User talk:Unitypigdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a sock puppet of DarrenRay, and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Checkuser for evidence.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

Welcome!

Hello Unitypigdog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. There's a great page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Also - with Dean McVeigh you may want to look at WP:LIVING which has guidlines for keeping articles about living people encyclopedic and not libelous. Agnte 10:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that he is not a "notable person" in the sense of Wikipedia's guidelines, cited by Agnte above. He is an accountant who is professionally involved in a matter which of some notoriety in Melbourne, but he is not himself a public figure. This seems to me to be debateable. A lawyer acting in high-profile criminal cases, for example, becomes a "notable person" in their own right, so there is no intrinsic reason why an accountant cannot do so. It is necessary, however, to show how and why this particular accountant has become a notable person. Some users seem to want to suggest that his noteworthyness arises from allegations of professional misconduct against him. But airing these is potentially defamatory even if the allegations are sourced, and Wikipedia has recently become more cautious about defamation issues, as it should. Adam 13:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)