Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and warn. Not only is the consensus to delete, but this page, as well as his 'Archive 2' violate wiki policies on subpages, webhosting, and referencing. Both pages delete. User warned not to continue such behavior. Link to the online Guardian articles is best way to handle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3

Page being used for soapboxing and as a self-reference for COI/POV edits in Wikipedia articles by PJHaseldine. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Note case history of COI edits on this page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 is solely for the purpose of improving the Patrick Haseldine article, where all COI/POV edits have ceased following an intervention earlier this year by Administrator EdJohnston. The conspiracy theory edit is not soapboxing but is currently under discussion at User talk:PJHaseldine#Conspiracy theories and your namesake.PJHaseldine (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Note also this external Internet link pointing to a section on this page page that then redirects to the above archive. (Wikipedia is not your web host) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - first and foremost WP is not a webhost. Also, all sources for articles must be independently published and reliable. Some letters in userspace most certainly do not fit these criteria. Improving the article is good, but it must be done using proper sourcing, and having a COI is not a good idea, especially in potentially controversial cases such as this one. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:51, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Fully agree that WP is not a webhost and that sources must be reliable and independently published. User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 is meant to supplement the published source by providing a wikifiable accompanying text for my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988 and for my subsequent letters published in the The Guardian that are referenced here.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep PJHaseldine gives a valid rationale for having this page in his userspace. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Someone will have to explain to me how his rationale is valid --Enric Naval (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've been asked to reconsider. The issue in this discussion is unusual. I assumed that the normal permission to maintain user subpages within reasonable discretion could apply here because PJHaseldine said he was using it to try to improve the article. Having skimmed the page itself from top to bottom (which I didn't do before now), I see that this page is being used to copy primary-source material that should normally be hosted outside of Wikipedia. I'm still not convinced that deletion is a required outcome, but it is a reasonable outcome. Yechiel (Shalom) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete If I understand correctly, you are saying that the published content consists of letters that you sent to the editor. Sorry for being harsh, but wikipedia is not a webhost for keeping a wikified OR post that you happen to need on wiki format, just so you can complement your blog. If this is encyclopaedic content, then please put into an article and then have your blog redirect there. If not, it should be deleted, and you should find a wiki intended for posting personal stuff that you need on wiki format. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Sorry my earlier comment was not clearer. My letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988 already features in the Patrick Haseldine article but without any wikifiable text. To remedy this situation, I suggested at Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Suggested improvements that Wikipedia editors might wish to use User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 as a quarry to insert a suitably wikified text of the December 1988 letter, as well as the text of some or all of the later Guardian letters. Being the subject of the Patrick Haseldine article, I am abiding by COI in not editing the article myself but am seeking to facilitate its editing by others.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment If other editors thought this content notable, they would have included it by now. However the opposite has happened, as the content of these letters has been removed following the Mr Haseldine's COI block on his article. Consequently, there are currently no links on Wikipedia to the text of these letters, and despite recent attempts to link them, other editors have reverted these attempts. Currently, the only links to this page are from the Internet, hence Wikipedia is not your web host Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Socrates2008 is wrong. There are at least two links on Wikipedia to the text of these letters — see Margaret Thatcher#South African controversy (Reference № 43) and Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#1983–1987 (Reference № 10). I agree that two archives on Talk:Patrick Haseldine which had been externally linked to the Internet in January were both, for that reason, MfD'd in February. Those empty archives were finally removed from the talk page today by Checkeroffacts. I also completely agree that Wikipedia is not my web host because there are no Internet links to my userspace User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3, which continues to be available to Wikipedia editors who wish to improve the article, as per Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Suggested improvements.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• And I have removed those links. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia articles. John Nevard (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• I and others keep removing them too, however as long as this page exists, he continues to "reference" it from Wikipedia articles, even though he's an experienced editor who knows full well not to use self referencing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Despite this deletionist behaviour by John Nevard and yesterday's rather strange suggestion from Socrates2008, the two Wikipedia articles Margaret Thatcher#South African controversy and Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#1983–1987 remain linked to User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There's no question that the content of the letters is relevant to current disputes on Wikipedia articles, even though the editor in question is (apparently; I haven't checked his contribution list in detail) no longer violating WP:COI. I don't see how this is any more harmful to Wikipedia than a certain POV warrior on category:child abuse articles putting up copyright violations on his own personal web site and then linking to them, which has been considered acceptable in an RfAr. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Huh... I don't understand. The image is stored and the text are both stored on wikipedia servers, it has nothing to do with copyvios hosted on external servers. I don't know how it applies to this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no copyvio on Wikipedia or on external servers. I own the copyright of the letters that I sent for publication in The Guardian and am entitled to wikify the text of the letters in my userspace User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 — see [1].PJHaseldine (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In summary, multiple recent examples of how this talk page is being used to push an agenda on Wikipedia by intentionally introducing self references to self-published material, thereby effectively working around a COI ban: 1 2 3 4 Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Originally I had thought that this material an innocent record of past User Talk discussions. But from Patrick's comments just above I see that he intends to keep linking to it from main space articles. It is not appropriate to put links to User Talk in Wikipedia articles, so I believe we need to do whatever is necessary to stop this. I also perceive that he has recently added a link to this User Talk material in the article Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Patrick's editing of articles to add statements about his own activities I believe is contrary to a past understanding under which he avoided COI by only editing Talk pages (not articles) in matters concerning himself. I hope that others will remove the material he has just added at Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. If the behavior continues, a posting to one of the administrative noticeboards may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What I added to the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher#1983–1987 and Margaret Thatcher#South African controversy was the actual image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988. I accept that my adding references to the Thatcher articles could be seen as a COI activity but fail to see how inserting the image which illustrates the existing text of the article can be construed in this way. I should be obliged if you would reconsider your vote.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. At best this is a misguided violation, but a violation nonetheless, of the Wikipedia:Subpages guideline and at worst an "end run" around other policies or closer scrutiny by other editors. — Deon Steyn (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What violation have I committed by inserting into the two Thatcher articles the actual image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988?PJHaseldine (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you have not left it up to others to decide whether your letter to the Guardian in 1988 was a major event of Margaret Thatcher's tenure in office. You have acted as the judge of your own importance. It is also doubtful that you have copyright permission for that image; photographing a page from a newspaper doesn't give you copyright on what it contains. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgment of the importance of my letter in the two Margaret Thatcher articles had already been made by other Wikipedia editors. I simply added the image to the articles, for which I am the copyright holder (see "Fair use rationale"PJHaseldine (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your image of the Guardian page includes an unsigned article by the Guardian reporter (just under the headline). A Foreign Office official has accused Mrs. Thatcher of "self-righteous invective".. Do you have a copyright release from the Guardian for that article? EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The front-page headline FO official calls Thatcher stance 'self-righteous' quite clearly credits the piece to Richard Norton-Taylor who has summarised my letter which appears on page 22. I claim copyright also of Mr Norton-Taylor's summary of my letter.PJHaseldine (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It has never been acceptable practice to link to information contained in user spaces as references for articles, and I do not believe there's sufficient cause to allow otherwise in this case. It's also a violation of COI, since PJHaseldine should ideally not be editing anything with regards to entries referencing him on Wikipedia. If he wishes that the letter be made available as a reference, the correct approach is to host it elsewhere (assuming he owns the copyright; in the case of the specific image it's rather dubious), let that be known on the article talk pages and leave it to other editors to decide whether to include it or not. — Impi (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: What started as an MfD discussion about referencing me or my letter to The Guardian has moved on. It is now about the use on Wikipedia of the actual image of my letter published in The Guardian on 7 December 1988, of which I am the copyright holder. I have wikified the text of this letter to my userspace User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3, where I wish it to remain.PJHaseldine (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: No, the vote here is for deletion of this talk page which is being used to avoid a COI ban. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.