliable publisher, parent company is Random house, also a reliable company, and you , yet again contradict a reliable source with OR.
* Source 4 is total OR and can't be used.
* Source 5 is also OR (personal corespondence is not considered Reliable sources in Wikipedia.
* Source 6, same as above.
* Source 7 is actually reliable.
* Source 8 is reliable but what it's trying to source can't be sourced just by the CD.
* Source 9 is the Peter Wyngarde appreciation society, which is a | facebook page , facebook also fails WP:RS.

You went through a lot of trouble to source what you believe is true, however, almost all of your sources fail WP:RS and couldn't be used, the sources on the current Peter Wyngarde article (except for the one I just mentioned ) are reliable sources. Wikipedia stresses reliable sources, especially on article that involve living people. Please take a break from this article, you're very involved as as such, believe that what you know supercedes reliable sources (you said so repeatedly in the draft article you set up in the reference section. I'd hate to see you blocked, topic banned or have any other action taken against you because you insist that you know the truth and know one else does. KoshVorlon 15:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filbert, I'm not sure how many more times I have to say this, I am not the author of the article. I agreed that one reference appears to be unreliable to me but I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I offered no opinion on the rest, so please do not use phrases like "even the author of this biography has admitted that they have little faith in the source they have used" when it not a correct statement with regard to authorship or veracity. Nthep (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. Wikipedia use a different language to the rest of us. I shall describe you as 'Not the 'Author', but the person who wrote the biography'. Is that acceptable?! May I reply to the above re. Facebook. I was not using Facebook as a source, but was merely pointing out that Not the 'Author', but the person who wrote this biography is incorrect in describing the Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society as being "defunct". It is not. Just another inaccuracy to be considered! I've tried to reason with WP, but I now realise that this can't be done whilst you doggedly defend this atrocious article. The matter is now in the hands of our legal people. Filber007

if you insist on singling me out then you can describr me as one editor out of 225 people who has edited the page and made two edit out of the 428 edits made to the page, neither of them substantial. I am really sorry that you cannot grasp this concept of collegiate editing. Nthep (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

You have been reported at WP:AN by a user, for making legal threats. See WP:NLT for more, as this is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information

The right to be forgotton law does not apply to wikipedia - not because it is in the US, but because RTBF only applies to search engines, not websites that host content. So while google, bing etc could be compelled to remove links to Mr Wyngarde's biography here, Wikipedia itself cannot be compelled (absent proof the information is incorrect) to remove it. If you wish more (and accurate) information regarding this, I suggest you read columns by the BBC.com tech editor where he explains articles he has written have been unlinked by google but the BBC is under no obligation to take them down. Regarding the conviction, I have removed the information on the basis I feel it is WP:UNDUE in a biography, however I cannot keep it out as it is reliably sourced and does not violate any of our crime-related policies (I checked) and is compliant with the BLP policy. Should consensus amongst editors be to re-include the material because they feel it is *not* undue, it will stay there until a new consensus forms. Either way, this is not something that the RTBF law applies to, as again, that is for search engines not content websites. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:No legal threats ("NLT"). This block is not a judgment on the merits or otherwise of your complaint about the article. it is simply because, for the reasons given NLT, making legal threats such as "The matter is now in the hands of our legal people" is incompatible with being allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. If you retract all threats of legal action or involvement, then any administrator may unblock you without further reference to me if they see fit to do so. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography)

Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:WYNGARDE PETER (Authorised Biography) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KoshVorlon 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Filbert007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to appeal against the ban that’s been placed on me for challenging erroneous content in a biography about a Living Person. The article concerns the British actor, Peter Wyngarde.

I’ve been a very close friend of Mr Wyngarde for almost 30 years, and have been Secretary of his Official Appreciation Society for 25 of those years.

Recently, the aforementioned ‘Biography’, which was written by Nthep, came to Mr Wyngarde’s attention. A number of inaccuracies were identified in the piece, which were as follows:

1. Peter Wyngarde’s Date of Birth. 2. Statement concerning Mr Wyngarde’s ‘supposed’ homosexuality and ‘assumed’ relationship with the actor, Alan Bates. 3. The nick-name, ‘Petunia Winegum’.

Additional Points.

A. The Author’s claim that Mr Wyngarde had worked in Germany. B. The assertion that The Hellfire Club – The Official Peter Wyngarde Appreciation Society is “defunct”.

Since I believed I was entitled under Wikipedia rules, I attempted to edit the passages listed above, but Nthep merely reverted the Page back to its original form and warned me off. I then wrote a far more detailed and accurate version of the biography and submitted it for review. It was rejected because, “there is already a biography about this person on Wikipedia”. It was suggested that I discuss my objections with the original author using the ‘Talk’ page.

I contacted Nthep, and listed (as above) all the sections in his editorial that I knew to be incorrect, and give details of why they were incorrect. I offered to forward independent corroborating evidence to both support my contentions and to dispel his, but he declined to look at it. A Third Party then joined the fray. He suggested that I stepped back from this issue for a while, and try editing other articles. Since there are no other articles on Wikipedia that I know of that maligns and/or misrepresents Mr Wyngarde in this way, I saw no point in undertaking such a task.

Whilst said Third Party insisted that Nthep was entitled to quote from an unauthorised biography, and use a newspaper article that employs the same resource as verification of his assertions I, on the other hand, was advised that I could not use Mr Wyngarde as a source to refute any assertion made by Nthep in his article. I began to wonder (with good reason, as it turned out!), if these double-standards might have anything to do with the fact that Nthep happens to be a Wikipedia Administrator(?!). i.e. Who polices the policeman!

I tried several times to convey to Nthep how damaging his biography had been to Mr Wyngarde, both personally and professionally, since several journalists had clearly used this article as a source for their own editorials. A vicious circle had been created, with the errors and distortions in Nthep’s Biography being perpetuated by journalists who are too idle to do their own research (Ouroboros).

I stated repeatedly that I didn’t wish to go down the legal route, but would have absolutely no hesitation in doing so if I felt there was no other option. When both the Author and the Third Party continued to resolutely defend this reprehensible piece in the face of irrefutable evidence, I felt that we’d reached an impasse. It was then that I decided to hand the matter over to our Legal Advisor.I was subsequently band and my ability to voice an opinion, restricted.

The Third Party described my “threat” of using the law as “chilling”. What I find far more "chilling" is that some random person, who having flicked through an unauthorised biography, and cited various pieces of Internet gossip, can cobble together a so-called “biography” and present it to a worldwide audience, then deny the subject any recourse when erroneous content was exposed. The fact that I was immediately “banned” (for ‘Banned’ read ‘silenced’!) when this defamatory article was challenged, is the most “chilling” factor of all!

It’s interesting to note that, since advising of probable legal action, the Nthep has removed large sections from his editorial, which include suppositions and potentially libelous passages that I had highlighted weeks earlier. I believe that this demonstrates without any shadow of a doubt, that my objections are justified, and that without the threat of legal intervention, both the Author and the Third Party would have merely continued to defend the indefensible! Whilst Nthep has FINALLY seen fit to remove the offending paragraphs, it begs the question: How much more of this specious article would the Author have felt obliged to remove if he’d agreed to inspect the contrasting evidence I offered to send him?

I’d also like to add that Nthep had already admitted to having doubts concerning the reliability of a document he cited giving Mr Wyngarde’s date of birth as 23/08/28. Again, I offered to share several pieces of evidence to prove the date he quoted is incorrect, yet he just disregarded them – probably because he knew he was standing on exceptionally shaky ground.

I’m truly sorry that I felt constrained to seek legal support, but it was apparent that Nthep and his Third Party adherent were steadfast in their defence of this Biography, and that in addition to quieting any dissenting voices, they had no intention whatsoever of considering any contrasting evidence. It’s now obvious following the removal of several offending passages, that this ‘Biography’ simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and that I was right to challenge its Author!

In view of the above, might I please request that the ban on me be lifted.

Filbert007 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are continuing to pursue your legal threat approach in this very unblock request, so you will not be unblocked. As for the dispute over the content, that does not belong here in an unblock request as the reviewing admin cannot decide on that - though I will caution you that subjects of Wikipedia articles do not get to write their own versions or to insist on authorizing them. If you can adequately address the actual reason for your block and get yourself unblocked, you should then follow the steps in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process to address your concerns with the article content (see WP:DR). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Can I just add that your attacks on the integrity of User:Nthep are not helping either, and I think it's far more likely that the reason Nthep helped with the article is that they took the time to review it in good faith in order to help improve it, rather than because they were afraid of your legal threats - and I also suggest that you're far more likely to get that kind of response (from volunteers, remember) by asking for help in a civil and collegial manner rather than getting all officious and threatening. You should be thanking Nthep, not attacking them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I trying again but, Filbert, I did not write the article and your insistence that I am the "Author" is a misconception that I am at a loss of how to disabuse you of the notion. This is a link to the article immediately prior to the first time you edited it on 25 May 2016. Now this is a history of all the edits made to the page since it was created in 2005. Do you see my name any earlier in the list than yours? No, you won't because I did not edit the article until such time as an edit war started when I intervened to try and stop that circle continuing. I have made precisely two edits to the page
1. To undo your concerns that the article is inaccurate asking you to deal with the matter in the way Wikipedia wants - by discussion on talk pages, and
2. this one to change some of your concerns to recognised Wikipedia templates marking disputes.
I have never edited or created the content you are concerned about and as I have told you more than once I have no opinion of the content and my concern was not what you were doing but how you were going about it. It is not me who has removed the section about the conviction but someone else, who as I predicted, thought it's inclusion as not necessary. Have I reinstated that content? Again the answer is no because I have no opinion over either it's veracity or relevance. It is correct that I doubt one of the sources - that pertaining to his date of birth - and I did suggest an alternative way of describing the difference between that and what a birth certificate might say but again I don't have the time or the interest to assess the conflicting sources to see which, if either, is reliable.
I have never doubted that your concerns are genuinely held and quite possibly correct but my attempts to assist you by describing what reliable sourcing means on Wikipedia and how to demonstrate them appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I am sorry that you have been blocked from editing, that was the one thing I set out to avoid from the beginning and as others have stated, if you are prepared to work with other editors - not me - to discuss, review and if necessary compromise on the content then there is no reason why you shouldn't be unblocked. Nthep (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]