Talk:Peter Dobbie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
England Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Peter Dobbie, has edited Wikipedia as
Peter dobbie (talk · contribs)

[edit] Recent Changes

Recently, Peter Dobbie himself edited this page. At the time, he did not understand conflict of interest and we did not have confirmation that this was Mr. Dobbie himself. Anyway, that has all been resolved now. I would please request that someone more familiar with him review his recent edits and incorporate any acceptable material into the article itself. I would do this myself but unfortunately do not receive the BBC channel. I have informed Mr. Dobbie about the licensing problems with the images he uploaded. --Yamla 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Dobbie has continued to edit this article in violation of WP:COI. I have blocked this user indefinitely for the moment and left a note on WP:ANI. --Yamla 17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the prose editing is secondary. My immediate concern was the images he uploaded—many of them screencaps from BBC World—but claimed he created them himself, even though the BBC logo was visible on them. Though you're right, in that the prose did seem to be awfully fluffed up. Thank you for addressing the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI

There is no Wikipedia rule against an living person editing an article about themselves. Our rules point out the pitfalls of an person editing articles where they have a conflict of interest. We need to follow the usual steps we use for content disputes...discussing on talk pages, getting another opinion, explaining policy to new users, and so on. Only if an user is disruptive should we block their account. FloNight 19:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, any edits by user Peter dobbie to this article have been gone since a 17:48, April 7 2007 (UTC) revert to a July 2006 version. — Athænara ✉ 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrongly, I think, what is wrong with this version? (other than citing no sources) Fred Bauder 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that more of the photos can be used in accordance with policies and guidelines. Note that the 19:37, April 7 2007 (UTC) diff as linked from my contribs shows that I added an image, making no other changes in that edit. — Athænara ✉ 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Postscript 1: Most of the text in earlier versions was copied from a speaker bureau site, as noted in the BLP noticeboard section about this article. — Æ. ✉ 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Postscript 2: I don't know why the link isn't working for me, but you can find section 15 on this article easily in the noticeboard table of contents. — Æ. ✉ 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Fred, more than half of the version you restored (diff) was a copyvio from this article flagged up by User:Athaenara. In doing so you removed Athaenara's and User:122.167.153.21's rewrite[1][2] (intended to avoid copyright problems) of an earlier version[3] which in turn was a copyvio of this BBC material. After your reversion, Mystery User:122.167.153.21 rewrote and condensed the information to once again avoid copyright problems.[4]. The main reason why I do not see the www.f4group.co.uk information as an unreliable (because promotional, commercial) secondary source per WP:RS is that the subject has a responsibility to make sure the information is correct, and is probably in a position to have it changed where incorrect. In that respect it is similar to a web site controlled by the subject and can, therefore, be used in the article. AvB ÷ talk 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)