Talk:David Nestor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gaelic games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Gaelic games. 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.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents 1 David Nestor 2 David Nestor 3 Lead Paragraph 4 Third opinion request

[edit] David Nestor

I think there's a bit of a disagreement on the content of this article and I'd like to invite any interested editors to discuss it.

(this is a copy of a message I left on User:217.31.69.163's talk page.)

I found this article on a List of contributions by new editors yesterday. I was concerned that it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living people, specifically none of the information was verified and it was, essentially, original research. I added information and cited sources, and, I thought, increased the encyclopaedic information, on someone who, in the original article, did not appear to have any firm proof of notability. I am interested in working towards consensus with you on this. Alternatively, we could ask for a third opinion from another editor if you prefer? You can get in touch with me by replying on this page, or on my talk page. I will have also leave have left a message for User:Shivnae2, the creator of this article. Thanks for your time! --kateshortforbob 10:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Nestor

Really great guy.

[edit] Lead Paragraph

There were some errors in the lead paragraph, don't know if it's vandalism, probably just grammar errors; but if it happens more someone jsut contact me. Thanks, Meldshal42 22:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion request

I found this article like this: 1. I edited it to add information and sources to this:2. An IP editor (who I suspect may be the same person as the creator, Shivnae2) replaced my version with [1] again the next day. I reverted to my version in good faith. Shortly afterwards, the same IP editor replaced the text with the old version again.

I have no particular attachment to this article, but in it's current state it's little more than nonsense. I think the subject is close to non-notable anyway - if I came across the current version again I would probably nominate it for deletion. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, and I hope that a third opinion will provide some way of gaining consensus rather than repeatedly reverting or taking this to a more formal venue. I have tried to communicate with the creator and IP editor but received no response. Neither have made any edits other than to this article. Any advice would be gratefully received. Thanks --kateshortforbob 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This in response to a third opinion request. I'd actually second this in nominating it for deletion and skirt the content issue altogether. Having said that, your version, kate, is far better. No need to be afraid to revert an anonymous user who doesn't justify or engage in discussion (short of the WP:3RR, of course).--Dali-Llama 21:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your third opinion - it's much appreciated. At this point I'm leaning towards a deletion nom myself. I'll revert one more time and wait and see what happens. (If someone else nominates in the meantime, I have no objection). Thanks again! --kateshortforbob 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on September 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.