This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've just reverted this, both for WP:UNDUE and BLP concerns, but as I know the subject of the edit, would be grateful for a review by someone uninvolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The wording must obey WP:BLP and, alas, it fails. It is not neutrally worded, and uses a column with specific opinions. As such it is usable, at most, as opinions cited and attributed as opinion in the first place. Where it imputes specific motives to a person, and implications of improper or criminal actions by the person, it fails to meet the burdens places by WP:BLP on such a column. Collect ( talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Collect, here is a small sample of the coverage about Richard Symonds' very public (and out-of-process) accusations against Grant Shapps, their impact on the 2015 UK national elections, and the ultimate outcome of ArbCom proceedings against Symonds:
We should never simply delete factual content about a subject if it can be improved to comply with our fundamental policies/guidelines embodied in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If we're seriously looking for an impartial account of the whole affair, I might recommend the 8 June 2015 account from BBC News, or the 9 June 2015 story from The Guardian, both linked above. What do you think? Given the plethora of factual accounts available in reliable sources, the only problem I see is writing a relatively concise paragraph about the matter that does not overwhelm the Wikimedia UK article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If there's enough sources for a section on this in Schapps' article, there's enough sources for a section on this in the WMUK article. Brustopher ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here Dan Murphy ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK, the national charity supporting Wikipedia and its sister projects, has told the MP and former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps he can't see internal emails he has requested under the Data Protection Act ... because it has deleted them... During the campaign, LibDem activist Richard Symonds unilaterally suspended a Wikipedia user account that was reportedly responsible for derogatory Wikipedia edits against Shapps's colleagues, insinuating that it had been used by Shapps himself... Symonds says he did the work at lunchtimes, and on his days off, and that's the version WMUK is standing by.
Last month, Shapps requested to see personal data retained by WMUK. But the 80-odd pages returned to him have more than a few gaps. Most are pages from the Meltwater clippings agency, while a few internal discussions heavily redacted. Completely missing are any discussions by or about Symonds and Shapps.
The law firm engaged by the charity, Stone King, told Shapps that "the email had been deleted in the normal course of business, before the date of your Subject Access Request, and is therefore no longer held by the charity."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Dl2000 is continuously harming wikipedia C._K._Thakker by disruptive editing and roll back. He is removing the information which is sourced from reliable sources.
Enrolled as Advocate on February 28, 1968. Started practice in the High Court of Gujarat. Rendered services as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from December, 1975 to 1982. Appeared in a number of Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters. The information can be verified by the official website of Govt. of india http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?auth=amdldGlkPTMyJnBhZ2Vubz00. Dl2000 Removed the all information from the biography of justice c.k.thakker.
Their is continuous voilation of the wikiguidelines. There is no copyright material as claimed by Dl2000.
An administrator please look in to it and kindly revert the edits. Priyadarshivishal23 ( talk) 06:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
Comments from editors would be welcome. i explained the whole issue but i do not understand how it is constructive when dl1000 removing the educatioal achievements , changing heading ? oh god : such a nice change. all wikipedians feel proud, converting right information to wrong information. i did a lot of effort to put reliable source and all , removing the word " honourable, justice, his loardship..does make any logic & is their any guideline of using the words used for respect?...is this way wikipedia guideline of nobality , reserachability , reliable sources ...are maintained by vandalisng articles ? Threatning to block, and favouring each other , MAKING GROUPS AND IGNORING THE TRUTH ?.... this all is going on with this article. hope one of the administrator will come forward and go through with each link ...correct the things . i have added sufficient no of reliable sources. here people are in majority do wrong . Priyadarshivishal23 ( talk) 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
Hello everybody, My name is Irene Novello, and I'm new in the wikipedia world. I started few days ago to edit and improve the voice of Andrea Liberovici italian composer and director I know very well. I saw there where many issue and I worked in this days to insert quotes and citations. Most of them are in Italian. I don't know who started the voice in english, but I'd like to know: How I can help to make the bio correct? The work I did is correct and enough to take off the issue? Thank you very much Irene Novello-- Irenenovello ( talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I realize this probably isn't the "right" noticeboard for my request, but I've been there, and they sent me here, as the story goes.
I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{ edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? About a third of the entries in the COI queue are BLP articles, usually the person themselves (or their family/employees/etc), including half-a-dozen recent requests. (There are also some exemplars of the question discussed further up this noticeboard-page-here, about whether an organization with less than ten employees is subject to WP:BLP or not, currently in the edit-request-queue.) Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User 172.56.9.59 is repeatedly vandalizing Richard Rawlings. I have gotten close to WP:3RR before, so I am reporting the edits here. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this person notable per se? This BLP appears to focus on a single event at length, and I do not think this is notable in itself. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
States: Some sources report that Dollar's real name is Michael Smith,[3] which Dollar has called an "urban legend".[4]
We have had discussions about assigning names to living persons where there is reliable source for the other name. In this case, it seems someone elided that procedure in order to include a name which not only has no strong sourcing, but where the person states the claim of his "real name" is false. The source used to assert that it is his "real name" is an opinion column which provides no other sources for this claim made in August 2001 here in Salon (website). We usually state that contentious claims need strong sourcing - is an opinion column a "strong source"? As an aside, I found no strong sources for this claim at all, so am uncertain why this claim was added to this BLP. "Creflo Dollar" gets mentioned 20 times in the NYT - zero times saying "Smith" as his name. In fact the Salon source seems the only source remotely making the claim - and it fails our standards. Lord knows why anyone found this contested trivia to be usable. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Lennart Hardell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This past February, a lot of less-than-flattering information in this article about a scientist was removed. I wanted to know if the information that was removed violated WP:BLP. Everymorning (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A large amount of content cited to the New York Post and a "Muslim Conspiracy" blog was recently added by a disruptive SPA, Iran nuclear weapons 2 (whose User page says it is a valid alternate account because he's afraid of being assassinated by Iran ... srsly), who was previously cautioned by Anders_Feder regarding this statement, and others, where he denounced "Iran's worldwide campaign to murder." [4] I have removed it and started a RfC here. BlueSalix ( talk) 15:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Contains a waffle claim:
Several possible issues - are "blocks" by an administrator a significant event in a person's biography where the evidence educed does not imply the person himself committed any wrongful act or tort ("edit warring" does not appear to be a statutory offense AFAICT) ? Does "some but not all news outlets" imply stronger sourcing for the belief the person directly edited Wikipedia? Is the weight given for what appears to be a minor event excessive in a BLP? The Guardian source appears to be from Wikipedia. In past, BLPs did not contain "Wikipedia connections" vide editors who have BLPs whose connection to Wikipedia is never allowed. Collect ( talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the "using funny names about the other candidate" allegation was made by the opposition candidate herself, not by outside reporters - and is a contentious claim. I doubt that the candidate is a "strong source" where claims in election campaigns are concerned . Collect ( talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Specifically, Misty Thackeray the Scottish chair for UKIP.
In our article on James Randi, there is a question as to what to call Randi's spouse. Possible choices:
Note that in Randi himself calls his spouse "Deyvi Peña" [5]
At issue is the fact that Deyvi Peña was convicted of stealing New York resident José Alvarez's identity in 1987 to obtain a fraudulent passport and used that name until his conviction in 2011. [6] [7] most notably as the person behind the "Carlos hoax". [8]
This means that a lot of our Australian readers will have heard of him under the Alvarez name, and indeed that is how we list him at List of hoaxes#Proven hoaxes of exposure. Related: Redirect from Deyvi Peña to James Randi, no link from the José Alvarez disambiguation page.
So, what name should we use for this individual? Whatever we choose, we should be consistent across the encyclopedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
#1. Randi (everyday), The Amazing Randi (stage), Randall Zwinge (birth) ; #2. Alvarez (real) ; #3. Peña (everyday), 'Alvarez' (false), The Great Carlos (stage), Peña-Arteaga (birth).
|
---|
|
References
suggestions for what exact human-monikers ought be used in 3 specific sections of
James Randi , which is also the 'main' article currently about Peña-fka-'Alvarez'
|
---|
|
Malcolm Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article, about a longtime prep school hockey coach from around 1900, has no sources of any kind. It was created in 2004 but only has about 30 edits. Besides having no sources, the article includes an extraordinary claim that Gordon wrote what is regarded as the first set of hockey rules in the United States. Without that (unsourced) claim, it seems that Gordon perhaps is not even notable. I read WP:BLPPROD which explains about placing a BLPPROD tag for BLPs with no sources, but I am hoping that a much more experienced editor with BLPs could review the article and take whatever action is most appropriate. Lootbrewed ( talk) 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can the profile image be changed to one of reggie wayne in a Pats uniform for accuracy's sake or is that not possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolpack Gaming ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a handbook for student editors who will write biographies as part of a classroom assignment. We'd love to hear feedback from editors familiar with these policies, including BLP. The draft is here. Feedback posted before Wednesday, Sept. 2 would be most helpful. Thanks in advance for your help! Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is "Iran Bulletin" ( [11]) RS for information pertaining to Iran? BlueSalix ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."Per the logic above the highly influential strongly Marxist leaning history journal Past & Present, would have to be considered an unreliable source for history articles. The editorial board includes Aziz al-Azmeh (PhD in Oriental studies) and Hamid Dabashi (professor in Iranian Studies). The writer of the article removed as unreliable [12] is Ervand Abrahamian, a heavily cited historian of Iranian history. Even if you don't view the journal as reliable, the writer should be considered reliable per his own expertise. Brustopher ( talk) 23:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None have helped with my different requests so far, I have entered as responses to alerts, or within the material submitted. So the team at present seems rather impotent. Nevertheless all the info I would like to convey here is on those pages, and after all this time of pure abuse it should be. I suggested that two lines of text should be removed. Please comply with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Article was poor in quality - but the person has multiple books published by
Columbia University Press , holds PHD from Stanford, translated the
Dalai Lama's book, and is an expert on Tibetan Buddhism. I suggest that he is notable at the AfD.
Collect (
talk)
18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The page contains no information from any reliable sources, has a heavily biased point of view and was probably written entirely by the person the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.158.111 ( talk) 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the Guinness World Record still standing? It was in 2011... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.94.128 ( talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Richard Ling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I see on the page for Richard Ling that there is a notice about potentially libelous material. I fail to see it. I am Richard Ling and I do not have any problems with the material on that page.
Is there something that I am not seeing?
Please let me know.
Rich Ling riseling@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richling ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
My concern is the box. I am honored to have my bio on Wikipedia, but the box seems to suggest that it might be removed. You note that it would be removed "if" there is libelous material. However, I don't see anything that is a problem. Thus, I wonder why the warning was placed there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richling ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at Talk:Jess Greenberg and help decide whether the thread "Reasons for Popularity" is a violation of WP:BLP. (see [13] for reference.) The thread has been removed three times by Tuesdaymight ( [14], [15], [16]) because they feel it's a serious BLP violation that warrants immediate removal. There does not seem, at least to me, to be anything at all in that thread which is contentious and a BLP violation; It is just a discussion of relevant Wikipedia policies and how they might apply to any adding of content about Greenberg's physical appearance to the article. None of the editors who posted, outside of the original OP, proposed the adding of any such content to the article. No inappropriate or lewd comments about Greenberg were made. All that was posted was simply that such content could only be added if it was something which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I have reverted the removals twice and tried to explain things at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg, but there still seems to be a serious disconnect regarding what constitutes a BLP violation. Attempts were made to make the thread "more neutral sounding" by changing its name ( Arthur goes shopping with this edit) and striking a word from a post ( Dontreader with this edit), but still Tuesdaymight insists on removing the entire thread. It would help if some others could take a look a see if this thread is really something that should be removed per WP:BLP. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that states authoritatively that Ms. Greenberg’s breasts, rather than her music, are the source of her popularity? Is there a reliable source that discusses her breasts at all? Are Ms. Greenberg’s breasts demonstrably notable? Even arguably notable? If not, this discussion is very unlikely to contribute to the article, and discussion of this topic casts Wikipedia in a very poor light indeed. ≥ MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tuesdaymight, you wrote that the section began "with a discussion of a particular woman’s breasts". There was no "discussion" of her breasts. A question was asked, and I merely said that in order to include the breasts issue in the article, a reliable source that discusses the matter is needed (and better yet if she herself addresses the topic in a reliable source). Per WP:TALK#USE, editors are allowed to ask questions and to voice their opinions on talk pages, in order to try to improve the respective articles. That question was relevant. In fact, several of the article's sources mention her physical attributes, such as the article entitled " The Breast 'Highway To Hell' Cover Of All Time". Yet you don't seem to have a problem with such sources. Finally, you are misinterpreting Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It says, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." That's exactly what you will find in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy. The key part of that sentence is "adding information". The person who created that section did not add information. It was simply a question. I did not add information about the living person either. If someone asks a contentious question or expresses an offensive (but relevant) opinion about a living person on Wikipedia, you cannot invoke Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and expect the person to provide reliable sources, or else erase a comment or an entire section, as you did. Questions and opinions don't have "sources". However, if a question or an opinion provides contentious information about a living person, then a reliable source must be provided. For example, if on the talk page of a living person, someone writes, "Shouldn't we include in the article the fact that this actor kills babies for satanic rituals?", then the editor must provide a reliable source, or else the material must be removed immediately. Dontreader ( talk) 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at material that has been added and beefed up regarding Pearlman's sexual practices? There are several IPs and one new editor involved, and I don't think the material is egregious enough for me to continue reverting. It was first added on August 30 here. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Chaplain Farris Robertson ( https://twitter.com/farris41), born in 1953 in Los Angeles, California, is an author and the founder of Recovery Chapel (www.RecoveryChapel.org) in Springfield, Missouri. He wrote his first book at age 28, The Unelected Elite". He married his wife, Ruth Litman Robertson, in 1991, and they relocated from Los Angeles to Springfield, Missouri that same year. They coauthored two books in 2013 and 2014, Executive Summary of the Bible and Recovery for the Christian Family. His father died when he was ten years old, he was baptized at age fifteen, had substance abuse issues until May 21, 1985, and founded Recovery Chapel in 2004. He operates recovery residences for men recovering from substance abuse issues. He was the Missouri Delegate for National Recovery Month in 2010. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.161.225 ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC) References
|
There is consistent sock puppetry occurring on the Sylvester Turner page. The same edits are made by different editors and are meant to negatively impact the individual's biography.
Here are the statements consistently added by two of users, Saq2015 and Bogg5576:
Huon has noted this apparent bias editing : /info/en/?search=Talk:Sylvester_Turner and removed the information. The page was protected on August 11 but now that the protection has expired, a new user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbabylove3 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Page is being repeatedly vandalized. Often by anonymous edits and often with the anonymous editors accusing of vandalism those editing by consensus and policy to remove npov, puffery, copyvio, or unsourced info.
Users 65.96.43.135 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 108.46.19.25 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 108.29.184.240 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Zagano ( talk · contribs) are of particular concern. Also, one edit from: 67.85.170.239 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Notifying @ Justlettersandnumbers:, @ Elizium23: @ Joel B. Lewis:, and @ Eblem: who are active editors and @ Moonriddengirl:, who helped handle copyvio issue.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Chris_Bell_(politician) or [[Chris Bell (politician)]
A quotation with a fully referenced citation in this article (about a politician) has been repeatedly deleted by someone who feels that the quoted and cited material has "negative connotations." I would appreciate some feedback on this problem. I have attempted to request a "Third Party" opinion but am not sure I have done so properly as I am not accustomed to being pulled into editing wars. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 19:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph says more than I could even write here.
Slanderous, unsubstantiated, and crude accusations abound.
Vincent D'Onofrio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reliable sources about Greta Scacchi's marriage to D'Onofrio are being removed again. The primary user doing so, User:Cvanderdonk, implied here that they are D'Onofrio's current wife, Carin van der Donk. If they are, this is a clear conflict of interest. If they aren't, that's another problem. Anyway, would appreciate others involving themselves in the discussion at Talk:Vincent D'Onofrio, as I believe I am not going to get far. Thanks all. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 14:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw Big Freedia (real name Frederick Ross), who I'd never heard of, on a TV show tonight. After going to the article, I discovered there has been a dispute going on for several years about which pronoun to use for this person. Currently, there is no consistency in the article as "he" and "she" are both used. An IP editor made their only edit a few days ago to change "she" to "he" in parts of the article, but not everywhere, and wrote a feisty edit summary about it. [17] It looks like the first time any pronouns were used in the article was in July 2012 with this edit, which greatly expanded the content and introduced the "she" pronoun. Before that edit, no pronouns were ever used. From a quick browsing of the article's edit history and the "He/She" thread on the talk page, it appears there's no dispute that Big Freedia is not transgender; the only disagreement is which pronoun should be used, which pronoun Big Freedia prefers, and which sources are more credible about which pronoun to use. Anyway, this issue is above my skill level so I was hoping some editors here could settle this matter once and for all to prevent ongoing he/she battles for years to come. Thanks. Lootbrewed ( talk) 08:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.". I noticed that North made this edit to the article, but I am confused as to why his edit summary refers to WP:BLPNAME, which is about privacy of names, rather than MOS:IDENTITY, which are the applicable guidelines about the gender pronouns. In any case, my primary concern is putting a permanent end to this pronoun battle. So can someone please post something on the article's talk page so that the determination is easily accessible to all future editors who want to change the pronouns. (Perhaps there's also a way to put a permanent link to this thread?) As things stand now, there's nothing stopping this problem from continuing until an official "ruling" is made. And North, can you or any others, please put that page on your watchlist? Thanks. Lootbrewed ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The link in the discography for Vertigo, his 2015 single actually links to the condition of the same name, and also does not specify he is only featured on the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.74.41 ( talk) 11:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Prasad Ram ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current wikipedia article on Prasad Ram seems to be written as a means of promotion. The content and its presentation is more suited towards personal sites but definitely not wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.68.157 ( talk) 13:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I am now blocked from posting any comments on the talk page of my bio. I have opened a new account RickAlanRoss1952 at Wikipedia. Please allow me to post at the talk page of my bio. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Jackson5Dr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly vandalizing the Direct Action Everywhere page despite multiple warnings and discussion on the article's talk page. Vandalism includes referring to people as sexual predators and cult leaders without citing reliable sources. Funcrunch ( talk) 18:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This article needs urgent attention from participants at this board. It is written by an experienced editor acting in good faith, but I think the salacious details and speculation in the media have crept into the article. For some particular issues, see my comment at the India noticeboard although those are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Related article, Indrani Mukerjea, Peter Mukerjea etc will also need to be reviewed. Abecedare ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Upon his arrest, Rai narrated the entire murder incident to the Mumbai police including the fact that he was paid ₹1 lakh (equivalent to ₹1.0 lakh or US$1,509.70 in 2015) for the job.), which are not even supported by the cited sources! Can you take another look? Abecedare ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
At present this mugshot appears in the info box for the Ma Anand Sheela BLP. I can find no other photo to replace it. It appears to give undue weight to her criminal activities. Should it be kept or removed? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, for your continued attention to this issue. Have a great weekend!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: this diff and this discussion.
I was bot summoned by an RfC to comment on Jeremy Corbyn's page, where there is now a section, Association with alleged anti-Semites, that uses all kinds of allegations against other people with whom Corbyn has associated to link Corbyn's name to "antisemitism" a bunch of times. This for a leftwing labour politician who's probably as far from anti-semitism as they come. My efforts to improve the page were promptly reverted. I'm no fan of Labour or any of its politicians, but I view this as a blatant BLP vio; comment or help would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 21:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Noel Biderman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ameteurdemographer ( talk · contribs) introduced a highly contentious statement about the subject of the article. After I removed the content, Ameteurdemographer restored it, and after the material was removed again by Haminoon ( talk · contribs), Ameteurdemographer introduced the material a third time. I believe the sourcing of the highly contentious statement relies on questionable, gossipy sources and therefore violates WP:BLP. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Rick_Alan_Ross
I am Rick Alan Ross and am concerned about my bio at Wikipedia. One Wikipedia user has insisted that I can only post under an account. At one time I did have an account, but I have not used it for some time and am not sure that I have the password. I have now created a new account and am willing to verify my identify by phone (call me at the office) or fax (from my office agreed upon ID). It seems to me that I should bse allowed to discuss what is wrong with my bio on the Talk page per the process at Wikipedia. Please help me to continue that process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
My judgment has been questioned for removing this addition to an article about a living person who is a CEO of a company one of whose sub-divisions has a branch that has likely been breaking some rules. The company in question employs large numbers of people who are paid the minimum wage in demanding circumstances.
My removal... which happened twice now... has been discussed a little on the talk page at Talk:Ruby McGregor-Smith#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:UNDUE - National Minimum Wage. In particular I was surprised that the supposed controversy had not been mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the company itself, nor in any Wikipedia article about the sub-division, and that even the CEO herself is not mentioned in the body of the Wikipedia article about the company. I think the Daily Mail is one of the sources used.
Anyway, I ask for opinions or suggestions here or there about whether some or any of this material should be in the article about the living person. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has (re)created an article about Ben Garrison, a recurring target of trolling and harassment.The article was previously deleted as an unambiguous attack page. I have to leave right now, but this could use some prompt attention. I think there might be usable sources out there, but most of what's in the article isn't going to fly, and the article, as created, was citing Stormfront and similar. It's already getting vandalized, and if the article is kept, it's going to need many watchers and probably permanent protection. Grayfell ( talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that Wiki moderators and editors become more sensitive to and aware of the insertion of age prejudice into the content of articles. For example, the bio of Newt Gingrich offers a discussion of each of his marriages and characterizes each wife in relation to Mr. Gingrich's age. Why? The point is not stated.
I believe it is inappropriate to characterize the age of a spouse or any other third party in a Wiki article unless the relevance is stated. For about 40 years the standard of journalism has been to exclude discussions of race, religion, culture, and other personal characteristics unless the information is otherwise relevant to the article.
Thanks guys and keep up the great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8A9:B060:9506:137B:3BFF:877C ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a remaining, BLP violation that has not been removed. Several late ones have but I think the earliest edit by User:2600:100d:b12e:a480:143:eba1:9008:52fa should also be hidden. Red Jay ( talk) 08:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"Both Nithyananda and the actress had insisted that the video was morphed, a claim that was later proven by a confession by the ex-COO of Sun TV. Sun TV had released the fake video on YouTube.[7]"
The cited article contains nothing that suggests this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.80.120 ( talk) 09:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This article could use some love. I tagged two sections as UNDUE and commented out large swaths of text a year ago, but I never got back to clean it up as intended. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles we say:
In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted.
This text is being reproduced off-wiki by various parties, and the sense of it by many more, including generally reputable journals.
Clearly a shakedown is an act of extortion, illegal in most countries, and unethical everywhere. It is claimed that simply becasue we are not naming those involved, this does not constitute a BLP infraction (or libel).
I respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
It is certainly worth while blocking these accounts, and I would have no issue with them being prosecuted for violating WP:TOS. However we need to curb this extravagant use of language.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
we are blocking a bunch of accounts, a lot of them are bad actors, there was some undislosed paid editing, there were shakedowns/extortions being used, thus we are deleting all the articles in scorched-earth policy, as a warning to future bad actors, all good apples please be aware that this situation could recur and may not be over yet
we are blocking a bunch of accounts for socking and for meatpuppetry, since this is not permitted per wiki-policy, in some cases the ToU policy against undisclosed paid editing was violated, and there were allegations that some of these blocked accounts (but not all of them) were off-wiki-contacting some of the corporations and humans -- usually the subject-matter of the corporation-articles and BLP-articles in question -- then allegedly demanding payment and/or allegedly threatening article-deletion, if financial compensation was not forthcoming. Because of the troubling circumstances, we are mass-deleting the articles involved; this is not because the articles themselves are necessarily poor, nor the article-topics are necessarily non-encyclopedic ... indeed a small percentage do appear to pass WP:42 once the puffery is cleaned out. Most importantly, this mass-deletion is certainly not because the off-wiki victims of the bad-apple-socks, which is to say, the corporations and the biographical-subjects, were in any way at fault: quite often, in fact, some innocent good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian would be diligently following wiki-policies, working in the AfC queue on their autobiography for example, or working in the AfC queue on a corporation-article about their employer, and in the course of receiving a (proper&correct) AfC decline, with instructions for improvement, these good-apple-COI-wikipedians would (allegedly) be approched off-wiki with cash demands and (allegedly) threats of draft-deletion, by some of the bad apples involved in this socking-ring. The topics of these articles, who are often themselves wikipedians, should be treated kindly; they are the victims here, not the perpetrators of the alleged bad-apple-actions. GOING FORWARD: all admins and wikipedians are advised that any sort of shakedown, coercion, or similar tactics -- which might theoretically be attempted by any bad apples in the future -- any such tactic being used against good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian editors, or being used in real life against the corporations and biographical-subjects of wikipedia articles, will be treated most harshly.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC).
We have a new editor, BirthNamesAreGarbage ( talk · contribs), whose user name and edits so far suggest that they have a mission. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello
My understanding is WIKI is all about presenting facts right? AS a long time user I rely on the honesty of those inputting to the page.
I seem to be bullied out by more "experienced" editors.
My issue is this. Zoie Palmer in no legal way etc is a parent to her partner's child. He has a mother and father. She is not an adoptive mother, step mother etc... This is legal FACT. She may be awesome motherly figure etc but he is not her son. I implore you to show me tertiary evidence that he is her child.
Anyways your "editors" who have soo much experience etc have resorted to name calling (I screenshotted it(. The point is what I am saying is truthful.
Again show me tertiary evidence that it's not true what I said. I know it cannot be disproved as what I am saying is true. What I am saying is objective not subjective.
So please hold accountable those that resort to name calling and prevent the same from being repeated.
It's also in poor taste to publish a minors name.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Was that before or after you called me a jerk? You clearly ignored earlier (and missed stating it for your own benefit) where I stated I had not seen the messages. I know the parties involved first hand, I recall the day he was born. Zoie who? If you are so invested in a lie... ask her if what I a saying is correct. I am fine to accept an appropriate label, but not this. The problem with well known people in this situation is those that don't have a voice (ie the other parent) don't get a say into the domain their kid gets thrown into.
I would hope those that print lies get sued... You are basically claiming the father doesn't exist and someone else is his son's parent. You have printed it, it is false and harms his reputation.
Apologies it would appear it was someone else who does the name calling...
The same vandal, User:Correctfact, vandalized the article again with the same edits. User:Bearcat has put an Admin-only protection level on it. This will not stop User:Correctfact from wanting to distort biographical information about Zoie Palmer and he will return to do it all over again when the protection expires. What has really happened now, however, is that every editor has been punished for the actions of one jerk. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact ( talk • contribs)
The sources for this issue suck. One is "Hello". I checked "Gay Star News", [19]. It clearly says that the son Luca is from a previous relationship. So if there's another kid involved, it's not at all obvious that it's Zoie's. I'm removing the "son" claim until this is sorted out properly. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
There are a class of articles related to the apparently deliberate deaths of people where the apparent culprit fled across an international border to China. These include Amanda Zhao, Murder of Shao Tong, Trial of Xiao Zhen and Zhang Hongjie. One of them ( Trial of Xiao Zhen) is largely my work, but I now see that other editors have taken very different approaches to the articles. Could I get someone to take a look and give me some feedback on the relative approaches? Does anyone know of similar articles that have got to GA status I can crib from? Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The article says she has 30 children. Is this true? No other web source says so. Thank you. Anne C. Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.136.224 ( talk) 11:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Richard Sherman (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone edited the page for Richard Sherman, the All-Pro cornerback for the Seattle Seahawks, to say that he now plays for the Green Bay Packers, even though no such news of this player leaving the Seahawks can be found anywhere. I live in Wisconsin and am surrounded by dipshit insane Packers fans. I have since edited the page back to full accuracy, but please ensure no more idiots in the state of Wisconsin, or anywhere else for that matter, make asinine other claims like this about a living NFL player in order to make their team look better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.43.26 ( talk) 13:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I came across the biography of a writer and former professor Frank Ching from a page awaiting review, /info/en/?search=Draft:Analytical_drawing. Despite a long book list the article has no references. The only biographical information I could find on the web either came from his social media or the brief mention at http://www.amazon.com/Francis-D.K.-Ching/e/B001H6NK1W. I'd assume they must exist, but I was unable to find reliable secondary sources. Would it be possible for someone more experienced to have a go at it? Please always ping @ Ellin Beltz ( talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The personal life section is often edited and filled with lies to discredit Mr. Fassbender and his work. The sources of these lies are unreliable gossip articles so I deleted all the lies about his personal life, leaving the true facts. I hope you will do something about that next time it happens because it is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.169.227 ( talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Benjamin F. Strickland II ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not only this article, but Draft:London Eugene Livingston Steverson, too ( Draft:London Eugene Livingston Steverson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The article on Strickland showed up in draftspace, was deleted, then recreated in draftspace and is now in article space. The article on Steverson showed up at around this same time also. Both articles read as if someone is using Wikipedia as a venue to bring some unimportant scandal in the U.S. Coast Guard to the world's attention. I also notice that these are AFC submissions. My complaints about AFC acting as an island unto itself and dumping questionable content on the encyclopedia are numerous, but I'd rather save that argument for another time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest edit of Andy Crane ( /info/en/?search=Andy_Crane) mentions a meeting with a Dan Binks in Tipton. I can't find any information backing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.21.200 ( talk) 09:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please watchlist User talk:Everettstern and Everett Stern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Now at AE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kim Davis trivially falls under WP:BIO1E, but a handful of editors are maintaining the article as if she's notable for something else. I think the goal for including all the extraneous information is to attack her character and undermine her position. The article currently reads as if she had a WP:BLP before the last couple weeks, but it was created on September 1st, in response to her actions protesting the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. The article currently has sources that do not mention the recent controversy at all, and that seems to be clear WP:OR, as editors are deciding which scraps of information dug up from 2011 or before to include in the article, rather than allowing the sources relating to the current event to decide what information needs to be included. Aside from this, the excessive detail into her election, including a colored table and 3 sections completely unrelated to the controversy seem trivially inappropriate and do not conform to the standards set by other articles about people notable only for one event. Furthermore, the section on her personal life is listed out of chronological order, in order to make her seem more like a hypocrite. If editors could please take a read and contribute to the discussing there or here, it would be most appreciated. PraetorianFury ( talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Irvin Mayfield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Irvin_Mayfield&diff=679487364&oldid=679194124
The information that keeps getting added back is out of date, defamatory and slanderous. Part of the information is unfounded and unsubstantiated and the rest is based on out of date information. They are citing news articles from May 2015. The article below that I have cited is from June 2015 and refutes the inflammatory information the user keeps posting.
References
Pawel Lewicki page is for a living person and it appears to have inappropriate material in the PERSONAL section near the end.
I am an infrequent and novice wikipedia editor, so I don't know how to respond, nor do I want to get pulled into a conflict.
I removed the inappropriate material, but it was put back up right away. I also received a personal email with a link that had a lot of foul language and acquisitions.
This seems like a personal dispute, and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Judging by the names of the people cc'ed in the email I received, this might be an intra-family argument.
So I want to bring this to the attention of more experienced wikipedia editors who know how to handle such conflicts on living person wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krexer ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I think some BLP experts should give this article a look. In brief, it's about a forensic scientist who gained notability when her conclusions and testimony, which supported criminal convictions, were found to be inaccurate in several cases. All the material in the current article is negative, but it's also well-supported by the Chicago Tribune, a solidly reliable source. WP:ATTACK and WP:1E aren't clear enough about this situation to set my mind at ease. FourViolas ( talk) 04:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Tomas N'evergreen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It seems surprising that this article has been in such a badly-written, promotional state for as long as it has. I know this is me being a WikiImp rather than just fixing it, but I feel like the article could use a complete rewrite.
To be specific, Ugle82 ( talk · contribs) has done the majority of that writing, and appears to be exclusively here to promote the subject. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 04:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am Rick Alan Ross (consultant) with bio at Wikipedia. See /info/en/?search=Rick_Alan_Ross I was recently blocked from the Talk page of my bio by editors over the issue of my identity and not having an account. I did once have an account, but lost the password and my email address changed. So I now have a new account. Please allow me to post again at the Talk page. Thanks RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk) 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Pete Kelly (Alaska politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First off, I've been bothered by the possible abuse of "Alaska politician" as a disambiguator. The prevalence of such lately suggests that we're trying to ghettoize people because they happen to be politicians in Alaska. In this case, Snappy ( talk · contribs) moved the article in November 2014 from Pete Kelly (politician) to the current title with the rationale that he's not the only politician named Pete Kelly, yet the former title was left as a redirect to the article and not retargeted to a dab page or to another article.
Now to the main purpose of this post: there has been a slow-motion edit war occurring here for about two or three weeks, where 66.223.168.231 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added a paragraph about a recent criminal conviction of Kelly's son to this article at least a half-dozen times. The first time, the edit was sourced to an article appearing in the Alaska Dispatch News in June (coincidentally, Kelly's son shares a name with a female reporter for that newspaper), but the ref was formatted to instead link readers to Click Bishop's Project Vote Smart profile. I haven't checked to see whether that was the case each time. These edits have been repeatedly reverted by Jkshilling ( talk · contribs) and Independence21 ( talk · contribs), both of whom have edited almost exclusively on the topic of Republican state legislators in Alaska. It's been really funny watching these editors carry on as if no one else is watching. Well, if I have to bring this to the community's attention, then effectively speaking, no one is watching, but anyway... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an administrator move Prof. Wael Badawy to Wael Badawy, due to naming conventions? Thank you. //nepaxt 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed an nasty unsourced accusation from this article. I don't have time to look for sources, or fix the other problems with the article. Would someone at this board be able clean this mess up? CWC 04:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Michael_Kempner
Public Relations agency Owner Michael Kempner is best known for political fundraising, and most recently serving as the employer of Anthony Weiner. His page seems rather typical of public relations professionals in that it is very self serving. Would appreciate commentary to ensure accuracy of erstwhile edits pursued. Richard Thoma ( talk) 11:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And while am at it one may wonder if his PR company should be merged into his personal biography. /info/en/?search=MWW_(company) Richard Thoma ( talk) 11:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Ernest W. Adams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is being targeted by an offsite forum with a critical opinion of the subject of the article, who is arguing with IP editors on the talk page. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Karlie Kloss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No citation for: Kloss is Taylor Swift's girlfriend, and appeared in the singer's music video for the single " Bad Blood" in May 2015. She is also the godmother of model Jourdan Dunn's son. She has been dating Taylor Swift since 2013.
Bobby Clampett I work with Bobby Clampett at Impact Zone Golf (his business, not mentioned in the Wikipedia article by the way)- and we want to get his page updated. The "controversy" section is inaccurate- he was never removed from air. In fact, it was such a small issue, it hardly warrants a "controversy" section! Also, we would like to update his Champions Tour stats. It would be good for the article to make mention of his daughter Katelynn Clampett who is a singer/songwriter out of Nashville. It could also be mentioned that people are always asking Bobby if he is a Beverly Hillbilly, a reference to the hit 60’s series, the Beverly Hillbillies. Bobby’s dad’s first cousin was Bob Clampett /info/en/?search=Bob_Clampett And there is a connection between the Clampett name and the Beverly Hillbillies after all. Bob Clampett and Paul Henning, the producer and creator of the Beverly Hillbillies were good friends. https://beanyandcecil.com/the-beverly-hillbobbies/
How can we go about making these changes happen?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshadiane ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The current link in ref. [4]: http://www.iam.conicet.gov.ar/cms/?q=en/node/185 is no longer active.
The official site for Ariel Fernandez has migrated to: http://www.conicet.gov.ar/new_scp/detalle.php?keywords=&id=33676&datos_academicos=yes
Please replace link accordingly.
AF has published a second book (not mentioned) "Bimolecular Interfaces", Springer, 2015, ISBN 9783319168494 The publisher link is https://www.springer.com/la/book/9783319168494
201.219.85.151 ( talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Please come to the RFC at Talk:Peter_Dinklage#RFC_on_the_inclusion_of_his_dwarfism_in_the_lead if it interests you to do so. -- Jayron 32 03:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Can editors please look at this article? I've semi-protected following a OTRS-volunteer request but I think the bio could use a severe trim. -- NeilN talk to me 01:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The marital status of Vincent D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi has come into question again. One interview with Scacchi says she has never been married. Various other reliable sources say they have. Some claiming to be D'Onofrio's current wife is trying to make the changes. The relevant discussions are on the respective article pages. I'd appreciate others getting involved so maybe this can be resolved one way or the other. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 06:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
[20] There is an RFC on the Shaun King page regarding the prominence we are giving of the recent Breitbart generated scandal. Input would be appreciated. Artw ( talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to have the following page about myself deleted as it violates my privacy. Please help & keep up the excellent work Wiki team. Northie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kind regards, Aaron Lee North.
Shannon Lamb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently created article that seems to have lots of problems and needs some serious attention. I came across this from this Teahouse question. It seems that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME come into play here, but not sure how to best proceed. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The article on Terry Ryan, GM of the Minnesota Twins, skips over the fact that Ryan let David Ortiz go and got NOTHING (0) in return for him when he was cut in 2002. In fact, the article states that
"Ortiz would not show MVP-caliber numbers until he left the Twins a few years later. Similarly, in August 1997, Ryan unloaded another aging veteran for a future All-Star..."
This is an outrage. Ortiz was a rising star in 2002, and two days ago (September 12) he hit his 500th major league homerun.
If you are the first draft of history, you're going to do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasescha ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
HI I am a close friend of the singer songwriter Nikola Bedingfield and it is her wish to be named in Wikipedia as Nikola Bedingfield and not Nikola Rachelle. The reason for this being that Nikola Bedingfield is her artist name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.209.145 ( talk) 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems pretty much like a fan written or self-written article. There is an award, but actually he has won one, an been nominated for 2 others. Also see for the external links. Too much of external from sites that is not proofed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I would appreciate another opinion at
Rosin Jolly. A number of IP editors have added content regarding controversy & criticism of the subject, which does not, as far as I can see, appear to be either neutrally worded or supported by the sources. There is probably something which can be reliably sourced, but not the gossipy language which has been added.
Information is likely currently removed, so it may be necessary to review the page history. I am bringing this here for another point of view, which is preferable to a pattern of insertion & redaction. Many thanks for your time. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.'
12:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Toeppen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review the section Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest. Its details concern the arrest of a non-famous person (for whom I can't even find evidence of a prosecution, let alone the preferred/required conviction before inclusion). The simple policy on notability requires that any event be more than simply newsworthy (which the arrest clearly was, given two good secondary sources including the Chicago Tribune). I and others have contended in Talk:Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest that including the arrest is premature before conviction and seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME and the WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. And that calling it out in its own section seems particularly reckless. There's a bit of an IP/Sock Puppet/COI/Paid Editing mess that I can't quite figure out among some of the available editors and I'd rather not pick an edit fight, but I'd hope they'd respect a specialist from this noticeboard. Please take a look. KevinCuddeback ( talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Stephan_Dahl seems like a vanity page created by author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This article in my view conforms to the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia, yet it is constantly being challenged due to insufficient citation. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure that information is correct and that it conforms to the requirements. I can also point to numerous other articles which have little or now referenced citations and yet are not given the level of criticism this article receives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombeverage ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So much unsourced and glowingly interpretative content--this would be unacceptable if written about an artist dead for four hundred years, and is even worse in a BLP, with the implicit possibility that conflict of interest could be part of the problem. One can't turn sideways at Wikipedia without bumping into promotionalism. Anyway, now that that's out of my system, more eyes and assistance will be much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 ( talk) 02:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.nuun1991_11_final.pdf
In 1990 British Grandmaster James Plaskett broke the Apartheid ban.
(note for editors ... nearly all references to this have been purged from google... this is quite a significant event (negative) in his career. It should be included for balance IMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 ( talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Michael Derrick Hudson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article as it reads now looks like it is almost the epitome of a BLP violation; basically, it looks like a hit-piece and contains a great deal of opinion Duedemagistris ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Not the "epitome" but certainly in need of pruning to be sure.
Collect (
talk)
13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Duuh. I meant to post this in Jimbo's page, not here, since it's from a couple of paragraphs up on here! I don't know how to hide posts, could someone please hide this one? Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary. Person claims to have never been married. Wikipedia editors refuse to believe her and instead go to the "reliable sources". Also, the person talking about her own marriage has a conflict of interest. It's hard to figure out exactly what these sources are but checking the related talk pages suggests that these are references made in passing of the "her and her husband are doing this" type that are easily explainable by the "reliable source" not bothering to research things they say in passing. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The page describes a backup actress (extra) and has attracted attention from numerous people for being unambigious advertising. The individual herself may or may not be notable enough to warrant a page but at this point the talk page participants (except the creator) agree that the page should be destroyed until it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic fashion with well sourced and accurate statements.
We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. There is a line repeatedly edited and updated that includes 4 papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they are published. This, in our opinion, is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia. The papers have not been retracted and no definite action has been taken. By the same token, we could include the papers that have been published and have not even been questioned (some 350 of them). We believe the sentence "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." should be removed. Please advice.
Argentine Natl. Research Council 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Short, well sourced, and it makes it clear that that things are not clear-cut nor widespread in his publication history. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Issues have been raised [1] [2] with four (less than 2%) of Fernandez's articles, including data and analysis, [3] which Fernandez has defended [4] [5] and apparent duplicate publication. [6]
Using publications to makes claims about the publication is clearly using them as a primary source, and catenating material found by using original research (that is - no secondary reliable source has made the claim) is a violation of
WP:BLP and
WP:OR. I further note the genetics journal states "Annual Reviews, with concurrence of the review’s author, has decided to withhold final publication pending satisfactory resolution." This seems a lot milder than the imputation given in Wikipedia's voice by a mile. Someone - remove this dross -- Wikipedia is all too often used to "get at" people disfavoured by editors, and we are required to be very careful in using Wikipedia's voice to make allegations.
Collect (
talk)
12:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
My feeling after reading over all this is that mentioning these retractions is definitely extremely WP:UNDUE. Papers get retracted all the time. A retracted paper isn't automatically worth including in an article, and definitely not in a BLP. Retraction Watch, as I understand it, covers retractions indiscriminately, which makes it useless to establish significance. The only other secondary source mentions it only in passing, only to note that Fernandez disputed it on Twitter, and is merely using Fernandez to make a more general point -- they make no assertion that the retraction has any significance in terms of Fernandez' biography. My feeling is that to mention something like this in a WP:BLP, we need a source specifically saying that it matters; the sources provided here definitely do not provide enough to include it. This is especially true in the context of the article -- it reads like someone has collected every issue or concern that has ever been raised about Fernandez' papers to try and imply some impropriety or some other negative judgment of Fernandez. This is WP:SYNTH; we would need a source explicitly attesting to the relevance of these things as they relate to Fernandez. Without that, my reading is that the entire paragraph beginning with "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." must be removed. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
References
CONICET (Natl. Res. Council) 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 01:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We are uncertain as to Wikipedia bylaws. For example, MIT professor Robert Weinberg has had 5 key papers retracted, including several in the highest impact journals, and not a word is mentioned in his Wikipedia BLP. On the other hand, Dr. Fernandez has papers simply questioned, not retracted, that are mentioned. In fact, we have not spotted any Wiki BLP for a scientist mentioning papers that have only been questioned. Please advice. Natl. Research Council, Argentina 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
His online CV mentions a number of secondary sources which discuss his work. We should improve the sections which discuss his work if we are going to include stuff on the retractions, otherwise his article is just blah blah blah chemist retractions. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor Special:Contributions/167.192.150.201 claiming to represent Curt Thompson has returned unsourced material to the article that I removed in terms of WP:BLP policy on sourcing. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FYI, there are two ongoing RfC's regarding this person, and they raise some BLP-related issues, especially as regards neutrality and fairness:
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I've just reverted this, both for WP:UNDUE and BLP concerns, but as I know the subject of the edit, would be grateful for a review by someone uninvolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The wording must obey WP:BLP and, alas, it fails. It is not neutrally worded, and uses a column with specific opinions. As such it is usable, at most, as opinions cited and attributed as opinion in the first place. Where it imputes specific motives to a person, and implications of improper or criminal actions by the person, it fails to meet the burdens places by WP:BLP on such a column. Collect ( talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Collect, here is a small sample of the coverage about Richard Symonds' very public (and out-of-process) accusations against Grant Shapps, their impact on the 2015 UK national elections, and the ultimate outcome of ArbCom proceedings against Symonds:
We should never simply delete factual content about a subject if it can be improved to comply with our fundamental policies/guidelines embodied in WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. If we're seriously looking for an impartial account of the whole affair, I might recommend the 8 June 2015 account from BBC News, or the 9 June 2015 story from The Guardian, both linked above. What do you think? Given the plethora of factual accounts available in reliable sources, the only problem I see is writing a relatively concise paragraph about the matter that does not overwhelm the Wikimedia UK article. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If there's enough sources for a section on this in Schapps' article, there's enough sources for a section on this in the WMUK article. Brustopher ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll just leave this here Dan Murphy ( talk) 13:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK, the national charity supporting Wikipedia and its sister projects, has told the MP and former Conservative Party chairman Grant Shapps he can't see internal emails he has requested under the Data Protection Act ... because it has deleted them... During the campaign, LibDem activist Richard Symonds unilaterally suspended a Wikipedia user account that was reportedly responsible for derogatory Wikipedia edits against Shapps's colleagues, insinuating that it had been used by Shapps himself... Symonds says he did the work at lunchtimes, and on his days off, and that's the version WMUK is standing by.
Last month, Shapps requested to see personal data retained by WMUK. But the 80-odd pages returned to him have more than a few gaps. Most are pages from the Meltwater clippings agency, while a few internal discussions heavily redacted. Completely missing are any discussions by or about Symonds and Shapps.
The law firm engaged by the charity, Stone King, told Shapps that "the email had been deleted in the normal course of business, before the date of your Subject Access Request, and is therefore no longer held by the charity."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Dl2000 is continuously harming wikipedia C._K._Thakker by disruptive editing and roll back. He is removing the information which is sourced from reliable sources.
Enrolled as Advocate on February 28, 1968. Started practice in the High Court of Gujarat. Rendered services as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from December, 1975 to 1982. Appeared in a number of Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters. The information can be verified by the official website of Govt. of india http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/cjshow.php?auth=amdldGlkPTMyJnBhZ2Vubz00. Dl2000 Removed the all information from the biography of justice c.k.thakker.
Their is continuous voilation of the wikiguidelines. There is no copyright material as claimed by Dl2000.
An administrator please look in to it and kindly revert the edits. Priyadarshivishal23 ( talk) 06:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
Comments from editors would be welcome. i explained the whole issue but i do not understand how it is constructive when dl1000 removing the educatioal achievements , changing heading ? oh god : such a nice change. all wikipedians feel proud, converting right information to wrong information. i did a lot of effort to put reliable source and all , removing the word " honourable, justice, his loardship..does make any logic & is their any guideline of using the words used for respect?...is this way wikipedia guideline of nobality , reserachability , reliable sources ...are maintained by vandalisng articles ? Threatning to block, and favouring each other , MAKING GROUPS AND IGNORING THE TRUTH ?.... this all is going on with this article. hope one of the administrator will come forward and go through with each link ...correct the things . i have added sufficient no of reliable sources. here people are in majority do wrong . Priyadarshivishal23 ( talk) 07:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)priyadarshivishal23
Hello everybody, My name is Irene Novello, and I'm new in the wikipedia world. I started few days ago to edit and improve the voice of Andrea Liberovici italian composer and director I know very well. I saw there where many issue and I worked in this days to insert quotes and citations. Most of them are in Italian. I don't know who started the voice in english, but I'd like to know: How I can help to make the bio correct? The work I did is correct and enough to take off the issue? Thank you very much Irene Novello-- Irenenovello ( talk) 13:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I realize this probably isn't the "right" noticeboard for my request, but I've been there, and they sent me here, as the story goes.
I've regularly sent folks with COI to the {{ edit_request}} mechanism, where they leave a talkpage note, and some unbiased disineterested reviewer comes along to help them out. But this is only good advice, if some reviewer shows up to do so, in a reasonably prompt fashion. The queue has been stalled for most of August. Can some folks please help declog? About a third of the entries in the COI queue are BLP articles, usually the person themselves (or their family/employees/etc), including half-a-dozen recent requests. (There are also some exemplars of the question discussed further up this noticeboard-page-here, about whether an organization with less than ten employees is subject to WP:BLP or not, currently in the edit-request-queue.) Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
User 172.56.9.59 is repeatedly vandalizing Richard Rawlings. I have gotten close to WP:3RR before, so I am reporting the edits here. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this person notable per se? This BLP appears to focus on a single event at length, and I do not think this is notable in itself. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
States: Some sources report that Dollar's real name is Michael Smith,[3] which Dollar has called an "urban legend".[4]
We have had discussions about assigning names to living persons where there is reliable source for the other name. In this case, it seems someone elided that procedure in order to include a name which not only has no strong sourcing, but where the person states the claim of his "real name" is false. The source used to assert that it is his "real name" is an opinion column which provides no other sources for this claim made in August 2001 here in Salon (website). We usually state that contentious claims need strong sourcing - is an opinion column a "strong source"? As an aside, I found no strong sources for this claim at all, so am uncertain why this claim was added to this BLP. "Creflo Dollar" gets mentioned 20 times in the NYT - zero times saying "Smith" as his name. In fact the Salon source seems the only source remotely making the claim - and it fails our standards. Lord knows why anyone found this contested trivia to be usable. Collect ( talk) 16:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Lennart Hardell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This past February, a lot of less-than-flattering information in this article about a scientist was removed. I wanted to know if the information that was removed violated WP:BLP. Everymorning (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
A large amount of content cited to the New York Post and a "Muslim Conspiracy" blog was recently added by a disruptive SPA, Iran nuclear weapons 2 (whose User page says it is a valid alternate account because he's afraid of being assassinated by Iran ... srsly), who was previously cautioned by Anders_Feder regarding this statement, and others, where he denounced "Iran's worldwide campaign to murder." [4] I have removed it and started a RfC here. BlueSalix ( talk) 15:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Contains a waffle claim:
Several possible issues - are "blocks" by an administrator a significant event in a person's biography where the evidence educed does not imply the person himself committed any wrongful act or tort ("edit warring" does not appear to be a statutory offense AFAICT) ? Does "some but not all news outlets" imply stronger sourcing for the belief the person directly edited Wikipedia? Is the weight given for what appears to be a minor event excessive in a BLP? The Guardian source appears to be from Wikipedia. In past, BLPs did not contain "Wikipedia connections" vide editors who have BLPs whose connection to Wikipedia is never allowed. Collect ( talk) 16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the "using funny names about the other candidate" allegation was made by the opposition candidate herself, not by outside reporters - and is a contentious claim. I doubt that the candidate is a "strong source" where claims in election campaigns are concerned . Collect ( talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Specifically, Misty Thackeray the Scottish chair for UKIP.
In our article on James Randi, there is a question as to what to call Randi's spouse. Possible choices:
Note that in Randi himself calls his spouse "Deyvi Peña" [5]
At issue is the fact that Deyvi Peña was convicted of stealing New York resident José Alvarez's identity in 1987 to obtain a fraudulent passport and used that name until his conviction in 2011. [6] [7] most notably as the person behind the "Carlos hoax". [8]
This means that a lot of our Australian readers will have heard of him under the Alvarez name, and indeed that is how we list him at List of hoaxes#Proven hoaxes of exposure. Related: Redirect from Deyvi Peña to James Randi, no link from the José Alvarez disambiguation page.
So, what name should we use for this individual? Whatever we choose, we should be consistent across the encyclopedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
#1. Randi (everyday), The Amazing Randi (stage), Randall Zwinge (birth) ; #2. Alvarez (real) ; #3. Peña (everyday), 'Alvarez' (false), The Great Carlos (stage), Peña-Arteaga (birth).
|
---|
|
References
suggestions for what exact human-monikers ought be used in 3 specific sections of
James Randi , which is also the 'main' article currently about Peña-fka-'Alvarez'
|
---|
|
Malcolm Gordon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article, about a longtime prep school hockey coach from around 1900, has no sources of any kind. It was created in 2004 but only has about 30 edits. Besides having no sources, the article includes an extraordinary claim that Gordon wrote what is regarded as the first set of hockey rules in the United States. Without that (unsourced) claim, it seems that Gordon perhaps is not even notable. I read WP:BLPPROD which explains about placing a BLPPROD tag for BLPs with no sources, but I am hoping that a much more experienced editor with BLPs could review the article and take whatever action is most appropriate. Lootbrewed ( talk) 03:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Can the profile image be changed to one of reggie wayne in a Pats uniform for accuracy's sake or is that not possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolpack Gaming ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, The Wiki Education Foundation is creating a handbook for student editors who will write biographies as part of a classroom assignment. We'd love to hear feedback from editors familiar with these policies, including BLP. The draft is here. Feedback posted before Wednesday, Sept. 2 would be most helpful. Thanks in advance for your help! Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is "Iran Bulletin" ( [11]) RS for information pertaining to Iran? BlueSalix ( talk) 15:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."Per the logic above the highly influential strongly Marxist leaning history journal Past & Present, would have to be considered an unreliable source for history articles. The editorial board includes Aziz al-Azmeh (PhD in Oriental studies) and Hamid Dabashi (professor in Iranian Studies). The writer of the article removed as unreliable [12] is Ervand Abrahamian, a heavily cited historian of Iranian history. Even if you don't view the journal as reliable, the writer should be considered reliable per his own expertise. Brustopher ( talk) 23:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
B. Alan Wallace ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
None have helped with my different requests so far, I have entered as responses to alerts, or within the material submitted. So the team at present seems rather impotent. Nevertheless all the info I would like to convey here is on those pages, and after all this time of pure abuse it should be. I suggested that two lines of text should be removed. Please comply with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DynEqMin ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Article was poor in quality - but the person has multiple books published by
Columbia University Press , holds PHD from Stanford, translated the
Dalai Lama's book, and is an expert on Tibetan Buddhism. I suggest that he is notable at the AfD.
Collect (
talk)
18:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The page contains no information from any reliable sources, has a heavily biased point of view and was probably written entirely by the person the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.158.111 ( talk) 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the Guinness World Record still standing? It was in 2011... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.94.128 ( talk) 18:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Richard Ling ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi,
I see on the page for Richard Ling that there is a notice about potentially libelous material. I fail to see it. I am Richard Ling and I do not have any problems with the material on that page.
Is there something that I am not seeing?
Please let me know.
Rich Ling riseling@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richling ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
My concern is the box. I am honored to have my bio on Wikipedia, but the box seems to suggest that it might be removed. You note that it would be removed "if" there is libelous material. However, I don't see anything that is a problem. Thus, I wonder why the warning was placed there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richling ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at Talk:Jess Greenberg and help decide whether the thread "Reasons for Popularity" is a violation of WP:BLP. (see [13] for reference.) The thread has been removed three times by Tuesdaymight ( [14], [15], [16]) because they feel it's a serious BLP violation that warrants immediate removal. There does not seem, at least to me, to be anything at all in that thread which is contentious and a BLP violation; It is just a discussion of relevant Wikipedia policies and how they might apply to any adding of content about Greenberg's physical appearance to the article. None of the editors who posted, outside of the original OP, proposed the adding of any such content to the article. No inappropriate or lewd comments about Greenberg were made. All that was posted was simply that such content could only be added if it was something which has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I have reverted the removals twice and tried to explain things at User talk:Tuesdaymight#Jess Greenberg, but there still seems to be a serious disconnect regarding what constitutes a BLP violation. Attempts were made to make the thread "more neutral sounding" by changing its name ( Arthur goes shopping with this edit) and striking a word from a post ( Dontreader with this edit), but still Tuesdaymight insists on removing the entire thread. It would help if some others could take a look a see if this thread is really something that should be removed per WP:BLP. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 13:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that states authoritatively that Ms. Greenberg’s breasts, rather than her music, are the source of her popularity? Is there a reliable source that discusses her breasts at all? Are Ms. Greenberg’s breasts demonstrably notable? Even arguably notable? If not, this discussion is very unlikely to contribute to the article, and discussion of this topic casts Wikipedia in a very poor light indeed. ≥ MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Tuesdaymight, you wrote that the section began "with a discussion of a particular woman’s breasts". There was no "discussion" of her breasts. A question was asked, and I merely said that in order to include the breasts issue in the article, a reliable source that discusses the matter is needed (and better yet if she herself addresses the topic in a reliable source). Per WP:TALK#USE, editors are allowed to ask questions and to voice their opinions on talk pages, in order to try to improve the respective articles. That question was relevant. In fact, several of the article's sources mention her physical attributes, such as the article entitled " The Breast 'Highway To Hell' Cover Of All Time". Yet you don't seem to have a problem with such sources. Finally, you are misinterpreting Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It says, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." That's exactly what you will find in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy. The key part of that sentence is "adding information". The person who created that section did not add information. It was simply a question. I did not add information about the living person either. If someone asks a contentious question or expresses an offensive (but relevant) opinion about a living person on Wikipedia, you cannot invoke Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and expect the person to provide reliable sources, or else erase a comment or an entire section, as you did. Questions and opinions don't have "sources". However, if a question or an opinion provides contentious information about a living person, then a reliable source must be provided. For example, if on the talk page of a living person, someone writes, "Shouldn't we include in the article the fact that this actor kills babies for satanic rituals?", then the editor must provide a reliable source, or else the material must be removed immediately. Dontreader ( talk) 21:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at material that has been added and beefed up regarding Pearlman's sexual practices? There are several IPs and one new editor involved, and I don't think the material is egregious enough for me to continue reverting. It was first added on August 30 here. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Chaplain Farris Robertson ( https://twitter.com/farris41), born in 1953 in Los Angeles, California, is an author and the founder of Recovery Chapel (www.RecoveryChapel.org) in Springfield, Missouri. He wrote his first book at age 28, The Unelected Elite". He married his wife, Ruth Litman Robertson, in 1991, and they relocated from Los Angeles to Springfield, Missouri that same year. They coauthored two books in 2013 and 2014, Executive Summary of the Bible and Recovery for the Christian Family. His father died when he was ten years old, he was baptized at age fifteen, had substance abuse issues until May 21, 1985, and founded Recovery Chapel in 2004. He operates recovery residences for men recovering from substance abuse issues. He was the Missouri Delegate for National Recovery Month in 2010. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.161.225 ( talk) 20:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC) References
|
There is consistent sock puppetry occurring on the Sylvester Turner page. The same edits are made by different editors and are meant to negatively impact the individual's biography.
Here are the statements consistently added by two of users, Saq2015 and Bogg5576:
Huon has noted this apparent bias editing : /info/en/?search=Talk:Sylvester_Turner and removed the information. The page was protected on August 11 but now that the protection has expired, a new user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessbabylove3 ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Page is being repeatedly vandalized. Often by anonymous edits and often with the anonymous editors accusing of vandalism those editing by consensus and policy to remove npov, puffery, copyvio, or unsourced info.
Users 65.96.43.135 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 108.46.19.25 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 108.29.184.240 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Zagano ( talk · contribs) are of particular concern. Also, one edit from: 67.85.170.239 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Notifying @ Justlettersandnumbers:, @ Elizium23: @ Joel B. Lewis:, and @ Eblem: who are active editors and @ Moonriddengirl:, who helped handle copyvio issue.-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Chris_Bell_(politician) or [[Chris Bell (politician)]
A quotation with a fully referenced citation in this article (about a politician) has been repeatedly deleted by someone who feels that the quoted and cited material has "negative connotations." I would appreciate some feedback on this problem. I have attempted to request a "Third Party" opinion but am not sure I have done so properly as I am not accustomed to being pulled into editing wars. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 19:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph says more than I could even write here.
Slanderous, unsubstantiated, and crude accusations abound.
Vincent D'Onofrio ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reliable sources about Greta Scacchi's marriage to D'Onofrio are being removed again. The primary user doing so, User:Cvanderdonk, implied here that they are D'Onofrio's current wife, Carin van der Donk. If they are, this is a clear conflict of interest. If they aren't, that's another problem. Anyway, would appreciate others involving themselves in the discussion at Talk:Vincent D'Onofrio, as I believe I am not going to get far. Thanks all. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 14:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw Big Freedia (real name Frederick Ross), who I'd never heard of, on a TV show tonight. After going to the article, I discovered there has been a dispute going on for several years about which pronoun to use for this person. Currently, there is no consistency in the article as "he" and "she" are both used. An IP editor made their only edit a few days ago to change "she" to "he" in parts of the article, but not everywhere, and wrote a feisty edit summary about it. [17] It looks like the first time any pronouns were used in the article was in July 2012 with this edit, which greatly expanded the content and introduced the "she" pronoun. Before that edit, no pronouns were ever used. From a quick browsing of the article's edit history and the "He/She" thread on the talk page, it appears there's no dispute that Big Freedia is not transgender; the only disagreement is which pronoun should be used, which pronoun Big Freedia prefers, and which sources are more credible about which pronoun to use. Anyway, this issue is above my skill level so I was hoping some editors here could settle this matter once and for all to prevent ongoing he/she battles for years to come. Thanks. Lootbrewed ( talk) 08:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
"give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise.". I noticed that North made this edit to the article, but I am confused as to why his edit summary refers to WP:BLPNAME, which is about privacy of names, rather than MOS:IDENTITY, which are the applicable guidelines about the gender pronouns. In any case, my primary concern is putting a permanent end to this pronoun battle. So can someone please post something on the article's talk page so that the determination is easily accessible to all future editors who want to change the pronouns. (Perhaps there's also a way to put a permanent link to this thread?) As things stand now, there's nothing stopping this problem from continuing until an official "ruling" is made. And North, can you or any others, please put that page on your watchlist? Thanks. Lootbrewed ( talk) 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The link in the discography for Vertigo, his 2015 single actually links to the condition of the same name, and also does not specify he is only featured on the song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.74.41 ( talk) 11:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Prasad Ram ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The current wikipedia article on Prasad Ram seems to be written as a means of promotion. The content and its presentation is more suited towards personal sites but definitely not wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.7.68.157 ( talk) 13:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I am now blocked from posting any comments on the talk page of my bio. I have opened a new account RickAlanRoss1952 at Wikipedia. Please allow me to post at the talk page of my bio. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Jackson5Dr ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly vandalizing the Direct Action Everywhere page despite multiple warnings and discussion on the article's talk page. Vandalism includes referring to people as sexual predators and cult leaders without citing reliable sources. Funcrunch ( talk) 18:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
This article needs urgent attention from participants at this board. It is written by an experienced editor acting in good faith, but I think the salacious details and speculation in the media have crept into the article. For some particular issues, see my comment at the India noticeboard although those are likely just the tip of the iceberg. Related article, Indrani Mukerjea, Peter Mukerjea etc will also need to be reviewed. Abecedare ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Upon his arrest, Rai narrated the entire murder incident to the Mumbai police including the fact that he was paid ₹1 lakh (equivalent to ₹1.0 lakh or US$1,509.70 in 2015) for the job.), which are not even supported by the cited sources! Can you take another look? Abecedare ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
At present this mugshot appears in the info box for the Ma Anand Sheela BLP. I can find no other photo to replace it. It appears to give undue weight to her criminal activities. Should it be kept or removed? Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, for your continued attention to this issue. Have a great weekend!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: this diff and this discussion.
I was bot summoned by an RfC to comment on Jeremy Corbyn's page, where there is now a section, Association with alleged anti-Semites, that uses all kinds of allegations against other people with whom Corbyn has associated to link Corbyn's name to "antisemitism" a bunch of times. This for a leftwing labour politician who's probably as far from anti-semitism as they come. My efforts to improve the page were promptly reverted. I'm no fan of Labour or any of its politicians, but I view this as a blatant BLP vio; comment or help would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 21:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Noel Biderman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ameteurdemographer ( talk · contribs) introduced a highly contentious statement about the subject of the article. After I removed the content, Ameteurdemographer restored it, and after the material was removed again by Haminoon ( talk · contribs), Ameteurdemographer introduced the material a third time. I believe the sourcing of the highly contentious statement relies on questionable, gossipy sources and therefore violates WP:BLP. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Rick_Alan_Ross
I am Rick Alan Ross and am concerned about my bio at Wikipedia. One Wikipedia user has insisted that I can only post under an account. At one time I did have an account, but I have not used it for some time and am not sure that I have the password. I have now created a new account and am willing to verify my identify by phone (call me at the office) or fax (from my office agreed upon ID). It seems to me that I should bse allowed to discuss what is wrong with my bio on the Talk page per the process at Wikipedia. Please help me to continue that process. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
My judgment has been questioned for removing this addition to an article about a living person who is a CEO of a company one of whose sub-divisions has a branch that has likely been breaking some rules. The company in question employs large numbers of people who are paid the minimum wage in demanding circumstances.
My removal... which happened twice now... has been discussed a little on the talk page at Talk:Ruby McGregor-Smith#Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:UNDUE - National Minimum Wage. In particular I was surprised that the supposed controversy had not been mentioned in the Wikipedia article about the company itself, nor in any Wikipedia article about the sub-division, and that even the CEO herself is not mentioned in the body of the Wikipedia article about the company. I think the Daily Mail is one of the sources used.
Anyway, I ask for opinions or suggestions here or there about whether some or any of this material should be in the article about the living person. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 21:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An editor has (re)created an article about Ben Garrison, a recurring target of trolling and harassment.The article was previously deleted as an unambiguous attack page. I have to leave right now, but this could use some prompt attention. I think there might be usable sources out there, but most of what's in the article isn't going to fly, and the article, as created, was citing Stormfront and similar. It's already getting vandalized, and if the article is kept, it's going to need many watchers and probably permanent protection. Grayfell ( talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that Wiki moderators and editors become more sensitive to and aware of the insertion of age prejudice into the content of articles. For example, the bio of Newt Gingrich offers a discussion of each of his marriages and characterizes each wife in relation to Mr. Gingrich's age. Why? The point is not stated.
I believe it is inappropriate to characterize the age of a spouse or any other third party in a Wiki article unless the relevance is stated. For about 40 years the standard of journalism has been to exclude discussions of race, religion, culture, and other personal characteristics unless the information is otherwise relevant to the article.
Thanks guys and keep up the great work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8A9:B060:9506:137B:3BFF:877C ( talk) 22:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a remaining, BLP violation that has not been removed. Several late ones have but I think the earliest edit by User:2600:100d:b12e:a480:143:eba1:9008:52fa should also be hidden. Red Jay ( talk) 08:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
"Both Nithyananda and the actress had insisted that the video was morphed, a claim that was later proven by a confession by the ex-COO of Sun TV. Sun TV had released the fake video on YouTube.[7]"
The cited article contains nothing that suggests this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.80.120 ( talk) 09:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This article could use some love. I tagged two sections as UNDUE and commented out large swaths of text a year ago, but I never got back to clean it up as intended. Gamaliel ( talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles we say:
In this specific case, however, in order to prevent article subjects from continued shakedowns by bad actors who are causing significant harm to the reputation of this project, the articles are all being deleted.
This text is being reproduced off-wiki by various parties, and the sense of it by many more, including generally reputable journals.
Clearly a shakedown is an act of extortion, illegal in most countries, and unethical everywhere. It is claimed that simply becasue we are not naming those involved, this does not constitute a BLP infraction (or libel).
I respectfully disagree for the following reasons.
It is certainly worth while blocking these accounts, and I would have no issue with them being prosecuted for violating WP:TOS. However we need to curb this extravagant use of language.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC).
we are blocking a bunch of accounts, a lot of them are bad actors, there was some undislosed paid editing, there were shakedowns/extortions being used, thus we are deleting all the articles in scorched-earth policy, as a warning to future bad actors, all good apples please be aware that this situation could recur and may not be over yet
we are blocking a bunch of accounts for socking and for meatpuppetry, since this is not permitted per wiki-policy, in some cases the ToU policy against undisclosed paid editing was violated, and there were allegations that some of these blocked accounts (but not all of them) were off-wiki-contacting some of the corporations and humans -- usually the subject-matter of the corporation-articles and BLP-articles in question -- then allegedly demanding payment and/or allegedly threatening article-deletion, if financial compensation was not forthcoming. Because of the troubling circumstances, we are mass-deleting the articles involved; this is not because the articles themselves are necessarily poor, nor the article-topics are necessarily non-encyclopedic ... indeed a small percentage do appear to pass WP:42 once the puffery is cleaned out. Most importantly, this mass-deletion is certainly not because the off-wiki victims of the bad-apple-socks, which is to say, the corporations and the biographical-subjects, were in any way at fault: quite often, in fact, some innocent good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian would be diligently following wiki-policies, working in the AfC queue on their autobiography for example, or working in the AfC queue on a corporation-article about their employer, and in the course of receiving a (proper&correct) AfC decline, with instructions for improvement, these good-apple-COI-wikipedians would (allegedly) be approched off-wiki with cash demands and (allegedly) threats of draft-deletion, by some of the bad apples involved in this socking-ring. The topics of these articles, who are often themselves wikipedians, should be treated kindly; they are the victims here, not the perpetrators of the alleged bad-apple-actions. GOING FORWARD: all admins and wikipedians are advised that any sort of shakedown, coercion, or similar tactics -- which might theoretically be attempted by any bad apples in the future -- any such tactic being used against good-faith COI-encumbered wikipedian editors, or being used in real life against the corporations and biographical-subjects of wikipedia articles, will be treated most harshly.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
04:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC).
We have a new editor, BirthNamesAreGarbage ( talk · contribs), whose user name and edits so far suggest that they have a mission. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello
My understanding is WIKI is all about presenting facts right? AS a long time user I rely on the honesty of those inputting to the page.
I seem to be bullied out by more "experienced" editors.
My issue is this. Zoie Palmer in no legal way etc is a parent to her partner's child. He has a mother and father. She is not an adoptive mother, step mother etc... This is legal FACT. She may be awesome motherly figure etc but he is not her son. I implore you to show me tertiary evidence that he is her child.
Anyways your "editors" who have soo much experience etc have resorted to name calling (I screenshotted it(. The point is what I am saying is truthful.
Again show me tertiary evidence that it's not true what I said. I know it cannot be disproved as what I am saying is true. What I am saying is objective not subjective.
So please hold accountable those that resort to name calling and prevent the same from being repeated.
It's also in poor taste to publish a minors name.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Was that before or after you called me a jerk? You clearly ignored earlier (and missed stating it for your own benefit) where I stated I had not seen the messages. I know the parties involved first hand, I recall the day he was born. Zoie who? If you are so invested in a lie... ask her if what I a saying is correct. I am fine to accept an appropriate label, but not this. The problem with well known people in this situation is those that don't have a voice (ie the other parent) don't get a say into the domain their kid gets thrown into.
I would hope those that print lies get sued... You are basically claiming the father doesn't exist and someone else is his son's parent. You have printed it, it is false and harms his reputation.
Apologies it would appear it was someone else who does the name calling...
The same vandal, User:Correctfact, vandalized the article again with the same edits. User:Bearcat has put an Admin-only protection level on it. This will not stop User:Correctfact from wanting to distort biographical information about Zoie Palmer and he will return to do it all over again when the protection expires. What has really happened now, however, is that every editor has been punished for the actions of one jerk. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctfact ( talk • contribs)
The sources for this issue suck. One is "Hello". I checked "Gay Star News", [19]. It clearly says that the son Luca is from a previous relationship. So if there's another kid involved, it's not at all obvious that it's Zoie's. I'm removing the "son" claim until this is sorted out properly. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
There are a class of articles related to the apparently deliberate deaths of people where the apparent culprit fled across an international border to China. These include Amanda Zhao, Murder of Shao Tong, Trial of Xiao Zhen and Zhang Hongjie. One of them ( Trial of Xiao Zhen) is largely my work, but I now see that other editors have taken very different approaches to the articles. Could I get someone to take a look and give me some feedback on the relative approaches? Does anyone know of similar articles that have got to GA status I can crib from? Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The article says she has 30 children. Is this true? No other web source says so. Thank you. Anne C. Thomas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.136.224 ( talk) 11:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Richard Sherman (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone edited the page for Richard Sherman, the All-Pro cornerback for the Seattle Seahawks, to say that he now plays for the Green Bay Packers, even though no such news of this player leaving the Seahawks can be found anywhere. I live in Wisconsin and am surrounded by dipshit insane Packers fans. I have since edited the page back to full accuracy, but please ensure no more idiots in the state of Wisconsin, or anywhere else for that matter, make asinine other claims like this about a living NFL player in order to make their team look better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.43.26 ( talk) 13:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I came across the biography of a writer and former professor Frank Ching from a page awaiting review, /info/en/?search=Draft:Analytical_drawing. Despite a long book list the article has no references. The only biographical information I could find on the web either came from his social media or the brief mention at http://www.amazon.com/Francis-D.K.-Ching/e/B001H6NK1W. I'd assume they must exist, but I was unable to find reliable secondary sources. Would it be possible for someone more experienced to have a go at it? Please always ping @ Ellin Beltz ( talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The personal life section is often edited and filled with lies to discredit Mr. Fassbender and his work. The sources of these lies are unreliable gossip articles so I deleted all the lies about his personal life, leaving the true facts. I hope you will do something about that next time it happens because it is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.169.227 ( talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Benjamin F. Strickland II ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not only this article, but Draft:London Eugene Livingston Steverson, too ( Draft:London Eugene Livingston Steverson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). The article on Strickland showed up in draftspace, was deleted, then recreated in draftspace and is now in article space. The article on Steverson showed up at around this same time also. Both articles read as if someone is using Wikipedia as a venue to bring some unimportant scandal in the U.S. Coast Guard to the world's attention. I also notice that these are AFC submissions. My complaints about AFC acting as an island unto itself and dumping questionable content on the encyclopedia are numerous, but I'd rather save that argument for another time. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Latest edit of Andy Crane ( /info/en/?search=Andy_Crane) mentions a meeting with a Dan Binks in Tipton. I can't find any information backing this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.21.200 ( talk) 09:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Please watchlist User talk:Everettstern and Everett Stern ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 13:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Now at AE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kim Davis trivially falls under WP:BIO1E, but a handful of editors are maintaining the article as if she's notable for something else. I think the goal for including all the extraneous information is to attack her character and undermine her position. The article currently reads as if she had a WP:BLP before the last couple weeks, but it was created on September 1st, in response to her actions protesting the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. The article currently has sources that do not mention the recent controversy at all, and that seems to be clear WP:OR, as editors are deciding which scraps of information dug up from 2011 or before to include in the article, rather than allowing the sources relating to the current event to decide what information needs to be included. Aside from this, the excessive detail into her election, including a colored table and 3 sections completely unrelated to the controversy seem trivially inappropriate and do not conform to the standards set by other articles about people notable only for one event. Furthermore, the section on her personal life is listed out of chronological order, in order to make her seem more like a hypocrite. If editors could please take a read and contribute to the discussing there or here, it would be most appreciated. PraetorianFury ( talk) 20:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|
Irvin Mayfield ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Irvin_Mayfield&diff=679487364&oldid=679194124
The information that keeps getting added back is out of date, defamatory and slanderous. Part of the information is unfounded and unsubstantiated and the rest is based on out of date information. They are citing news articles from May 2015. The article below that I have cited is from June 2015 and refutes the inflammatory information the user keeps posting.
References
Pawel Lewicki page is for a living person and it appears to have inappropriate material in the PERSONAL section near the end.
I am an infrequent and novice wikipedia editor, so I don't know how to respond, nor do I want to get pulled into a conflict.
I removed the inappropriate material, but it was put back up right away. I also received a personal email with a link that had a lot of foul language and acquisitions.
This seems like a personal dispute, and is not appropriate for wikipedia. Judging by the names of the people cc'ed in the email I received, this might be an intra-family argument.
So I want to bring this to the attention of more experienced wikipedia editors who know how to handle such conflicts on living person wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krexer ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I think some BLP experts should give this article a look. In brief, it's about a forensic scientist who gained notability when her conclusions and testimony, which supported criminal convictions, were found to be inaccurate in several cases. All the material in the current article is negative, but it's also well-supported by the Chicago Tribune, a solidly reliable source. WP:ATTACK and WP:1E aren't clear enough about this situation to set my mind at ease. FourViolas ( talk) 04:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Tomas N'evergreen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It seems surprising that this article has been in such a badly-written, promotional state for as long as it has. I know this is me being a WikiImp rather than just fixing it, but I feel like the article could use a complete rewrite.
To be specific, Ugle82 ( talk · contribs) has done the majority of that writing, and appears to be exclusively here to promote the subject. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 04:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am Rick Alan Ross (consultant) with bio at Wikipedia. See /info/en/?search=Rick_Alan_Ross I was recently blocked from the Talk page of my bio by editors over the issue of my identity and not having an account. I did once have an account, but lost the password and my email address changed. So I now have a new account. Please allow me to post again at the Talk page. Thanks RickAlanRoss1952 ( talk) 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Pete Kelly (Alaska politician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
First off, I've been bothered by the possible abuse of "Alaska politician" as a disambiguator. The prevalence of such lately suggests that we're trying to ghettoize people because they happen to be politicians in Alaska. In this case, Snappy ( talk · contribs) moved the article in November 2014 from Pete Kelly (politician) to the current title with the rationale that he's not the only politician named Pete Kelly, yet the former title was left as a redirect to the article and not retargeted to a dab page or to another article.
Now to the main purpose of this post: there has been a slow-motion edit war occurring here for about two or three weeks, where 66.223.168.231 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has added a paragraph about a recent criminal conviction of Kelly's son to this article at least a half-dozen times. The first time, the edit was sourced to an article appearing in the Alaska Dispatch News in June (coincidentally, Kelly's son shares a name with a female reporter for that newspaper), but the ref was formatted to instead link readers to Click Bishop's Project Vote Smart profile. I haven't checked to see whether that was the case each time. These edits have been repeatedly reverted by Jkshilling ( talk · contribs) and Independence21 ( talk · contribs), both of whom have edited almost exclusively on the topic of Republican state legislators in Alaska. It's been really funny watching these editors carry on as if no one else is watching. Well, if I have to bring this to the community's attention, then effectively speaking, no one is watching, but anyway... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an administrator move Prof. Wael Badawy to Wael Badawy, due to naming conventions? Thank you. //nepaxt 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed an nasty unsourced accusation from this article. I don't have time to look for sources, or fix the other problems with the article. Would someone at this board be able clean this mess up? CWC 04:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Michael_Kempner
Public Relations agency Owner Michael Kempner is best known for political fundraising, and most recently serving as the employer of Anthony Weiner. His page seems rather typical of public relations professionals in that it is very self serving. Would appreciate commentary to ensure accuracy of erstwhile edits pursued. Richard Thoma ( talk) 11:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
And while am at it one may wonder if his PR company should be merged into his personal biography. /info/en/?search=MWW_(company) Richard Thoma ( talk) 11:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Ernest W. Adams ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is being targeted by an offsite forum with a critical opinion of the subject of the article, who is arguing with IP editors on the talk page. Gamaliel ( talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Karlie Kloss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No citation for: Kloss is Taylor Swift's girlfriend, and appeared in the singer's music video for the single " Bad Blood" in May 2015. She is also the godmother of model Jourdan Dunn's son. She has been dating Taylor Swift since 2013.
Bobby Clampett I work with Bobby Clampett at Impact Zone Golf (his business, not mentioned in the Wikipedia article by the way)- and we want to get his page updated. The "controversy" section is inaccurate- he was never removed from air. In fact, it was such a small issue, it hardly warrants a "controversy" section! Also, we would like to update his Champions Tour stats. It would be good for the article to make mention of his daughter Katelynn Clampett who is a singer/songwriter out of Nashville. It could also be mentioned that people are always asking Bobby if he is a Beverly Hillbilly, a reference to the hit 60’s series, the Beverly Hillbillies. Bobby’s dad’s first cousin was Bob Clampett /info/en/?search=Bob_Clampett And there is a connection between the Clampett name and the Beverly Hillbillies after all. Bob Clampett and Paul Henning, the producer and creator of the Beverly Hillbillies were good friends. https://beanyandcecil.com/the-beverly-hillbobbies/
How can we go about making these changes happen?
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshadiane ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The current link in ref. [4]: http://www.iam.conicet.gov.ar/cms/?q=en/node/185 is no longer active.
The official site for Ariel Fernandez has migrated to: http://www.conicet.gov.ar/new_scp/detalle.php?keywords=&id=33676&datos_academicos=yes
Please replace link accordingly.
AF has published a second book (not mentioned) "Bimolecular Interfaces", Springer, 2015, ISBN 9783319168494 The publisher link is https://www.springer.com/la/book/9783319168494
201.219.85.151 ( talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council
Please come to the RFC at Talk:Peter_Dinklage#RFC_on_the_inclusion_of_his_dwarfism_in_the_lead if it interests you to do so. -- Jayron 32 03:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Can editors please look at this article? I've semi-protected following a OTRS-volunteer request but I think the bio could use a severe trim. -- NeilN talk to me 01:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The marital status of Vincent D'Onofrio and Greta Scacchi has come into question again. One interview with Scacchi says she has never been married. Various other reliable sources say they have. Some claiming to be D'Onofrio's current wife is trying to make the changes. The relevant discussions are on the respective article pages. I'd appreciate others getting involved so maybe this can be resolved one way or the other. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General ‖ 06:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
[20] There is an RFC on the Shaun King page regarding the prominence we are giving of the recent Breitbart generated scandal. Input would be appreciated. Artw ( talk) 22:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wish to have the following page about myself deleted as it violates my privacy. Please help & keep up the excellent work Wiki team. Northie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kind regards, Aaron Lee North.
Shannon Lamb ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recently created article that seems to have lots of problems and needs some serious attention. I came across this from this Teahouse question. It seems that WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME come into play here, but not sure how to best proceed. - Marchjuly ( talk) 05:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The article on Terry Ryan, GM of the Minnesota Twins, skips over the fact that Ryan let David Ortiz go and got NOTHING (0) in return for him when he was cut in 2002. In fact, the article states that
"Ortiz would not show MVP-caliber numbers until he left the Twins a few years later. Similarly, in August 1997, Ryan unloaded another aging veteran for a future All-Star..."
This is an outrage. Ortiz was a rising star in 2002, and two days ago (September 12) he hit his 500th major league homerun.
If you are the first draft of history, you're going to do better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwasescha ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
HI I am a close friend of the singer songwriter Nikola Bedingfield and it is her wish to be named in Wikipedia as Nikola Bedingfield and not Nikola Rachelle. The reason for this being that Nikola Bedingfield is her artist name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.209.145 ( talk) 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems pretty much like a fan written or self-written article. There is an award, but actually he has won one, an been nominated for 2 others. Also see for the external links. Too much of external from sites that is not proofed.
Fellow Wikipedians, I would appreciate another opinion at
Rosin Jolly. A number of IP editors have added content regarding controversy & criticism of the subject, which does not, as far as I can see, appear to be either neutrally worded or supported by the sources. There is probably something which can be reliably sourced, but not the gossipy language which has been added.
Information is likely currently removed, so it may be necessary to review the page history. I am bringing this here for another point of view, which is preferable to a pattern of insertion & redaction. Many thanks for your time. -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.'
12:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Toeppen ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please review the section Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest. Its details concern the arrest of a non-famous person (for whom I can't even find evidence of a prosecution, let alone the preferred/required conviction before inclusion). The simple policy on notability requires that any event be more than simply newsworthy (which the arrest clearly was, given two good secondary sources including the Chicago Tribune). I and others have contended in Talk:Dennis_Toeppen#Arrest that including the arrest is premature before conviction and seems to violate WP:BLPCRIME and the WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. And that calling it out in its own section seems particularly reckless. There's a bit of an IP/Sock Puppet/COI/Paid Editing mess that I can't quite figure out among some of the available editors and I'd rather not pick an edit fight, but I'd hope they'd respect a specialist from this noticeboard. Please take a look. KevinCuddeback ( talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Stephan_Dahl seems like a vanity page created by author — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommacao ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This article in my view conforms to the requirements for inclusion in wikipedia, yet it is constantly being challenged due to insufficient citation. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure that information is correct and that it conforms to the requirements. I can also point to numerous other articles which have little or now referenced citations and yet are not given the level of criticism this article receives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombeverage ( talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So much unsourced and glowingly interpretative content--this would be unacceptable if written about an artist dead for four hundred years, and is even worse in a BLP, with the implicit possibility that conflict of interest could be part of the problem. One can't turn sideways at Wikipedia without bumping into promotionalism. Anyway, now that that's out of my system, more eyes and assistance will be much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 ( talk) 02:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
http://psimg.jstor.org/fsi/img/pdf/t0/10.5555/al.sff.document.nuun1991_11_final.pdf
In 1990 British Grandmaster James Plaskett broke the Apartheid ban.
(note for editors ... nearly all references to this have been purged from google... this is quite a significant event (negative) in his career. It should be included for balance IMO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 ( talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Michael Derrick Hudson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article as it reads now looks like it is almost the epitome of a BLP violation; basically, it looks like a hit-piece and contains a great deal of opinion Duedemagistris ( talk) 00:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Not the "epitome" but certainly in need of pruning to be sure.
Collect (
talk)
13:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Duuh. I meant to post this in Jimbo's page, not here, since it's from a couple of paragraphs up on here! I don't know how to hide posts, could someone please hide this one? Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary. Person claims to have never been married. Wikipedia editors refuse to believe her and instead go to the "reliable sources". Also, the person talking about her own marriage has a conflict of interest. It's hard to figure out exactly what these sources are but checking the related talk pages suggests that these are references made in passing of the "her and her husband are doing this" type that are easily explainable by the "reliable source" not bothering to research things they say in passing. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The page describes a backup actress (extra) and has attracted attention from numerous people for being unambigious advertising. The individual herself may or may not be notable enough to warrant a page but at this point the talk page participants (except the creator) agree that the page should be destroyed until it can be rewritten in an encyclopedic fashion with well sourced and accurate statements.
We have a content-related issue regarding the Wikipedia Biography article Ariel Fernandez. There is a line repeatedly edited and updated that includes 4 papers by the subject that have been questioned by the journals where they are published. This, in our opinion, is not adding meaningful content to Wikipedia. The papers have not been retracted and no definite action has been taken. By the same token, we could include the papers that have been published and have not even been questioned (some 350 of them). We believe the sentence "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." should be removed. Please advice.
Argentine Natl. Research Council 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Short, well sourced, and it makes it clear that that things are not clear-cut nor widespread in his publication history. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Issues have been raised [1] [2] with four (less than 2%) of Fernandez's articles, including data and analysis, [3] which Fernandez has defended [4] [5] and apparent duplicate publication. [6]
Using publications to makes claims about the publication is clearly using them as a primary source, and catenating material found by using original research (that is - no secondary reliable source has made the claim) is a violation of
WP:BLP and
WP:OR. I further note the genetics journal states "Annual Reviews, with concurrence of the review’s author, has decided to withhold final publication pending satisfactory resolution." This seems a lot milder than the imputation given in Wikipedia's voice by a mile. Someone - remove this dross -- Wikipedia is all too often used to "get at" people disfavoured by editors, and we are required to be very careful in using Wikipedia's voice to make allegations.
Collect (
talk)
12:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
My feeling after reading over all this is that mentioning these retractions is definitely extremely WP:UNDUE. Papers get retracted all the time. A retracted paper isn't automatically worth including in an article, and definitely not in a BLP. Retraction Watch, as I understand it, covers retractions indiscriminately, which makes it useless to establish significance. The only other secondary source mentions it only in passing, only to note that Fernandez disputed it on Twitter, and is merely using Fernandez to make a more general point -- they make no assertion that the retraction has any significance in terms of Fernandez' biography. My feeling is that to mention something like this in a WP:BLP, we need a source specifically saying that it matters; the sources provided here definitely do not provide enough to include it. This is especially true in the context of the article -- it reads like someone has collected every issue or concern that has ever been raised about Fernandez' papers to try and imply some impropriety or some other negative judgment of Fernandez. This is WP:SYNTH; we would need a source explicitly attesting to the relevance of these things as they relate to Fernandez. Without that, my reading is that the entire paragraph beginning with "Four of Fernandez's scientific papers..." must be removed. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
References
CONICET (Natl. Res. Council) 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 01:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
We are uncertain as to Wikipedia bylaws. For example, MIT professor Robert Weinberg has had 5 key papers retracted, including several in the highest impact journals, and not a word is mentioned in his Wikipedia BLP. On the other hand, Dr. Fernandez has papers simply questioned, not retracted, that are mentioned. In fact, we have not spotted any Wiki BLP for a scientist mentioning papers that have only been questioned. Please advice. Natl. Research Council, Argentina 201.219.85.151 ( talk) 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
His online CV mentions a number of secondary sources which discuss his work. We should improve the sections which discuss his work if we are going to include stuff on the retractions, otherwise his article is just blah blah blah chemist retractions. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor Special:Contributions/167.192.150.201 claiming to represent Curt Thompson has returned unsourced material to the article that I removed in terms of WP:BLP policy on sourcing. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 20:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FYI, there are two ongoing RfC's regarding this person, and they raise some BLP-related issues, especially as regards neutrality and fairness: