Talk:Carla Martin

Request for Comment: Resume-like format

Schmetterling has added content that strongly resembles a resume and has not commented on his/her edits. Does anyone have an opinion about whether the content is appropriate? 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

While all the conduct is true, it does require cleanup. I've tagged it for cleanup - unless you want to wikify it yourself, to fit guidelines. Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 07:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this is definitely disturbing. Almost nothing in the resume-style article is sourced, and it leaves out the information which is best-sourced: the controversy over the Moussaoui trial. If single-purpose accounts persist in reverting this page without discussion, protection may be necessary. PubliusFL 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Quite the contrary-and that is precisely the point-the "content" in the original tab is largely inaccurate, hence the need to more accurately portray the work and history of this particular person's biography. As far as sourcing, the reference section of this tab shows that virtually all the information in the edit IS sourced, either through the articles themselves, or through links within the edit.Schmetterling 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what is inaccurate in the shorter version of the article rather than just reverting to a resume. Like it or not, Ms. Martin is primarily notable for her involvement in the Moussaoui trial, and it is very inappropriate to have an article on her on Wikipedia that avoids any mention of this incident. PubliusFL 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to flesh out this biography to add a little more context and a number of additional references. Hopefully everyone can agree that the current state of the article is reasonably balanced and NPOV. PubliusFL 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated 3RR violations by Schmetterling

Schmetterling, the Washington Post appears to be a reliable source. If you believe that sourced information in an article is incorrect, provide us with better sources. You can't just assert that they're false and delete them. One wonders how you know better than the Washington Post about this case, unless you have a conflict of interest. PubliusFL 06:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Resumed 3RR violations after 8 hour block for previous violations. First report. Second report. — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't publish emails like this on the site, but this is an exception.

candy martino <schmetterlingtoo@yahoo.com> date Mar 9, 2007 8:00 AM subject Re: Wikipedia e-mail signed-by yahoo.com mailed-by yahoo.com So what are you saying, that highly inflammatory, slanderous material that was added by users just yesterday, information that could seriously damage this person's livelihood gets to stay? While information that is not damaging, and is not inflammatory cannot be revised? I don't understand, It would appear then, that whatever the rabble-rousers maliciously wish to have in a person's wikipedia stub, gets preference?

This is someone's LIFE. This information is slanderous, does no one care about that?

And what recourse then, does one have, when the malicious slandering is made a part of the wikipedia stub, but more content neutral information not only is banned, but any user who tries to "revise" the stub to make it more balanced and content neutral is banned for doing so?

Does anyone realize what it would be like for them, if such damaging information was out there for all the world to see?

What is my recourse-short of filing a lawsuit?

Schmetterling

So. Schmetterling is Carla Martin unless there is someone out there with an amazingly similar name. I'm going to block the account indefinitely because that sounds like a legal threat to me. On site or off, that is not cool. And it is also a violation of Wikipedia:Autobiography. What is listed in this article doesn't look "slanderous" to me. In fact, it's pretty well sourced. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)