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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I think there a number of questions which it is perfectly legitimate to ask when the subject is a significant contributor.
1. Have any contributions from others been materially amended or deleted by the subject as contributor (SAC) so as to diverge from proper neutrality?
I suggest an examination of the update record easily disposes of that option.
2. Have any of the contributions by SAC been selective and hence have the potential to diverge from neutrality?
More difficult to assess but examining contributions made should suggest that other people have had their efforts properly reflected in SAC contribution and indeed this SAC can be seen to have made similar additions to other Subject's entries that mirror a least one here.
3. Are SAC contributions coming from reliable and verifiable sources and enabling assessment, through further reference to such sources, as to whether material omissions which compromise neutrality been made?
The foot-noting is extensive and draws upon very well established bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, BBC and the Scotsman newspaper.
4. Does the substantive article benefit from contributions from SAC?
Little doubt that no one knows the subject better than his or her self. Therefore insights are available that might otherwise be denied the reader and which widen the areas over which a critical (in the neutral, academic sense) eye can be cast to assess whether balance and neutrality are maintained.
Summary.
I think examination justifies removal of the warning to the reader that could be seen by some to impugne the integrity of the Subject as Contributor. A rapid conclusion should be reached please!
ZSSTEVENS (aka Stewart Stevenson) who is the subject as contributor (SAC). 2009-04-19, 1545 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that after 9 years of non contention an editor has added an unwelcome tag to the page relating to me. My personal identity as a contributor is in the public domain and all contributions are verifiable. The objector hides behind a pseudonym and has previously been banned because of his Conflict of Interest (COI) contributions. As I know nothing of the editor in question I can make no adverse comment about his actions save that he does not disclose sufficient information to show that he is de-conflicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
34% of this article has been written by the subject in question. Andy's removal of the tag in question appears pointy. Does someone need to review the article in question with respect to balance, IMO yes. User:Drchriswilliams your thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. Per the disclosures above, the article has been edited extensively by a conflicted editor and is likely to violate several content policies, in the form of inappropriate links, missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to carefully review the article, including checking for reliable sources with negative information that has been omitted, and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I think there a number of questions which it is perfectly legitimate to ask when the subject is a significant contributor.
1. Have any contributions from others been materially amended or deleted by the subject as contributor (SAC) so as to diverge from proper neutrality?
I suggest an examination of the update record easily disposes of that option.
2. Have any of the contributions by SAC been selective and hence have the potential to diverge from neutrality?
More difficult to assess but examining contributions made should suggest that other people have had their efforts properly reflected in SAC contribution and indeed this SAC can be seen to have made similar additions to other Subject's entries that mirror a least one here.
3. Are SAC contributions coming from reliable and verifiable sources and enabling assessment, through further reference to such sources, as to whether material omissions which compromise neutrality been made?
The foot-noting is extensive and draws upon very well established bodies such as the Scottish Parliament, BBC and the Scotsman newspaper.
4. Does the substantive article benefit from contributions from SAC?
Little doubt that no one knows the subject better than his or her self. Therefore insights are available that might otherwise be denied the reader and which widen the areas over which a critical (in the neutral, academic sense) eye can be cast to assess whether balance and neutrality are maintained.
Summary.
I think examination justifies removal of the warning to the reader that could be seen by some to impugne the integrity of the Subject as Contributor. A rapid conclusion should be reached please!
ZSSTEVENS (aka Stewart Stevenson) who is the subject as contributor (SAC). 2009-04-19, 1545 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that after 9 years of non contention an editor has added an unwelcome tag to the page relating to me. My personal identity as a contributor is in the public domain and all contributions are verifiable. The objector hides behind a pseudonym and has previously been banned because of his Conflict of Interest (COI) contributions. As I know nothing of the editor in question I can make no adverse comment about his actions save that he does not disclose sufficient information to show that he is de-conflicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
34% of this article has been written by the subject in question. Andy's removal of the tag in question appears pointy. Does someone need to review the article in question with respect to balance, IMO yes. User:Drchriswilliams your thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. Per the disclosures above, the article has been edited extensively by a conflicted editor and is likely to violate several content policies, in the form of inappropriate links, missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to carefully review the article, including checking for reliable sources with negative information that has been omitted, and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 19:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)