This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
Ok, clearly this paragraph was not written as it should be, so I'm rewriting...I'm assuming the 3 wives part is factually accurate, but if it's not someone feel free to fix that as well.
Doregasm22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I have removed the un-encyclopedic aspects of the wives section of the article. This included the removal of subjective terms such as "bimbo" and "trophy wife". I also removed off topic discussion by the editor referring to the approximate age of these wives. Lastly, I removed clear references to the editor's own opinion such as "this thought disgusts me". I have not changed facts such as the wives' names however do encourage another editor to find sources for these names.
Billpeanut 8:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue has appeared again, and I have reverted
this edit for the following reasons:
The names of the wives don't belong as per
WP:BIO. Naming the first two wives doesn't appear to add any significant value to the article and their privacy outweighs any insignificant value that might exist. (Additionally,
WP:BIO states "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." So the NYT source for the previous wives MIGHT be acceptable, but the
blog entry that the editor used for the current wife is certainly not.)
Including unsourced statements that someone's new spouse is the same age as the person's own child provides NO value to this article and is inappropriate. Even if it was sourced it still wouldn't.
shirulashem(talk)16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I had also reverted these same changes and I have the same issue. While sources are necessary, wrapping personal commentary around a source that does not include the characterizations made does not make the addition valid.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)reply
Cut me a break. Nothing in what I wrote is untrue. I sourced everthing. I will cut out some of the "personal comments", but the facts should stand as they are.--
12.147.221.46 (
talk)
22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)reply
There is NOT an "inadequate source" for names. These sources are VERY adequate (unless you considerate the New York Times to be an "inadequate source"). I am not sure what your agenda is, but I will not put up with it. Continue your actions and I will file a formal compaint with the Wikipedia administrators. --
12.147.221.72 (
talk)
12:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)reply
My contributions to the
Ed Snider article are NOT inappropriate. I am simply stating facts which have been verified by relaible citations. Instead of deleting the changes, why don't you make CORRECTIONS to them as you see fit? You obviously have a hidden agenda here, and i am beginning to wonder if you have some personal reason as to why you are insisting that this proper information be deleted. I am considering filing a complaint to the Wikipedia adminstration. --
12.147.221.72(
talk)
17:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)reply
An image used in this article,
File:Ed Snyder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I have just modified 3 external links on
Ed Snider. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.