This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
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
Rocco Pantaleo is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
Untitled
I have reverted User:Mattinbgn's removal of the name of the victim. I don't understand his/her logic why it is non-notable. If we are going to mention the killing, we should mention the name of the victim. It is verifiable from the sources. Could they please state their reasons? --SJK (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the shooting is notable, then the name of the victim is notable. If the name of the victim is not notable, the shooting is not notable either. So I cannot understand User:Mattinbgn's logic that these two facts (that Rocco Pantaleo shot someone, and that the name of that person was Keith Lane) have distinct notability. Also, they reverted my edit with the comment "No, it is not. Take it to the talk page if you wish" -- even though I had already given my reasons on the Talk page, to which rather than responding they just went ahead and reverted. Ever heard of "practice what you preach"? --SJK (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]