This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ashley Gjøvik article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: no archives yet ( create) |
|
|
Can we use her website or LinkedIn as opposed to Mail Online to highlight her education? As she is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished, other than just her ongoing pursuing of a law degree. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org. [1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I don't think we should be republishing Gjøvik's allegations against Scarlett, particularly given that a court saw fit to grant an anti-harassment order to Scarlett to protect against harassment from Gjøvik. The section also relies on a single source, which itself is relying on a generally unreliable source (New York Post, see WP:NYPOST). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Happened to notice a large drive-by content removal by an IP and reverted it, on the grounds that there wasn't a substantive justification.
User:Bobrossghost reverted my revert, stating "possible libel vs Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, section WP:UNDUE vs sourcing about her allegations. IP was a range block. Use talk page to make a case for inclusion"
This seems not unreasonable; however, examining the history of the page, User:Bobrossghost appears to have contributed the sections involving Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ashley_Gj%C3%B8vik&diff=prev&oldid=1084110580
It seems strange to cite one's own contributions as the reasoning for the revert of a larger delta (8739 characters vs. ~3k for the net of Bobrossghost's contributions).
Further, the spirit of Bob Ross appears to be a WP:SPA -- all edits involve this article, cf. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Bobrossghost
I invite discussion from uninvolved observers here (I think I am one, I've never edited this page previously).
User:Bobrossghost, why not remove your own contributions if you feel they were potentially libelous? Traumerei ( talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I fixed grammar and ordering for readability. Also some claims failed verification so I deleted or replaced them. You Make Me Fade ( talk) 09:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article has been using her Twitter account (in the article, not outing) canvassing for the reversion of certain edits. This is not allowed. Not every IP editor is a vandal, even in the case of this article, which has some history of vandalizing (as many BLPs do). A reminder to assume good faith and constructively edit Wikipedia, instead of just reverting unless it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or a violation of WP:BLP or WP:LP. 69.133.28.44 ( talk) 17:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ashley Gjøvik article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
There have been attempts to
recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "
request for comment", a
third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11 June 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives: no archives yet ( create) |
|
|
Can we use her website or LinkedIn as opposed to Mail Online to highlight her education? As she is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished, other than just her ongoing pursuing of a law degree. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org. [1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out. SquareInARoundHole ( talk) 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I don't think we should be republishing Gjøvik's allegations against Scarlett, particularly given that a court saw fit to grant an anti-harassment order to Scarlett to protect against harassment from Gjøvik. The section also relies on a single source, which itself is relying on a generally unreliable source (New York Post, see WP:NYPOST). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Happened to notice a large drive-by content removal by an IP and reverted it, on the grounds that there wasn't a substantive justification.
User:Bobrossghost reverted my revert, stating "possible libel vs Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, section WP:UNDUE vs sourcing about her allegations. IP was a range block. Use talk page to make a case for inclusion"
This seems not unreasonable; however, examining the history of the page, User:Bobrossghost appears to have contributed the sections involving Lisa P. Jackson and Ronald Sugar, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ashley_Gj%C3%B8vik&diff=prev&oldid=1084110580
It seems strange to cite one's own contributions as the reasoning for the revert of a larger delta (8739 characters vs. ~3k for the net of Bobrossghost's contributions).
Further, the spirit of Bob Ross appears to be a WP:SPA -- all edits involve this article, cf. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Bobrossghost
I invite discussion from uninvolved observers here (I think I am one, I've never edited this page previously).
User:Bobrossghost, why not remove your own contributions if you feel they were potentially libelous? Traumerei ( talk) 04:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I fixed grammar and ordering for readability. Also some claims failed verification so I deleted or replaced them. You Make Me Fade ( talk) 09:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article has been using her Twitter account (in the article, not outing) canvassing for the reversion of certain edits. This is not allowed. Not every IP editor is a vandal, even in the case of this article, which has some history of vandalizing (as many BLPs do). A reminder to assume good faith and constructively edit Wikipedia, instead of just reverting unless it is unsourced, poorly sourced, or a violation of WP:BLP or WP:LP. 69.133.28.44 ( talk) 17:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)