Talk:Donny Long

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated Stub-Class) 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 WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. WikiProject Pornography (Rated Stub-Class) Pornography Portal This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. 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. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject California (Rated Stub-Class) This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2008. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn (keep).

I have added a sourced reference to the subject's controversial remarks regarding his colleagues and his subsequent banning from several industry websites.James W. Ballantine (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• That content has just been removed by user Donnylong (talk). Unless you have higher quality sources, I suggest you let this deletion stand per WP:BLP. Please do not source from forums or blogs, especially for controversial information. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Donny Long is a walking controversy, who has made a cottage industry of defaming others in his industry. It was He who removed the material, without so much as first raising an ojection on the talk page. Moreover, since Long's actions themselves occur on the forums and blogs, I don't see how citing them can possibly be frowned upon.James W. Ballantine (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:Biographies of living people. Unless a blog/forum source has backup references to verify that it is genuine, it cannot be used. We have inflammatory and outright insulting content from a self-published, pseudonymous source. That is unacceptable. Please find a reputable publication that says this or leave it out. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Arguing whether Donnylong followed the letter of procedure in removing content that's against WP policy is a practice called wikilawyering, and that is frowned upon. • Gene93k (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright Gene, I've used Donny's own words, from his own website (backed up by AdultFYI, because he IS known to edit his site when called on his words.) Is that better?James W. Ballantine (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know how some of you consider citing Donny's OWN WORDS from his web page "Vandalism"??? James W. Ballantine (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits regarding information from blog

I've reviewed the edits in question per a request on OTRS. No where in the blog cited does he claim he stirred up controversy over the issue - so the majority of that paragraph was what we call original research. If you want to make that sort of claim, especially in light of the special rules for biographies of living people you need multiple, high quality reputable sources which make that claim.

The birthday party info has a similar problem - the source given is far from what is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Until someone can present acceptable sources for these two claims, they cannot be in the article. Continuing to re-add them without providing the proper references will lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions over these policies or how they affect the article. Thanks. OTRS 2008050710001891 if anyone wants to take a look Shell ^babelfish 04:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Shell, I respect the decision, though I don't necessarily agree with it, especially since those same blogs have been used as sources by Vinh himself. Be that as it may...

I CAN substantiate, from Governmental sources, that Donny Long has been convicted of several felonies in Florida and California, including Spousal abuse, Battery, Grand Larceny, Burglary, DUI over .20, and Squatting. ANy objection to that?James W. Ballantine (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• From my understanding of BLP (especially the section (especially the "People who are relatively unknown" section), this information will need to have been published by multiple reliable sources. If reputable and responsible press agencies didn't print it, it shouldn't be posted here. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP issues and lifting of page protection

As I mentioned on WP:ANI, I've been in contact with User:Donnylong via e-mail and we have come to an agreement. Essentially, he asked that the controversial information added by User:James W. Ballantine be removed. I spent some time last night going over the facts and have come to the conclusion that this is a reasonable request under WP:BLP for the following reasons:

• Blog and forum posts do not a controversy make. If significant coverage (defined as more than a short blog post or a passing mention) by a reputable press source (defined as a source with editorial oversight) refer to the subject's actions online as "controversial", that is one thing. However, whether or not a "controversy" exists in an online forum is an entirely different matter, and being banned from a given website/discussion/blog is not a notable event deserving of coverage. See User:Shell Kinney's post above and WP:UNDUE.
• Presenting a neutral point of view in an article does not entail digging up every good and bad thing that a given subject has done. The goal of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not air people's dirty laundry in a public forum. To present a bit of an extreme example, an article about a physicist would not require information on how many puppies they have kicked/adopted in their lifetime unless it had a direct impact on their career as a physicist. Focus on information directly relevant to the subject at hand. See WP:HARM.

User:Gene93k has done a fine job handling the talk page, and I wholly agree with and endorse every one of his comments above. I (and I imagine several other admins) have watchlisted this page, and any readdition of the controversial content in question will be reverted on sight per WP:BLP. Repeatedly readding the content will result in successively longer blocks and additional page protection as required.

After I post this, I will change the protection on this page to expire in 31 hours. This is to ensure that everyone involved has ample time to read and understand this post and ask any necessary questions. Feel free to contact me in the future about BLP issues related to this article. --jonny-mt 04:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)