Content deleted Content added
Line 26:
::The policy is vague on purpose, so that people can use their judgement to decide whether or not to include potentially harmful information. There are many people who have changed their names or otherwise go by pseudonyms, for many reasons. I do not know his reason, but I am inclined to err on the side of caution and respect his wish for privacy, because I do not think a former name is relevant to his notability in this case. If you believe that the name is essential to the success of this article, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion again, because I'm convinced that including the name would violate the policy I have cited. And I'd like to note that the onus is on the includer of information (you) to prove that it doesn't violate policy. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 03:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::* His birthname is no secret and reported on by secondary sources. No problem including it. You haven't even cited a source where the man claims he wants his birth name to be a big secret.--[[User:Peephole|Peephole]] 04:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I repeat: the onus is on you, as the contributor, to prove how the policy is NOT being violated. There are two main ways you can do this: by showing that the information is definitely relevant to the article's notability, or by showing that Dr. Cat doesn't actually mind. Simply because other websites have displayed this information does not mean that we should, as well. I agree that if someone really wanted to learn this information, they could, but it's not Wikipedia's responsibility to include every bit of information that is available, especially if it violates policy.
::::Also, continuing to re-add the information before this dispute is resolved, without providing edit summaries, is discouraged. I have attempted to move the discussion here to the talk page, in accordance with [[WP:DR]], and I would appreciate it if you would do me (and Wikipedia policies) the same justice. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
| |||