Talk:Karl Kjer
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 26 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2018
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove contrnt related to reference #3. It fails WP:NPF. 2600:1:C375:9DCD:61A5:5D48:EA0:8CFA (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. .spintendo 16:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Also its added after a year of all this as a attack against the person. There was no need to add such story and two references for that.
Removal of second reference
editBlueparticle I'm unsure why you are removing the second reference. In cases like this it is always better to have more references to the event than just the one. NZFC(talk) 05:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thats not a authentic story. They published it after one year. looks its just added for the above reason you mentioning more reference need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueparticle (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok sure, I understand that. In that case I'll swap it with this reference then. [1]. NZFC(talk) 05:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually no, I don't think the Aggie link should be removed. Of course the article was written a year later, the court process takes time. The first article talks about getting charged while the second says how he was found out and confirmed that he was charged. It also has comments made in the article by Karl himself. So both references are relevant and should stay. NZFC(talk) 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- That the claim "is not authentic" is misinformation - please look up the court website and records (which needs a captcha) https://portal.njcourts.gov/webe4/ExternalPGPA/CaptchaServlet and enter the name or the case number 17001599 . Shyamal (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually no, I don't think the Aggie link should be removed. Of course the article was written a year later, the court process takes time. The first article talks about getting charged while the second says how he was found out and confirmed that he was charged. It also has comments made in the article by Karl himself. So both references are relevant and should stay. NZFC(talk) 05:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Shyamal the link he added above pass for a reference and instead of nj story the real story from Middle Sex news website from Govt here pass for the reference. Blueparticle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I still disagree with the removal of the aggie reference as it's the only one that actually fully details the crime as mentioned above because by then he has gone through the court process and the information can be all made public. The fact that Karl has commented on that article as well makes it a relevant reliable sourced article. Also Blueparticle you need to add four ~ after your comments to sign your posts. See WP:SIGN NZFC(talk) 07:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just to be clear - the Aggie article is a comprehensive and reliable summary of the whole case and removing it is inappropriate. Claiming that it is not authentic is unacceptable in the light of other evidence that is publicly available for verification. Shyamal (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Awards and honors section http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=21186 https://www.davisenterprise.com/features/name-droppers/name-droppers-ucd-researcher-earns-award-from-alma-mater/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.32.160 (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)