Talk:Manuel Machata

Edit to article

Regarding this edit,

1. Thanks for drawing my attention to the fact that his official site is not working yet. There's no need to link to it then. It's not usual practise to link to someone's facebook page. Linking to their official site at all is not actually necessary. We're an encyclopedia, not a link directory.

   there are many many pages with LONG link directories so start with em before u remove mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 December 2010

   Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia has about 3.5 million articles. Many of them are in poor shape, and we are all volunteers. If you see articles that have too many links, then please feel free to fix them up.--BelovedFreak 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Best thing would be to delete every link so wikipedia has control over everything?! 4 links arent that many bro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 December 2010

   I'm really not sure what you mean by "control over everything". We just really try to limit the external links in articles to those that provide useful encyclopedic information to readers, that we can't provide ourselves. In this case, four links are too many when one of them links to a website that does not exist yet and two of them are to facebook. You can read more about it at our guideline to external links. It's a long guideline, but if I'm not explaining it well enough here, it might help.--BelovedFreak 12:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2. We don't link to people's email addresses.

   well this is a business email, u dont link to microsofts customer support email either?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 December 2010

   No... that's not what we do. It's an encyclopedia, not a directory. People can use google if they need that sort of thing.--BelovedFreak 00:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Ya that makes sense the reader has to google everything cause you guys are too stubborn to include it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 December 2010

   It's not about being stubborn, it's about the fact that this is an encyclopedia, not a directory or yellow pages. You might be interested to read What Wikipedia is not. Look at some other articles, I doubt you'll find any that include an email address.--BelovedFreak 12:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

3. The article needs more references to reliable, secondary sources, so please leave the maintenance template there until that issue is dealt with. This is particularly important with a biography of a living person.

   you want a video chat with him to verify everything? cause cause the online references like FIBT are all out of date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 December 2010

   No, unfortunately that wouldn't work either. I'm not familiar with the sources, but if they're not available, then the article's not verifiable, and we can't include it.--BelovedFreak 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

   Article deleted, happy now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 December 2010

   No, that doesn't make me happy, that was never my intention. The subject seems to meet out notability guidelines for inclusion, I can see there are several news stories mentioning him right now. There is no need for the article to be deleted. As it stands, there is nothing particularly controversial in this article, but, as I'm sure you can understand, it's very important when writing about real, living people, to make sure that all facts about them are easily verifiable to reliable sources. You say that you know this person, but I'm sure you can see that anyone could pretend to know a famous person, write an article about them full of made up facts and say "well, I know it's true, I don't need to prove it". If those facts are wrong, they could cause serious damage to that person's life or career. I am not saying that you are lying, but just that we have to be very careful. How do I know who you are, any more than you know who I am?--BelovedFreak 12:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

4. Thanks for adding information to Wikipedia, but it's not "your" entry (or mine, or anyone's). No one owns any article here, we all need to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

   actually i made this article and the picture is the property of the bobteam .. which in this case is me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 December 2010

   Please read the policy. You may have created the article, but you don't own it or control it.--BelovedFreak 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have any questions, please ask here or at my talkpage. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 23:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I own the picture, guess you can verify that on wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackquila (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 December 2010

I'm haven't said anything about the image. :) --BelovedFreak 12:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. Firstly, with regard to linking to someone's "official site" - we do normally provide a link to a subject's official site, as long as "the linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable". I think it's safe to say that if the website does not yet exist, it is not covering the area for which the subject is notable. it provides no useful information to the reader whatsoever. Regarding facebook, "one should generally avoid links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook)". Further, we do not "attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites".

Regarding the maintenance template I added, that is merely to alert other editors to the fact that the article needs more, and better, references to reliable secondary sources, to make the article comply with our verifiability policy, and our policy on biographies of living people. Both these policies are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Please don't remove the template until you've addressed the issue and added relevant references that satisfy those policies.

Regarding your edit summary, "leave my entry alone or remove it but I definitely dont authorize you to remove half of the stuff, as an admin. contact of Manuel i do know everything bout him so dont put that reference flag up aga", please take some time to read our policy on ownership of articles. Once you have started an article here, it is able to be edited by anyone. The Wikipedia community decides what content is appropriate. No one now needs your authority to edit the article.

I realise that my comments above are quite long, and contain links to several different policies and guidelines. Please do take the time to read them though. Editing Wikipedia can be difficult at first, because there are some "rules" that aren't obvious at first. If you disagree with anything I've said here, or need any help with anything, then please say so here, or at my talkpage, or on your talkpage.--BelovedFreak 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)