This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Dave Frost (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

corrections to his biography.

• 1. Red Sox try out was 1999
• 2. He was a 3rd team All-American in 1998<NCAA baseball>
• 3. He was a four year starting shortstop.<Harvard Baseball> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegas005 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An Idiot has placed disgraceful remarks about Steve Cotterill on his Wikipedia write up, please remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.120.33 ( talk) 14:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. [1] -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Chai Vang (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lance616168 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA who obviously has an agenda, just made these rants/remarks on the talk page about the victims of the incident ( diff). I won't repeat the offending remarks here but the last two sentences of this subsection about two surviving victims definitely violate BLP and the whole rant should be rev del'd IMHO.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 06:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The article on Vivek Lall ( /info/en/?search=Vivek_Lall) seems more like a personal advertisement and seems to violate NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooliebun ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Page still needs some work but I made a series of edits removing promotional tone. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A Village Pump thread has opened (link) to determine how the Manual of Style should guide editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves. Concurrently, a thread has opened (link) to determine how to guide editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Antony Coia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to me to be non-notable, but the BLP seems also to be a hook for a commercial site which is the subject of a current AfD. Is he actually notable? Should his self-published material be used as links? Collect ( talk) 14:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems notable enough. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Even though most of the cites are SPS and Italian Wikipedia? Google finds all of 139 pages total with his name. His "news cites" are essentially all Italian. His name appears in precisely zero books. Zero mentions in the entire NYT archives. On what exact basis is he "notable" pray tell? Sources hosted by Wordpress? Collect ( talk) 21:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

although perhaps I would support the english wikipedia having some sign of notability in the English speaking world as a guideline, that is not the current situation. Foreign language source are just fine for showing notability. But if they are all SPS/non-RS, that is an issue, especially as this is a BLP where those sources are likely out of bounds all together (except for the ones he published himself, which certainly don't contribute to notablity). Quickly scanning the currently used refs I'd say 2 or 3 of them meet RS. That is fairly borderline. Its enough to avoid a speedy, but I wouldn't object to it being taken to AFD to see what a wider audience thinks. Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Maryedith Burrell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maryedith Burrell divorced Peter Bergman in 2011, before his death. Peter's daughter, Lily Oscar Bergman, is no longer Ms. Burrell's daughter. The adult adoption of Lily Oscar Bergman is in the process of being reversed.

Maryedith Burrell received an Mastersfrom the University of North Carolina, Asheville, USA in 2012. Her one-woman show, #OUCH!, a comedy about the perils of the American Health Care system is currently touring. She continues to write screenplays, fiction and non-fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.172.139 ( talk) 16:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for the absolute reversal of the adult adoption - then we could use this tidbit. It is not a simple process to reverse the adoption by a deceased person, if I recall correctly. Collect ( talk) 21:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Bob Cornuke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am a colleague of Dr. Robert (Bob) Cornuke. The information contained in the Wikipedia article "Bob Cornuke" is full of personal "opinons" and remarks that has been and continues to this day to be damaging the career of Dr. Cornuke. If you carefully read the article, it is a full scale attack on everything that Dr. Cornuke has ever done. The articles that are presented of peoples "opinions" have been cleverly weaved to paint Dr. Cornuke in a highly unfavorable light. This article has directly caused Dr. Cornuke financial loss. Dr. Cornuke has been contacted for speaking engagements over the years, only to have them cancelled when they read the article in Wikipedia. Instead of this article being one that is biographical in nature only, it is a total assault on Dr. Cornukes character, research and professionalism. I am upset that Wikipedia even allows this type of character assassination to be on their site. Please consider removing this article, for the sake of journalistic integrity and fairness.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jeffrey Harbuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us. That said, the article could use some cleanup. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this complaint deserves a better response than this. Yes, the subject lacks academic credentials, and yes, his claims are fringe. But this article deviates greatly from a neutral point of view, and draws heavily from proselytizing sites for criticism. I'm going to stub it down the the reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Xymmax, great job on the cleanup. I did some myself but the numerous problems with the article became mind-numbing. Czoal ( talk) 07:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The mere fact that you have put Bob's name as "Dr" Bob shows your prejudice. You say "If people are cancelling speaking invitations upon learning that "Dr" Bob's doctorate was granted by an unaccredited institution, then I'm not sure this amounts to a serious concern for us." There is that "unaccredited" word you use so often. You are assuming that that is why people are doing that, with absolutely no basis or information proving that. Do you know the difference between and unaccredited institute and an accredited institute? Your use of the word unaccredited demeans the work of those institutions. Many colleges do not seek accreditation because they must comply with government regulations, which in the case of many seminaries and Bible schools, go against their fundamental teachings and beliefs. You seem to use the term "unaccredited" quite often and your intent implies an insult. The fact that people have cancelled speaking engagements for Bob Cornuke as a direct result of looking at your information on Wikipedia is very important, although you seem to dismiss it. The entire article is slanted and unflattering to Dr. Cornuke. It is laced with personal opinions and insults. That is why the people have uninvited him to speak at several places. They have all said it was because of the negative information that they saw about him on Wikipedia. This should not be a difficult thing to do. Write a journalistic report on him, if you will. Remove the insults, the negative accusations, the inferences and the quotes from people who disagree with him. This is tabloid and you should "have a serious concern" how damaging this is to the career and income of Dr. Cornuke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessmm ( talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Quint Studer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there. I am seeking help reviewing some changes for businessman Quint Studer's article and also to see whether the {{ POV}} tag can now be removed from that article. Since editors from here have previously commented on the page, I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to look again? I'm proposing two drafts: one focuses on Studer's investments and the other details his baseball team ownership. Similar content had previously been in the article, but was inadvertently edited out as other improvements were made. There have been no responses to my Talk page message, so I'm hoping an editor here can take a look. I will not edit the article myself, because I wrote the drafts as a paid consultant to The Studer Group, Studer's company. Regarding the tag, I'd originally added it some months back due to concerns about the article's tone and content (this is the only direct edit I've made and will make to the article). Since then, editors have made a number of improvements that I feel have fully addressed those concerns. I'd love for someone from here to take a look and see whether it would be appropriate to remove it now. All input is welcome, and I'll be watching the article's Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 16:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I had never heard of Studer prior to reading the article just now, but it appears to be an over-the-top résumé essentially being used as a promotional piece. It seems like a good portion of the content should be removed. So, no, I don't feel the POV template should be removed. Czoal ( talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It still reeks of puffery and self-adulation. It is possible there is a salvageable article under the detritus, but I'm not sure. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. These are not the responses I was hoping for, of course, especially since any changes I've proposed for the article previously have been reviewed by a number of editors (including the main Career section being the subject of an RfC). Despite that, I do appreciate you taking the time to look. I've written a more detailed response to Czoal's note on the Talk page, and I invite you both (and any other editors) to continue discussions there. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone would drop by Dinesh Singh (academic). In the past few days, that article has doubled in size, with content exclusively added to the "Controversies..." section. It does not appear to be neutrally worded, and could use some work. Sławomir
Biały 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• You know something's wrong when AFAICT the "Controversies" section on a BLP makes up most of the article! Everymorning (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Right. Undoubtedly, there should be some summary of prominent controversies, since there are lots of good sources. But at the moment, it's mostly an undigested mass of name-calling, giving a voice to everyone with an axe to grind. I did my best in the past to cull some of the more egregious content a few months back, but the latest round of edits have undone those, and added far more. It's gotten beyond my own ability to summarize things neutrally. I feel like a better understanding of Indian politics and culture would be helpful. Sławomir
Biały 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I read a list List of Javanese people, and I found a name, Ahmad Dhani, which I found disputable to enter this list.

I'm sorry I haven't got a written proof to mention here, but I've heard himself (Ahmad Dhani) saying that he is a Sundanese. In his words, it said that "Saya orang Sunda yang kesasar di Surabaya" (meaning "I am a Sundanese who got lost in Surabaya (East Java)"). He said in X-Factor singing contest, aired in television in 2015.

It is true that he speaks Javanese, and I haven't heard or read anywhere that he spoke Sundanese or wrote in Sundanese, but I don't think that it can overrule the fact that he a Sundanese descent, not a Javanese.

The article Ahmad Dhani has correctly written that he is a Sundanese.

I want to erase the name from the list and move it to the article List of Sundanese people, but I don't think it is polite or conforming to Wikipedia rules, so I write in this talk page.

Djauhari136 ( talk) 09:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Djauhari136

Most wiki editors do not care, when you are not based in the USA you do not count to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.87.159.65 ( talk) 09:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I expect of a biographical article that it at least give a subject's place and date of birth, and some summary of the person's background and personal life. The article on Frances Cress Welsing says very little about the woman herself, only about her theories,which appear to be largely psudoscientific. In my opinion this article needs to be much augmented before it will be truly worthy to be included in Wikipedia. Lukasiwicz ( talk) 02:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Conway Redding

Having an imperfect article in place encourages people to enhance it; few of our articles are actually "complete". (And this article does indeed have her date of birth in it, in the very first sentence, but not knowing the place of someone's birth is not sufficient reason to not have an article.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this bio. I much enjoyed all of it, and I fully relate. 185.87.159.65 ( talk) 09:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Genocchio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am asking for editors and admins to view Benjamin Genocchio's BLP. Please review my edits. I am being accused of having a COI. I was hired to help the subject of this BLP whose page was being vandalized to bring it into accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I am not a PR firm. I am a Wikipedia editor who is sometimes paid to help improve articles while abiding by all guidelines at all times. Please read the article. I look forward to discussing this on the talk page and thank you in advance. Please see here for additional information regarding issues with this page Penelope1114 ( talk) 06:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll simply have to abide by the relevant terms for paid editors. If you continue to try to edit the article without having done this, you'll likely end up blocked. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, you have an inherent COI as a paid editor, and must abide by WP:TOU and WP:COI. BMK ( talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

One other point - personally I don't think your user page paid editing disclosure goes far enough. You need to list the articles that you have been paid to edit so that they can easily be scrutinised.-- ukexpat ( talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Cadona, stage name 6025, is the former guitarist for well known punk band the Dead Kennedys. According to his wikipedia article he suffers from schizophrenia, his mother looks after his finances and he is working on becoming the "Captain Beefheart of of gospel music". The sources given there are deadkennedys.com (official website of what remains of the band), alternativetentacles.com (former record label of the band, closely associated with former member Jello Biafra), and darkside.ru, a Russian rock music e-zine. None of these strike me as being sufficiently reliable for material which alludes to someone's mental health. MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy edited the article extensively. I had to trim it significantly due to lack of sources and unencyclopaedic language. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Kalina3112|U1-employer=Hop Online|U1-client=The Scott|U1-}} I am a paid contributor for Kathleen Conway's Wiki page. I have been paid to upload this article by Hop Online.

I have known Harry Reid for at least 50 years, and I can say with certainty that he was never a publisher. If he needs a parenthetical description to distinguish him from other Harry Reids, it would be more accurate to describe him as an editor or - more simply, and this is what I think he would prefer - as a journalist. David Kemp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.247.172 ( talk) 04:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved it. Even in the material that was deleted for lack of sourcing, there was no claim to being a publisher in the article. Moved to Harry Reid (journalist). -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

97.126.235.119, what in heaven's name have you done? You have just destroyed that article by removing practically all of its content. You need to self-revert all those edits you have made. You clearly do not understand the process of handling issues like this. And please stop marking threads on here as resolved, and sign your comments. Czoal ( talk) 05:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed all content lacking sources, and content with dead links lacking sources. Go find some sources for it if you are that concerned. You have a computer and a web browser. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 05:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 97, you practically cleared the article. We do not just remove tons of content like that simply because it's not sourced. You only do that if it's clearly or potentially contentious. It isn't. If the issue is sourcing, we add tags that request sources. And we do not simply removed dead links. There are tage for that, and ways to recover those links. You even removed sources. Now please, revert yourself and restore that content. Czoal ( talk) 05:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. The IP editor needs to stop with these disruptive edits.-- MONGO 06:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job, MONGO. And I agree, IP 97 needs to stop their disruptive editing immediately and acting as an authority on this noticeboad. Their history shows they have edited for just a few weeks, yet are speaking to everyone as if they're an expert on all these issues, and inappropriately marking many threads on this page as "Resolved". And IP 97 also needs to stop prefacing their comments in various discussions with "I'm a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard". IP, we are all volunteers on this noticeboard and many of these editors are very experienced and knowledgeable. If you want to give your input on discussions, fine. But please do not do anything beyond that. Czoal ( talk) 06:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That content is still unsourced. You also reposted dead links. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 06:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadlinks are acceptable, and you could probably spend some productive time fixing them. This isn't the first time someone has had to tell you this guideline, even here within this very thread. Perhaps you should take a break from clerking here until you are up to speed (or at a minimum be willing to listen and learn when others tell you you're not) on these sorts of things. DMacks ( talk) 06:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's more reading here than listening, if we could actually talk to each other we could communicate more clearly. Actually, now that you mention it, it's more relaxing to write linux kernel code than do this, fun though it is interacting with others on a project like this. Cheers. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 07:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 97, while I try my best to always assume good faith, I don't think I'm alone in being concerned about your motives. You are not listening to anyone. There are processes we follow to handle unsourced content, dead links, and other issues which have been discussed on this noticeboard. The first step we consider is most certainly not cleansing almost an entire article. Please, take DMacks' good advice and back off from what you're doing. It's very disruptive. Czoal ( talk) 07:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here are my motives. I at one time had a bio on wikipedia. fortunately it got deleted. Having a bio on wikipedia is like watching a drive by shooting in slow motion happening over and over again as trolls, POV peddlers, fired ex-employees, and internet RAMBO wannabees post every piece of vile trash they can dredge up. My heart goes out to people who have bios on this site, and I decided to do something to help them. Most people are relieved when they see their bio pared down to just cited content. Most of us are happy to see it go completely away. WP does a FAIR job of policing bios, but not great. A good article usually means no article or one with just the facts. Now you know -- my way of helping people. That's my motive, I want to help folks who have to live with a bio on this wiki. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 07:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, you aren't going to be able to help them if you don't learn how to edit according to the rules here. Your work will simply be undone. Several people are trying to help you learn -- but if you don't take it on board you'll likely simply end up frustrated and then flame out. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What rules? I see no rules for MONGO to revert unsourced materials then parade in front of his cheering section what he did. The rules posted above say remove unsourced materials -- period. Someone needs to revise the rules for volunteers posted above or clarify them. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 07:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

i.e. the Notes for Volunteers states remove Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs, BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 07:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What the rules are not: reverting to unsourced comments, reposting dead links without fixing them, reposting libelous content (sourced or not) unless the content is notable enough to stand on its own in its own article. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 07:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What libelous content? Where?-- MONGO 07:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

97.126.235.119 has essentially just admitted to being a renegade editor; someone who is here to rid BLPs of as much content as possible because the IP had an article about themself and felt they were unfairly portrayed. And look at this... BLPDegreaser created this AfD and, as you'll see, IP 97 posted a comment in the Afd, fully supporting BLPDegreaser. Then I see this and this! So the IP is pretending to be two completely different people in the AfD discussion in order to give support to themself? The IP even made the "linux code" reference on the this noticeboard. Something very fishy is going on here with this IP and BLPDegreaser. Perhaps MONGO's edit summary and comment sums it up. All we have to do is look at the username - BLPDegreaser - that says it all if you're looking for a motive! Someone needs to take this to AN/I or another appropriate place. Czoal ( talk) 08:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that too. IP should user their username or just their IP but not both in a deletion discussion.-- MONGO 08:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, MONGO, the editor's participation in the AfD is clear deception. The editor was obviously pretending to be two different people in the AfD in order to get an extra "vote" so the article would be deleted. BLPDegreaser created the AfD, then IP 97 shows up in the AfD and says "I'm a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard. No hidden agenda here" and then goes on to fully support the deletion. So it was completely a hidden agenda. Sanctions? Czoal ( talk) 08:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Bagumba blocked both the named account and the IP for 31 hours. DMacks ( talk) 08:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I came across this article, Dorian Electra, while looking at the entry for Shimer College.

This individual does not appear to be particularly notable. It appears that she is a college student who made a moderately popular youtube video in 2012. The page is an extensive resume including the high school she went to. I believe this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.209.4 ( talk) 18:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Then you should nominate it for deletion, there doesn't seem to be a BLP issue in your discussion. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 13:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bluelinks David Cameron twice. The basis is what appears to be a single anonymous allegation, and a non-anonymous denial by a person in that society, that Cameron was a member. I suggest that if he is kept as a prominent member (alleged) in a table, that the table should also include the counter claim (cited) that he was not a member. Or if the later (second) bluelink for him is kept, that the bluelink in the table is then redundant. Ought a questionable allegation be given such prominence in this manner - listing himtwice? Collect ( talk) 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole section is "alleged" members. Whether that's a good idea in general is an open question, I suppose. But there's no reason to worry about Cameron any more than about the others -- especially given the extent of sourcing about it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Two separate issues. Is "alleged membership" in any society a "contentious claim" in esse. If so, then the article has major problems from the start. Second is - under what circumstances should we bluelink a living person where the basis is an "allegation" by an anonymous person in the first instance? Collect ( talk) 16:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not an allegation by an anonymous person. It's an allegation by two notable named people, in a notable book, about a notable scandal. All four of these sources are considered WP-notable to have articles about them (for as much as that proves anything). Now maybe these are all derived from one single allegation (by someone who is not anyway anonymous to them), but the allegation has been repeated by the two authors such that any court in the land would now regard them as having made it and staked their own reputations upon it. This is no longer an allegation depending solely on The Honourable Mr Anon MP (Oxon), it now (for our purposes) rests on Ashcroft and Oakeshott's allegations, as repeated widely by every media channel around.

Are you seriously suggesting that WP should not report something that is covered by national TV channels, because it is "unsourced"? Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors reaching consensus

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Concerning Mr. Khawaja Asif's page; /info/en/?search=Khawaja_Muhammad_Asif

1. Educational info is incorrect; He attended Government College University, Lahore (BA in History and Politics), he attended Punjab University (LLB). He did not study business administration, he did not attend the LSE, and he does not have a masters degree. Educational data can be confirmed from his nomination papers submitted to Election Commission of Pakistan (cited on the Wikipedia page for Mr. Asif) http://ecp.gov.pk/ScanNF/RECORD%20OF%20RETURNED%20CANDIDATES%20WITH%20ANNEXURES/NATIONAL_ASSEMBLY/GENERAL%20SEATS/NA-110/KHAWAJA%20MOHAMMAD%20ASIF.PDF

2. He is not a "conservative thinker". No citation has been provided for said distinction.

2. News article given as source for "Differences seemed to develop between Khwaja Asif and Nawaz Sharif when he offered to resign alleging that he did not have control over his own ministry.[4]" is speculative, and does not belong in biographical data.

3. His ties to the PMLN go back to his days as a young political activist during his father's political career. Any claim regarding his relationship with Mr. Agha Hassan Abedi is speculative, and without citation.

4. His first job in the UAE was not at BCCI. His career in banking also preceded that relocation.

5. He returned to Pakistan and won his first election prior to his father's death

6. He contested his first National Assembly election in 1993, from which point on he has been the representative of NA-100 till the present day.

Said changes have been made by me, but few have taken effect. Although the biography section of the main page has removed the mention of LSE and the master degree, the same correction has not taken effect in the summary box on the right of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.28.174 ( talk) 10:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Disabled {{ adminhelp}} since this doesn't need immediate admin attention. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced materials removed, tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

John Anglin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clarence Anglin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The History Channel documentary shows possible updates of the brothers duo's living status. Is the documentary reliable or not? -- George Ho ( talk) 16:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched an hour of the documentary last night waiting for "hard evidence" that the Anglins made it out of the Bay alive. There was none. After the nephews started presenting various conditions for their claims (i.e. using their own analysts), I decided I wasn't about to get sucked in for another hour of the same. This is like the JFK conspiracy shows were the "researchers" make fabulous claims and use experts sympathetic to their own POV. If appropriate weight is given, I have no objections to using secondary sources that discuss the show and its claims (which in turn should be presented with attribution). As I see it, the two articles above do not give proper weight. ( Here is a good review of the show from Variety. Sarah D. Bunting's review is here; it looks like I was able to put up with it three times longer that she did!) - Location ( talk) 18:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) edited 20:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi should explain this then. This is George Ho actually ( Talk) 20:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I watched it as well. The entire two hours. And the forensic experts enlisted by the US Marshal Service and FBI concluded that the two in the photo were the Anglin brothers. Sorry you didn't watch it all. The conclusion was quite compelling and both the FBI and US Marshal are likely going to investigate further based on the evidence presented. There was talk of extradition possibilities. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk is talk and I did not find it the least bit compelling. I've seen enough shows like this to know that Roderick's hand-picked expert would state just what the papers said he stated (i.e. that it was "highly likely" the people in the photo were the Anglin brothers). The Widners and Roderick have been talking about this stuff for about three years, and The History Channel doesn't have a show if someone like Dyke calls "bullshit". Given the conditions the Widners put on everything, Dyke was more gracious than he need to be... or at least he did a good job pretending to be. Here is what he has to say today about the photo:

"I can't say yes or no on it," U.S. Marshal Michael Dyke, based in Oakland, said in an interview. "I've seen the picture. I'm doing analysis on the photo as we speak and having the FBI look at it. The important thing is to not draw any conclusions as it hasn't been vetted through regular investigative channels." [2]

Let's not be so gullible. - Location ( talk) 21:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source to support a mention of the nephews' claims... I would wait until it's been vetted by a broader array of sources before considering it worthy of inclusion, however. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the sources, I think it merits inclusion, but we should be very careful not to state in wiki-voice that the photo is authentic or that the photo is of the brothers; that should be attributed to the experts used by The History Channel. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 23:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@ NorthBySouthBaranof: I agree. BTW, I changed the article to state "likely" because that is what the citation given notes. I think "highly likely" is what is noted in two tabloids, the Daily Mail and NY Post. - Location ( talk) 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of the History Channel is, to put it as charitably as possible, "mixed." Our own article states it well: "the network is frequently criticized by scientists, historians, and skeptics for broadcasting pseudo-documentaries, unsubstantiated and sensational investigative programming." Per WP:REDFLAG we should use History Channel in cases like this only with great caution, while also taking into account WP:WEIGHT and other policies. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 01:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts, Winkelvi? George Ho ( talk) 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether the History Channel is thought unreliable by some. The video of the forensic expert, the retired deputy US Marshal, and the FBI agent are what they are. They said what they said and put their reputations on the line saying it. Why would they lie or acquiesce to a script provided by the network? What happened, happened and the fact is all three individuals said they believed the photo to be compelling evidence/a new lead that would result in further investigation in the case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The History Channel presented a faux story line that Roderick was an impartial authority figure enlisted by the Widners, so his opinion means squat. The only hard evidence presented was the photograph, so please don't tell me that all of this rests on the opinion of some expert named "Michael Street", whomever that is. As Dyke stated, until this has been "vetted through regular investigative channels" (i.e. real investigators and their experts), then it doesn't really matter what those three individuals said they believe. - Location ( talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – ongoing merge/maintrenance debate over several articles covering the same subject. Editors are capable of reaching consensus and resolving dispute

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Kara Walker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the correct spelling to Arto lindsay in this article is Arturo Lindsay, a fellow Atlantan artist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.149.209.185 ( talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, that is his nickname. See Arto Lindsay - Cwobeel (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors reaching consensus

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard Downie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir or Madam, I have deleted false, libelous material several times from the page "Richard Downie"--and it continues to reappear. The material that keeps appearing cites an article (ref 3) that further cites an informal investigation (ref 4). This actual report (contained within ref 4) does not actually support his statements. In fact the investigating officer's conclusions in the actual report contained in ref 4 are: “The Director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) directed an investigation into allegations of a hostile work environment, mismanagement, resource discrepancies and racial prejudice raised by[Name Masked]. After extensive review into these allegations, I find that the center’s leadership has not violated any laws or Department of Defense regulations, has not acted unethically towards its employees, and has maintained good order and conduct expected in an organization in the Department of Defense.”

In short, this individual keeps stressing his own allegations that there was mismanagement – – but the actual findings of the report he cites do not support his allegations. His claim of "controversy" is based on his own personal agenda--not that of the investigating officer--as he claims falsely.

Please note the following: The graduate of a military academy whose motto is “Duty, Honor, Country,” Downie's tenure at CHDS was a time of controversy over human rights, free speech and other management issues, including recurring senior staff involvement in acts of racism, sexism and homophobia in what many employees said was a "hostile work environment for those not within the inner circle" that was also riddled with favoritism. (See AR16-5 report cited below.) In late 2014 the then-Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), asked for a Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) investigation of CHDS, one of DoD's five international regional centers, focusing on events going back as far as 2008.[2][3][4]

Similarly, later in the paper he adds: It was under Downie, the informal AR 15-6 investigation showed, that: "Many current and former employees feel that a hostile work environment exists due to an underlying atmosphere of favoritism towards certain current and former employees ... Another aspect that may contribute to the perception of a hostile work environment according to some employees is the lack of dialogue between the Director (Downie) and the faculty and staff. ... Most employees felt that to raise any issues would result in retribution or even termination."[22]

At the same time as McClatchy broke the Garcia Covarrubias story, in "Flagship military university hired foreign officers linked to human rights abuses in Latin America," The Center for Public Integrity revealed that a nonpublic report in 2012 by a U.S. Army colonel appointed by Downie himself, ostensibly to head off an Inspector General investigation already requested in 2009 and then again in 2011, "concluded that 'a hostile work environment exists' at CHDS; that its staff had displayed 'a lack of sensitivity towards the use of derogatory language'; and many employees felt its leaders routinely retaliated against those who questioned them. The report, obtained by CPI under the Freedom of Information Act, depicted a sort of frat-house atmosphere at the Center. It stated that staff had exchanged 'racially charged emails' — including one directed at President Barack Obama; used offensive language such as 'faggot,' 'buttboy' and 'homo'; and that 'women employees feel that they are treated inappropriately.' Even senior leaders used 'inappropriate hand gestures,' it said, and mentioned simulations of masturbation."[21]--Reference 4 repeated

Request this user be blocked from further libelous posts on this page. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, Richard Downie

I did a bit of trimming but this needs to be thoroughly looked over by someone who has a bit more time than I do right now. Parts of the text are pretty POV, some of the info is not supported by the sources. Fyddlestix ( talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@ RichardDDownie2: Thanks for bringing this up here, I have only taken a quick look but it does appear that parts of the are not neutrally worded or properly sourced. Posting here should help get these issues fixed.

As an aside, if you are Richard Downie or have a connection to him, please read WP:COI and WP:NLT - if that's the case, it would be best to focus on bringing other editors attention to problems (as you've done here) rather than editing the article yourself, and to avoid characterizing the article or other editors as libelous. Fyddlestix ( talk) 02:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I will concur that this needs the attention of someone with time. I found claims not in sources, reliance on sources that do not mention the subjects. Eyes on this would be appreciated. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems continue on this one, an there's an IP that keeps adding contentious material, while a user with the same name as the article subject keeps removing it. I'm busy in RL and just don't have the time to look at this in depth right now, posting this update in the hopes that others will keep watch. Fyddlestix ( talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – resolved by editors refining article content and sources

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe has declared that Palmer's hunt that led to the death of Cecil was legal and in order and he faces no charges. [3]. There is no reason to mention other hunts by Palmer as they are unrelated to Cecil (the article's subject) and the hunt that ended his life. It is also now known to be false that Zimbabwe sought extradition. They did not seek it as is stated in the latest news release and fairly obvious since the US has extradition treaty with Zimbabwe. Palmer's role is that he was the big game hunter that complied with Zimbabwe's laws and did nothing unlawful. The article should not contain any innuendo or coatrack material that he did anything unlawful. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your edit here and I agree that it's inappropriate to add purported "prior bad acts" in an effort to somehow taint this separate issue. I've watchlisted the article. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

( edit conflict) The issue is mostly with the article pretending to be about a lion when the notable subject that all the reliable sources have covered is the Killing of Cecil the lion. the page should be moved back. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's been listed for move to "Death of Cecil the lion" on the talk page. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is fascinating -- Palmer is now the victim of "Cecil". I'm trying to form a thought -- can't quite put my finger on it... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 04:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Palmer is not the victim of Cecil. Rather he did nothing illegal and is the victim of gossip and social media feeding frenzy where a number of things have been proven false. We generally don't drag BLP1E living people through the mud especially regarding crimes that are later proven false. We don't even drag them through the mud and clean them off by stating their innocence after writing how many awful things he did and how many charges he faced. The public response to Palmer is fair coverage in the article. Claiming the Zimbabwean government was proceeding to extradite him for a crime is not as that is false. No crime, no proceedings, no extradition. There was no crime to initiate proceedings and that fact became known this week. Palmer's previous hunts have no bearing on the killing of Cecil in any way - that story is a COATRACK item. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Zimbabwean government initiated proceedings to extradite him. That is literally, factually correct. The first step is to get the prosecutor general to confirm that they will bring a case. However, the prosecutor general determined that there was no evidence they could charge Palmer on, and advised the minister of this. For that reason, extradition did not happen. It is still correct that the government intended to have him extradited, and are on the record saying so. Two other people are concurrently being prosecuted in relation to the same event. Palmer has not been "cleared" of anything, he simply has not been charged. Wikipedia needs to maintain that distinction. In spite of this, Palmer is at the centre of a major political and media event that led one country to ban that hunting format and another to suspend it, as well as at least one airline to change its trophy carrying policy. In the process, the phrase "Walter Palmer" accumulated over 1.5 million Google hits, at current count, including several RS that refer to the black bear fine in the context of the Cecil hunt. Samsara 23:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Again, no. One minister made a statement that Palmer broke the law and that they were pursuing extradition. That one minister was incorrect. He did not break the law and so they were not pursuing extradition. That one minister is obviously not the government of Zimbabwe if they don't even know whether charges were warranted. It's a BLP violation to state it in WP's voice that Zimbabwe believed a crime had been committed and that Zimbabwe was pursuing extradition for that crime. It's false and a BLP violation. In the section, where it's an attributed quote, I left it alone. Where it's in WP's voice, I removed it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced content tagged. Some very good editors capable of reaching consensus.

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Much of this article is not sourced, and seems a bit fishy and as if the subject themselves wrote it. Particularly the second half of the "Secretary of the Army" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.38.196 ( talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC+9)

Content from the section you noted was removed. Some of the information could probably stay but because there was no source I just went ahead and got rid of it. Meatsgains ( talk) 04:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced content removed

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm writing here somewhat on behalf of another editor who tried to create List of incidents of vigilantism against sex offenders from a boylover wiki. It was speedied as a copyright infringement and I didn't see where they had their content licenced as fair use. If anyone wants to go through that site and look for it, feel free.

Aside from that, I was wondering if this would qualify for an article even if it was re-written. I'm worried that this could violate WP:BLP, at least on behalf of the people who performed the vigilantism, and I'm also worried about notability. I generally don't like creating a list article for things that would not have individual notability in and of themselves. From what I could see, none of the people listed in the now deleted article had pages or would pass WP:NCRIME individually. Also, while the page was named sex offenders, the people listed as being attacked or killed were all convicted for sex crimes against children. While pedophiles (or in one case, a hebephile) can be sex offenders, not all sex offenders are pedophiles or hebephiles. That's mostly an aside, though.

My take on this is that a list page would be unwarranted unless the individual cases were notable enough for inclusion. I do think that there is merit in having an article about vigilantism against pedophiles and sex offenders in general, but I don't know that individually listing people who attacked or killed convicted is really a good idea. I was wondering what you guys thought. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some high profile vigilante cases involve attacks on people who are not (or not yet) convicted sex offenders, or attacks on previously convicted offenders who the vigilantes suspect of a new crime, which is a BLP minefield. Example. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

https://www.boywiki.org/en/BoyWiki:Copyrights Incidintz ( talk) 10:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, not many people are going to visit a 'boywiki', but having just looked at that URL I can tell everyone it says it's a compatible GNU FDL v1.2. To be a valid list it would really need to list articles about the incidents, as opposed to this which seemed to be a somewhat indiscriminate list of news items. Somewhere like Anti-pedophile activism, or an non-list article about the narrower phenomenon, might be a better place for notable non-article items. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking that out. I admit that I didn't spend but so long on the site, partially because I was at work and well... that's not the greatest site to be seen perusing at any job location. I don't have an issue with listing some notable cases at the activism page, although I think that there needs to be a devoted section to vigilantism or at least to tactics in general. I would have to say that it'd be best if we limited this to instances where the cases merited an article, just for BLP's sake. There have to be at least a few of those on here, although if the coverage is heavy enough it could probably warrant inclusion without an article. I'd like to say that inclusion in say, an academic text would be a good, strong indicator that something should be included as an example. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree; you never know what kind of awkward conversations browsing that site at work might lead to. You might be surfing from wikilink to wikilink when your boss glances at your screen as they're walking by, does a double-take upon noticing the distinctive spiral triangle logo, and says, "Wow, you're a BoyWiki fan too?! What a coincidence!" Incidintz ( talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• LOL, you almost made me choke on a graham cracker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

i think it is likely that the subject has been covered in enough detail by enough very reliable sources that an article could be written- it has been the premise of several "ripped from the headlines" criminal investigation drama shows. but, boywiki would be near the LAST place we would go for information even if it is completely appropriately licensed. the BLP minefield on all sides would require permanent protection levels . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No list exists to address. Editorial discussion seems to have closed.

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 05:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the information in this page Mushtaq Omar Uddin is somewhat libellous and incorrect; and is causing damages to the living persons career and personal life. The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page with his personal information made public. The owner of the page was contacted and the request to delete it- ignored. Can you please advise how this issue can be resolved. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrak15 ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Amrak15: The information, such as date of birth, is cited to a book. I don't have a copy of the book to say for sure whether it's valid or not. However, you'll need a better reason than "The living person does not want to have a wikipedia page" to remove it: as a general rule, we don't remove pages or content just on the subject's request.

Now, if you see uncited information, that's different: that can (and arguably should) be removed per WP:BLP. The issue I have is that you've removed cited information, and you removed the external links section of the article wholesale.

Finally, since you indicate that you know what Uddin wants in respect to the article, it suggests that you have a conflict of interest with him, which may limit how much you should edit his article and may also obligate you to make certain disclosures, if you have that nature of conflict of interest. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The user you contacted, NottNott ( talk · contribs), does not "own" the page (no one user does), and does not have the ability to delete the page themself. You may wish to review WP:DELETION to see the processes that are available for you to request deletion (although I suspect that in this case, deletion will be an uphill battle.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Amrak15: Upon getting a notification from Nat Gertler (thanks!) I've revised the changes made to the article to fit better with policies such as WP:SUBJECT and WP:NPOV, as well as general style improvements. As Nat Gertler said, I don't own the page as anyone can edit it. With that said, have a look and see what you think. ~ NottNott talk| contrib 17:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – editor removed unsourced materials

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

IP user 176.35.162.157 has repeatedly posted unsubstantiated/unsourced contentious material to the BLP article on Peter Thornley, including one edit implying links between the subject and notorious sexual abuser Jimmy Saville. 2.29.250.131 ( talk) 22:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unsourced materials removed from article, article tagged for notability

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Not resolved. Sock puppeteer threw baby out with bathwater - deleted good faith material which was mostly easy to source. In the meantime, still no action has been taken against vandal 176.35.162.157 who may possibly strike again. 62.190.148.115 ( talk) 08:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Impacts named living persons. A discussion about including a contentious claim (that is, a claim that the murder was done "for hire") was just closed as "no consensus" on the article talk page. As I understand it, lack of a consensus for inclusion of a contentious claim impacting living persons defaults to "exclusion of the claim" however another closer states that the default for a contentious claim affecting living persons is "inclusion". further opinions sought from outsiders. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's no consensus for the inclusion of a contentious claim, then it cannot be included. -- ℕ  ℱ 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a contentious claim and on a BLP, it should not be added. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – the article is well sourced and balanced. The disputed content is sourced in a court ruling and the allegation occurs throughout the entire article. Can find no direct allegation against living persons apart from these sources.

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 05:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi all,

I've just signed up for this tonight. I'm trying to clean up a few of my family tree pages (Charles Amos), (Troy Amos-Ross), (Egerton Marcus), and create a page for myself (Michael A. Amos), and my father "Christoper D. Amos."

Everything on here is pretty easy, the only hard thing is citing the references for my personal page. The rest of my family is already all set up. Please help. If you google me, you can verify most of everything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamos1983 ( talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's highly, highly discouraged for people to write an article about themselves on Wikipedia, as it's easy for people to insert non-neutral material without realizing it and see more notability than there might actually be per Wikipedia's guidelines. Notability isn't inherited and I need to stress that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, so there's no need to list every family member that has accomplished something, especially as not all accomplishments are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I also need to mention that this can be seen as self-promotion on your part, since one of your main reasons for being here seems to center predominantly about writing about yourself and ensuring that the articles for family members includes a mention of you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – article is Afd listed, self published bio

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question about listing the ages of Palestinians killed or involved in incidents with Israeli forces and the fact that we are listing ages of people in the article. Does this violate BLP? I realize most of the victims of these tragedies were killed but the article is very large and I wanted to ask this question. Thanks for your attention. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 17:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article if very tersely written and is a large amount of highly condensed information. There has been a lot of tagging of the article as POV by drive by editors. The terse nature of the authors writting style seems to preclude POV concerns, but the overall tone of the article could be improved with BLP in mind. It's a big job and I need some guidance. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editors addressed with reliable sources

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The article has a lot of poorly sourced content in early life and career section also in the introduction part and most of the sources are not opening and showing errors from many days. Please can someone remove that poorly sourced content. I tried removing but it is always reverted. Regards, Rishika.dhanawade ( talk) 15:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific about the issues? Minor 4th 21:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Like all the content in the introductory part in the career section and in the early life section is poorly sourced . Each and every source either shows page not found or error . The content in those three sections which I mentioned in the first sentence do not cite any valid or reliable source so it should be removed. Regards, Rishika.dhanawade ( talk) 1:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

{{ Resolved}} 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This IP's one-man crusade notwithstanding (and his own judge/jury and court-reporter action reverted), obviously the talkpage is a great place to get these sorts of details worked out. See also WP:404 and do some due-diligence searching in the Internet Archive and such before saying that "dead links == unsourced and removeable". DMacks ( talk) 19:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Under the heading black marks, someone abusing the above personality. Please remove those from the page as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.218.234 ( talk) 17:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Removed unsourced and copyvio materials

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Recently, I posted here concerning Dinesh Singh (academic). An IP editor has removed all of the controversial content, apparently in response to my initial posting here. I do not feel that this is an optimal solution, that meets the demands of NPOV. Please comment at Talk:Dinesh Singh (academic). Sławomir
Biały 13:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Lamar Odom (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dennis Hof's Love Ranch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (formerly Cherry Patch Ranch)

Any input about this issue I raised at the help desk would be appreciated. If there are any applicable policies or guidlelines, can you please include them in your responses. Thanks. Czoal ( talk) 01:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Love ranch is not a living person, I think it should be reported at The administrative noticeboard of incidents. I also don't think it belongs in the Love Ranch article but on Lamar Odom's page. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the article should be deleted as is proposed. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 02:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – tagged for notability, disputed content about subject removed

97.126.235.119 ( talk) 02:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Written by suspected sockpuppeteer BLPDegreaser. George Ho ( talk) 04:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We're confused. Are you believing any content, no matter how sourced, about Lamar Odom being found unconscious in a brothel should be removed from Wikipedia including Odom's article per BLP or do you believe the article of the brothel should be removed per BLP? -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I agree with the removal of the content from the Love Ranch article, I think IP 97 has misunderstood the real issue here, which is whether or not content about a celebrity incident should be included in the article of the place where it happened to occur. Hypothetically, if Oprah Winfrey has a massive heart attack at a notable Las Vegas restaurant, should that info be included in the article of the restaurant (in addition to Winfrey's)? It seems very inappropriate and to me comes off as nothing more than trivia. That's why I believe the content should only be included in the article of the celebrity. Out of curiosity, Oakshade, when you say "We're confused", who is "we're"? Czoal ( talk) 03:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

So you're okay with the Odom being found unconscious in a brothel content in Wikipedia but just don't want it in the article about the brothel he was found in? How is this a WP:BLP issue? -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The instructions for volunteers is to remove potentially contentious content when in doubt. Where the content belongs long term is up the editors. It was sourced but disputed. Get the other editors to agree. The instructions for volunteers is to remove it. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 03:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That applies to unsourced or poorly sourced contentious content. Major news sources are not unreliable. That said, the material is probably better off in the bio of the subject.-- MONGO 04:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to extend on what MONGO said, the instructions for editors is also not to be disruptive and remove heavily reliably-sourced content. The material is also in the bio of the subject. But again, how is this a WP:BLP issue? -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that it was well sourced, I just don't think it belongs in that love ranch article but in the article on the subject, which is exactly what I said on the article talk page for love ranch before I removed it and asked the editors to talk about it with the editors of the subject's bio. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 04:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

IP 97, imho it was a good removal, but not so good reasoning tbh. Clearly, this is a very notable event. I don't think anyone can argue that point based on the international media circus. However, the incident is about the person, not about the place; I can't put it any more simply than that. Therefore, I agree with MONGO that the Odom info belongs only in Odom's article. Oakshade, could you please address my point about my Oprah Winfrey example because that's precisely at the heart of this matter. Czoal ( talk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That can be discussed on the talk page. This is the BLP Noticeboard. How is this a WP:BLP issue? -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a BLP issue, but it ended up here. Right now I suggest the info just be in the bio, but htat could change if other similar nefarious situations are uncovered that may have happened at the location....too soon to tell.-- MONGO 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a BLP issue, it's a content dispute, which is why I closed it. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 04:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually posted a note here solely to invite input in the original discussion. I recall reading in the BLP policy that any time potentially contentious content about a living person is inserted into any article, whether a BLP or not, it becomes a BLP issue. Czoal ( talk) 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you post it to this board, it becomes a BLP issue and the instruction are to remove unsourced or contentious edits, ask the editors to try to come to some consensus. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 04:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed the content, but there are no "instructions" of which I'm aware for anyone to unilaterally remove contentious content if it is notable and properly sourced, which this content is. The only issue here is where the content belongs. There is an endless amount of contentious content in BLPs that does not get removed (assuming it's properly sourced). It simply gets discussed. By the way, anyone can give feedback on the BLP noticeboard, so everyone is a volunteer here. Czoal ( talk) 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP states that even sourced materials that are unbalanced POV or libelous should be removed when in doubt -- the editors can sort it out. I see the article is now protected. This is not working together. Let's try again. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 04:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The content is neither unbalanced POV nor libelous. Not even close. It is notable, well-sourced information that (imo) simply does not belong in that particular article. I know you mean well, but you're missing the point and misunderstanding the applicable issues. Czoal ( talk) 04:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This "biography" is written like an advertisement by Mimi herself or one of her friends. The only link is her personal website, not a reliable source. I don't think this blogger (one of thousands) should be in Wikipedia, what is her significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebras234 ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sent to AfD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Ikonn). Would have probably been speediable if not for the HuffPost article. 18:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Carey Spear (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Per WP:ATHLETE, including WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, it appears he's not notable. He was an undrafted free agent in the NFL and never played in a regular season or post-season game. In college, he was not a prominent player (no NCAA awards/records). The article deletion process is not my thing. Can those interested please take a look at the article and handle in whatever way is most appropriate? Czoal ( talk) 19:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ken Eurell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael Dowd (NYPD) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RetiredLeoNYPD ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ekardz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editors RetiredLeoNYPD and Ekardz appear to be in dispute over claims made in the aforementioned articles. They both appear to have their favored articles: Ekardz and Michael Dowd (NYPD), and RetiredLeoNYPD and Ken Eurell. RetiredLeoNYPD has added information to Michael Dowd (NYPD) regarding Dowd's participation in the Mollen Commission. In response, Ekardz reverted and claimed that RetiredLeoNYPD is Ken Eurell and then added similarly controversial information to Ken Eurell. The two officers were formerly partners in the NYPD. There's apparently an underlying conflict here about who ratted out who, and it's escalating into potential BLP issues. clpo13_{( talk)} 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

RetiredLeoNYPD keeps changing career to case history and taking out accurate career information. He shouldn't even have a page on this site. The first 3 times, I just changed the information back. I do not want to get involved in this, if he keeps changing this, his IP needs to be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekardz ( talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I started the RFC about either changing the article or creating a separate biography. I invite you to discuss matters there. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Greg N. Gregoriou (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is probably notable as a published academic, but a resume/press release with all the earmarks of a COI job. What puzzles me is how this got through the article for creation process without a single source. There still aren't any, but instead we've got a list of 50 publications the professor has written or edited. 2601:188:0:ABE6:9006:5689:9564:7AAE ( talk) 01:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• For starters, I've reverted to the last version that wasn't a blatant copyright violation. 2601:188:0:ABE6:9006:5689:9564:7AAE ( talk) 02:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on this draft? The article subject does seem to be known mainly for a conviction related to illegal fishing, but I'm not sure this is a balanced biography. Not sure if the best approach would be to have an article on the illegal fishing issue and redirect there. Any input appreciated! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Related discussion on AN, filed after this, concerning the block of BMK by Ymblanter. BMK ( talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• NAC'd by NE Ent, who probably shouldn't have done so, since he participated in the discussion - but I'm not contesting it. BMK ( talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya‎‎, a critic of Vladimir Putin, was murdered on October 7, 2006.

Many other birthdays and world events are connected with October 7, but the one thing that a number of editors want to make note of in the article on Politkovskaya is that October 7 is the birthday of Vladimir Putin. This is not a fact that is in dispute, the murder occurred on the birthday of Vladimir Putin. However, many people have speculated that there's some kind of connection between the murders and Putin's birthday, and an impressive list of sources has been accumulated which show, without any doubt, that that theory, those speculations, do indeed exist.

What hasn't been presented is anything beyond speculation and conspiracy theorizing. There are no sources presented which actually provide any evidence of a causal connection between the murder and Putin, or, even, a correlation between the murders and it being Putin's birthday. Absent such evidence, including in the article the information that the murder took place on Putin's birthday is not an innocent addition, it carries with it the clear implication of some sort of connection between Putin and the murder or the killers.

It seems to me that such an implication is a clear violation of the BLP policy, because although the speculation and conjecture is well-sourced, the obvious implication is not sourced at all: there is no evidence, as of yet, from a reliable source which purports to show that there is a relationship between Putin's birthday and the murder of one of his critics. If and when such information comes to light, then it can be reported on, but until that time, including mention of Putin's birthday in the article should be considered to be a BLP violation.

In a previous discussion about this issue @ Swarm: said about it

I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article. [4]

Obviously, "thinly-veiled innuendo" shouldn't be in any Wikipedia arricle, let alone be connected to a living person, even Putin. BMK ( talk) 05:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that, as you say, a sizeable number of sources make a connection between the date of the murder and the birthday of Putin, there's no problem in our article noting this. Adhering to BLP requires that contentious material be well sourced; that is obviously the case here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. More than 30 reliable, high quality sources, including academic ones, which make the connection have been provided [5]. In effect, almost every source which discusses this topic mentions this fact. We cannot just pretend that sources don't say what they actually say. That is effectively misrepresenting the sources. This is not a BLP issue.  Volunteer Marek  05:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a violation. Wikipedia reflects what sources say. See VM above. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to a BLP violation. The number of strong reliable and verifiable sources that make the connection between the murder and Putin's birthday is overwhelming. The first two pages of results from this Google search using the words "'Anna Politkovskaya' murdered Putin's birthday" turn up sources including:

1. The New York Times ( "And then there was the fact that Politkovskaya was killed on Oct. 7, the birthday of President Vladimir Putin of Russia.")
2. The Independent ( "The most obvious led to the Kremlin, if not to President Putin himself; that 7 October is his birthday fuelled speculation about someone perhaps offering a macabre present.")
3. Daily Mail ( "Politkovskaya, an investigative reporter who uncovered state corruption and rights abuses, especially in Chechnya, died at the age of 48 on October 7, 2006, President Vladimir Putin's 54th birthday.")
4. Reuters ( "Politkovskaya, 48, was shot twice in the chest, once in the shoulder and once in the head as she returned to her Moscow home in broad daylight on October 7, 2006. The fifth anniversary of her death on Friday coincides with Putin's 59th birthday.")
5. The New Yorker ( "Anna Politkovskaya was murdered as she came home with some groceries on a Saturday afternoon, October 7, 2006, Vladimir Putin’s birthday.")
6. The Guardian ( "For many, the fact that Politkovskaya was assassinated on Putin's birthday, and two days after Kadyrov's 30th birthday celebrations, raised suspicions that a henchman of one or both had served up the contract hit as an unasked-for present.")
7. The Economist ( "It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken under what she called his “bloody” leadership was what led to her body being dumped in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.")
8. The KGB's Poison Factory ("The next signature murder was on 7 October 2006 when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin's birthday.")
9. Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012 ("On the day of the second Katyn we may also recall the death of Anna Politkovskaya, “coincidentally” murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, October 7, 2006.")

Not one of these authors provides proof of a causal connection between the murder of Politkovskaya and Putin's birthday; but they do report the connection, and it should be included in the article. The evidence demanded by BMK would be needed in a court of law to charge and try Mr. Putin for the murder, but the sources reporting the connection -- in the article and available elsewhere -- certainly meet the Wikipedia standard, despite the specious BLP claims. Alansohn ( talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Alansohn ( talk) 13:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Should any BLP use any correlation of dates to imply in any way any causal connection between the events? Not if WP:BLP applies - making claims which might make readers feel in any way that a connection exists or might exist which has not been clearly shown to exist by reliable sources is clearly improper. Collect ( talk) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, notable author releases a book highly critical of Putin, and is murdered by people unknown on Putins birthday. Even if the two events are actually entirely coincidence (bungled mugging) the connection exists and has been reported on by reliable sources. The sources differ on the level of connection (ranging from conspiracy theories to plausible vigilante justice etc) but it has been clearly shown to exist by sources that would qualify as reliable for wikipedia's purposes. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I know this is supposed to be a rhetorical question by Collect but let me answer it in good faith. No, not ANY correlation of dates should be used in that way. SOME correlations of dates can be used in that way, in accordance with BLP, IF this correlation is extensively noted in reliable sources. I believe you're Affirming the consequent.  Volunteer Marek  20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• The particular edit in question does not imply any actual/casual connection. However, a number of quoted sources do just that. For example,

1. according to a book by Edward Jay Epstein, "Who really gave the orders and paid to have Politkovskaya assassinated on Putin’s birthday? The theory of the prosecution is that the contract to assassinate Politkovskaya ultimately came from the leaders of the Russian-backed regime in Chechnya. A second theory is that Putin’s enemies abroad paid the killers … to undermine Putin. Finally, there is a theory that Putin himself ordered the hit to intimidate journalists.".
2. according to a book by Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, "Those who killed Politkovskaya could have done the job on October 6 or October 8. But they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient. On March 2, 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov became the president of the Chechen Republic.".
3. according to a book by Boris Volodarsky "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West".

Should these claims of actual connection be included in the page? This is a different question. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

On your examples - the first simply enumerates "theories". The second, alas, makes a specific implication that Kadryov was involved - which fails WP:BLP for sure. The third you give has an implication that "they" were specifically acting on behalf of Putin - which also fails the strictures of WP:BLP. Only the first might be usable at all -- though listing three contradictory theories might be confusing to readers. Collect ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how non-Wikipedia sources can "fail" BLP. If a source says something, the source says something. What matters is whether it's reliable. Anyway, here the main point of dispute is whether it can be noted that the murder occurred on Putin's birthday. And pretty much every source on the topic states this.  Volunteer Marek  21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every source tells about this fact and implies or tells explicitly that some connection actually exists. This must be included simply per WP:NPOV, and this is not a BLP violation. However, what exactly connection was suggested in sources is another matter. This should be discussed separately, on the article talk page, to identify what "majority" and "minority" views exist about this. The quotations above are merely examples of conclusions about this in several books that qualify as RS. Our business is to simply summarize what majority of reliable sources on the subject tell. This is reference work. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the date of the murder was the same as Putin's Birthday, and that folks have taken note of that fact, is supported by reliable sources, and is therefore not a BLP violation. I'd suggest this portion of the disputed edit be reinserted: "Many sources have noted that she was killed on Vladimir Putin's birthday although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact. ^[1]" This is neutral enough to inform the reader without undue speculation by any given single author. NE Ent 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That source isn't viewable, and it utterly contradicts "although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact". Check Amazon's Look Inside and search for the word birthday. It's a non-viewable source chock full of the most extreme inflammatory libel and a page range ("479-452") that is literally impossible. Softlavender ( talk) 23:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless a source explicitly states the second part of your proposed sentence, it's needless editorializing. We don't need to hold our readers' hands and remind them that correlation is not causation. Someguy1221 ( talk) 00:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Viewability is not required for sources, so that's not a helpful observation; nonetheless Volunteer Marek has posted many sources, so use another one if desired. If the suggest edit isn't ideal why not propose something else? We got here (full protected page, AN thread, BLPN) due to binary, rather the compromise / collegial, editing. NE Ent 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The phrase made famous by All the President's Men is "Follow the money", meaning "Who stands to profit?", or in the Latin adage " Cui bono?". In this instance we should ask, as no one has been asking: "Who stands to benefit from adding this information to the article?" It is not by its nature neutral or innocent information -- what we would call WP:NPOV -- it is information which serves the purposes of one group of people only: the opponents of Vladimir Putin. The only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article it is to imply a connection between Putin and the murder, and thereby to tar Putin, without actually having proven any relationship.

This means that the information not only violates the BLP policy, it violates NPOV -- not to mention WP:SYNTHESIS (drawing conclusions from the juxtaposition of information that is not explicitly stated in the information). It also explains why the editors who have been so actively promoting it -- who, I believe, would make no bones about being opponents of Putin -- are pushing so very hard to include the information in the article, because it serves their POV purposes, and not a NPOV encyclopedic purpose.

The advocating editors, and some other commenters here and in the companion thread on AN, seem disinclined or unable to see the difference between a source which reports on admittedly existing speculation and theorizing, and a source which reports on actual, verifiable connections. They have a surfeit of the former, but none at all of the latter.

We are not a news source, we cannot fall back on the shibboleth used by the mass media news outlets: "We have to report on it because it's out there, it's being talked about." We are an encyclopedia, and must be held to a much higher standard than that. Including this information in the article does not do that, it has us rolling in the pigsty with the worst of the scandal sheets, not reporting on verifiable facts about living persons. BMK ( talk) 04:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you made a promise to step away from the article as a condition for you unblock (after you made like 8 reverts in one hour). Please abide by that promise. The fact that you are now defending your actions by making personal attacks suggests that you haven't learned anything, that you're here to do WP:BATTLEGROUND and that perhaps you should be re-blocked. Also your logic is a bit off.  Volunteer Marek  16:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As a review of my talk page will show, I made no such promise. My unblock condition was to stop reverting the article. I suggested that I walk away from the situation entirely, but the unblocking admin made a request that I not do so, and post about it here. BMK ( talk) 18:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the attached articles are based on supposition and not first hand evidence (which is obviously very hard to get) a separate heading in the article detailing some of these, using explicit language to ensure the reader knows this would not be any violation of BLP as this is not a BLP just a Bio, if it fails other wiki rules and guidelines that is a separate matter. Any edit war editors that repeatedly violate the 3rr rule and hide behind a self interpretation of the BLP rules when they do not apply, should be reprimanded. I am not advocating banning anyone or locking any article, but certainly a reminder of what wiki is, and how this collaborative project should work would be in order, plus a final warning as this should not be tolerated again in any shape or form. The Original Filfi ( talk) 07:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As shown by the supporting comments in this and the companion thread, my interpretation as not a "self-interpretation", it is a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy. Also, the BLP violation was not in regard to Anna P., the subject of the article, but in regard to Vladimir Putin. BLP-violating material is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, no matter who it is about. BMK ( talk) 16:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort has been shown here or in any "supporting comments". You are making a false assertion. You really need to step away from the dead horse. Like you promised you would.  Volunteer Marek  16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would say, since so many sources mention the fact, that one sentence which merely reads "The date was Putin's birthday." would be appropriate after the sentence which mentions what day she was murdered. But that's it. None of the more egregious articles or books should be used to cite (i.e., not The Corporation or any other source which makes such sweeping claims), but one or more of the more reliable and conservative sources (NYT, etc.). No quotations should appear in the citation. Also, this fact should not be reiterated in the lede. There is no part of BLP which specifically prohibits mentioning incontrovertible statements of fact which are noted in a variety of reliable sources. As long as we don't editorialize or use hit pieces like The Corporation as the source, I see no problem in reflecting what the majority of reliable sources report. Softlavender ( talk) 08:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you can not dismiss any RS (books by academics) only because you think they are making "sweeping claims". Yes, sure, some sources are better than others. Best sources are usually not newspapers, but books by academics or other experts, specifically on the subject under discussion. In this regard, best sources are the books that included chapters on political murders in Russia. Such are books by Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky and Volodarsky. If you can suggest other books by academics on the same subject, that's fine, let's use them too. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. I am not "dismissing" any sources; I am saying don't use certain of them as a citation for the fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Use that book as a citation for the specific additional claims/theories/hypotheses/correlations that book makes, but use a neutral major independent journalistic source such as the New York Times for the single observable fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday. Softlavender ( talk) 04:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

To plagiarize BMK, "the only reason that I can see for including Putin's birthday in the article" is that it reflects coverage in numerous high-end reliable sources. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, sources which do not provide verifiable evidence of the speculated-upon connection, only evidence of the existence of the speculation and theorizing. That's not sufficient to overcome the additional burden placed on the material by BLP policy. They say sometimes in American coutrooms that such-and-such evidence is "not presented for the truth of the matter" but for other legitimate reasons, well, unfortunately for those who want to insert this material, BLP requires us to present information only for the truth of the matter, not for other purposes. BMK ( talk) 16:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no "speculated-upon connection". You are making up rules as you go along, pulling them out of your ass and engaging in your own personal original research. You're also being WP:TENDENTIOUS by this point, after you got blocked and after you got unblocked for promising to leave this matter alone.  Volunteer Marek  17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot see this factoid related to WP:BLP. It is quite good sourced to high-quality reliable sources. Google search for "Politkovskaya Putin's birthday" brings 16K hits in English and 110K hits in Russian. Among the hits are The Guardian, Reuters, Russia Today, RFERL, NewsRu - I just looked on the first pages of each search. BTW, I remember then WP:BLP was introduced, its purpose was to protect "minor celebrities", who are notable in some aspects (e.g. because of their publications) and whose private life (or significant portions of it) is private. Putin is certainly not a "minor celebrity", there is no need to protect his private life. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 22:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• It's disappointing that this article is still protected... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's a pretty clear consensus here and on the article's page that this is not a BLP violation. The fact that the article was protected by an involved admin who was also the one who unblocked BMK and who protected their own preferred version doesn't exactly encourage confidence either.  Volunteer Marek  17:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC

I have started an RfC on this issue on the article talk page: [6]. Consensus can be determined there via closure by an uninvolved admin. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A local consensus cannot override BLP policy, so the proper place for this to be discussed is here. BMK ( talk) 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Having posted about it here, any consensus via the RfC will not be "local". But bless your heart for your concern. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK, well okay then. Here the consensus is pretty much for inclusion.  Volunteer Marek  22:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly true. I haven't counted noses, but, of course, that's not how consensus is determined, and I hardly think that either you or I are in a position to determine strength of argument, considering our pretty entrenched respective viewpoints. I'd be willing to go by the determination of consensus by an admin who has not yet acted in this issue, based on this discussion, if the discussion were given the time to develop that's normal for an RfC, if it were listed in the central directory of RfC discussions, and if the RfC on the talk page was shut down -- would you and the other advocates agree to that? Would Nomoskedasticity? BMK ( talk) 23:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll go with the determination of consensus by an admin who closes the RfC on the article talk page. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't follow the consensus where ever the RfC was held, I simply meant that there are steps that can be pursued beyond an RfC, and I would be less likely to consider taking them if the RfC were held here rather than on the article talk page. BMK ( talk) 16:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• NB: There exists a full article on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. -- Softlavender ( talk) 06:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI: Today BMK removed all mention of Putin's birthday from that article ( Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya). -- Softlavender ( talk) 06:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. BMK got blocked for edit warring like crazy on this article and only got unblocked after they promised to step away from this article. So what do they do? Go start an edit war on the most closely related article possible.  Volunteer Marek  15:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of "start an edit war" is interesting, to say the least, since I made a single revert to the "Assassination of Anna P" article (two edits, technically, but back-to-back edits are considered to be one revert for the purposes of determining 3RR, you've been here long enough to know that). And just a reminder: the condition of my unblock was that I not make any reverts "at least not for now" (in the words of the unblocking admin) to the "Anna P" article, a condition I have upheld, and will continue to uphold. I was not placed under a topic ban of any kind concerning the subject matter itself, and was, in fact, encouraged to pursue the BLP issue by the admin. Your continuing attempts to imply otherwise, or to shame me away, are becoming tendentious. BMK ( talk) 16:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a "single revert" which is exactly the same edit as the EIGHT reverts you made in less than 24 hours which led to your block. Please stop insulting our intelligence. You were edit warring.

And seriously? You're going to Wikilawyer the fact that you "only" promised to step away from the Anna Politkovskaya article but made no such promise in regard to the Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya article? How stupid do you think we are? So you make the exact revert in that one. Do you really think that people here are too dim to see how bad faithed such actions are?  Volunteer Marek  16:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to adhere to the conditions of my unblock, yes, as a good Wikipedian should. I am not going to adjust my behavior for your preference and convenience, or your wish of what my unblock conditions were, no. I am completely certain that if I do anything that the unblocking admin considers to be beyond the bounds of what was intended, they will let me know, and you are free to contact them and complain if you are convinced that my actions are in "bad faith." If you that my stance is "Wikilawyering", then so be it. I'd simply say it's yet another Wikipedia concept that you have a faulty understanding of. BMK ( talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words "yes I'm acting in bad faith, I can do what I want, I will start edit wars on any damn page I please". Nice to know.  Volunteer Marek  21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

And it's not my "wish". It's just that I'm pretty sure the conditions of your unblock were NOT "go forth and start new edit wars on related articles". We can ask Drmies for clarification if that's what he meant when he told you to step away.  Volunteer Marek  21:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's the bottom line: you obviously feel that I've transgressed against the unblock conditions that were imposed on me, so I suggest that you go to the blocking admin, lay out your argument, and ask them to warn or reblock me. If the unblocking admin declines to do that, take it to another admin and ask them to do it. If that admin declines, take it to AN/I and ask the community to sanction me for not following the unblock conditions. If all that fails, then please drop the matter. While you are pursuing all these possible remedies, I'd appreciate it if you'd shut up about it, because it's not relevant to the discussion of whether the material in question is a BLP violation or not, which is the subject of this thread. BMK ( talk) 21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Query does this edit [7] which specifically uses this quote:

According to author, "The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West"

imply in any way that specific living persons ("they") were the ones who ordered her death because of an affront to Putin (also a specific living person as far as I know)? This has now been repeatedly added to the assassination article, but that does not make it immune to WP:BLP regarding living persons named or implied to have been involved in the killing. Collect ( talk) 18:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This quotation is not the original question raised here. Here is page in the book this quotation came from. This is book "The KGB's Poison Factory" by Boris Volodarsky which qualifies as RS. In context of the book, "they" means "KGB/FSB people". Does this quotation represents a "majority" [of sources] view on the subject? Should this be included in the text of the page and how exactly? Is it a BLP violation? All these questions must be discussed on corresponding article talk page and decided by WP:Consensus if anyone is really interested. So far, no one discussed anything at the appropriate talk page. This is not the place. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Now responded here. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment- Per WP:RFC one of the means to end a RFC is to move the discussion to another dispute resolution forum. BLPN would seem to be a dispute resolution forum. There doesn't seem to be anything inappropriate about moving it here. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 06:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is the right place for it -- it is then in the archives for that article talk page and is more easily found by those seeking to reference earlier discussions. Notification here about the existence of the RfC there is entirely sufficient. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was created a day and a half after this BLP report, so it cannot be "moved" here as this discussion was already over-lengthy and over-wordy before the RfC even started (unless someone wants to wholesale move the entire existing thread here, which would divorce it from the article in question). I feel the admin closing the RfC should be notified of this BLPN thread (if it isn't linked prominently there), but they are two different discussions I think, and since this one is less formal and there is no !voting, the formal poll is helpful to determine site-wide consensus. Softlavender ( talk) 07:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Mabelina ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have added the category "British monarchists" to a significant number of articles, e.g. George Osborne. I see nothing on that article that would lead us to add that category, and I wonder about the basis for adding it to the range of articles Mabelina has edited recently. Even so, I'd rather not revert them all unilaterally; perhaps others will have thoughts as well. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Should I thank you Nomoskedasticity for this approach to matters, unlike those with Bocaj12, whereas you could have approached me directly to seek clarification. It so happens that George Osborne is very much pro-monarchy; it is not immediately clear to me why you should mention (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) in your first message, unless your ulterior motive (not explicitly stated) is of a (misconceived) political nature and that you are agitating for support to have me blocked without further recourse? Please advise - many thanks. M Mabelina ( talk) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

PS. a cursory look at your recent edits reveal ongoing discursions about Jeremy Corbyn & his unprecedented handling of non-appointment as a PC and a range of other comments (which don't appear to me at least as being politically neutral), so given all that why did you choose to post me on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than approaching me initially? Many thanks in advance for your co-operation and looking forward to hearing. Best M Mabelina ( talk) 10:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think this discussion may possibly belong on ANI rather than here. (Mabelina has been called up on ANI several times, and is possibly due a topic ban or possibly a CIR consideration.) Softlavender ( talk) 10:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection; I thought to address the content issue first and I'm not all that familiar with the editor's conduct issues. But I imagine you're right. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be rallying support for your own purposes, rather than addressing any valid concerns (which I can come to if allowed) with me. M Mabelina ( talk) 11:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
what is a CIR by the way?
PPS. pls note that my full response to the above disappeared by apparent edit conflict - I shall post it again shortly when poss. Many thanks

Mabelina, Categories need to be explicitly supported and cited in any article they are added to. You need to go back and remove all categories you added that did not meet that qualification (yes, you need to actually check each article to see if the article states and cites the indication you are adding). Softlavender ( talk) 11:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Softlavender: - thanks yours & attending to the matter accordingly; M Mabelina ( talk) 12:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) qv. User talk:Softlavender.

What is the status, if any, of removal of this category from the affected articles? Do you need some help? Please let me know, I am happy to help. If you have decided to keep it in some articles, I am concerned that we are using a category without references. Although it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to categorize information, in a biography it's a label of sorts? Comments? 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 06:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will start removing the articles from this category. Wow, ton of work, she tagged all sorts of articles. 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 06:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

A large number of these articles actually state with references these people are British Monarchists, so this category is ok. Still have to remove all the articles which lack the cite along with the subcategories. Wow, gonna be a long night ... 97.126.235.119 ( talk) 06:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm okay with your deletions, although it doesn't mean to say that any of these are not British monarchists. I just wonder why such a category was introduced when so many more relevant ones could be? Anyhow, not worth wasting time on this - but suffice to say that British monarchists equals some type of extremist or radical in everyday parlance, and does not warrant a special category under Wiki unless there is some reason unbeknown to me? Thanks & your proposal - unopposed. M Mabelina ( talk) 00:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity and User:Softlavender you may find it amusing that our dear User:Mabelina is now insisting on inserting "Monarch Elizabeth II" in the infobox for the Deputy Leader of UKIP, despite the non-MP deputy leader of a minor party having no parliamentary or constitutional role. What next? Inserting the Monarch in the Leader of the Monster Raving Loony Party infobox? AusLondonder ( talk) 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably -- sometimes it's pretty tough to get to grips with editors that have unlimited time to propagate nonsense at Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Folta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Wuerzele is insistent on adding a further reading list to Kevin Folta's BLP. [8] The further reading section Wuerzele proposes only contains articles that allege or imply Folta has a conflict of interest with Monsanto. In other words everything in his further reading section focuses on one scandal involving Folta and paints him in a negative light. Is this an appropriate use of the further reading section on a BLP? Brustopher ( talk) 16:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This should have started on the talk page, but now it's here, let's stay. The section is unnecessary as the the topic is already covered extensively in the the relevant section and there is therefore nothing 'further' that those links add. I also agree with your assessment that this selection of sources is unduly negative and is best avoided in a BLP. SmartSE ( talk) 19:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly there was never any talk page discussion considering how many times the content was reinserted. The article is under 1RR restrictions with the ongoing GMO ArbCom case, so violations by those with the sanctions notification on the their talk page would best be brought up at WP:AE.

Crap. I did not realise the discretionary sanctions came with a 1RR rule. I'm assuming Wuerzele was similarly unaware, so I don't see the need to bring anyone to AE. I'm going to add the proper tags and notices onto the page so that people remember from now on. Brustopher ( talk) 09:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are responsible if you've been alerted of the sanctions on your talk page. Wuerzle was, but you weren't, so I wouldn't worry about your edits since you weren't aware. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

For the actual content, I generally reserve the need for further reading sections for good sources to list that give broad coverage to a large topic. For this article though, sources should be anchored to content as this BLP doesn't really need a further reading section at this time even if the intent was "balance." [9] Kingofaces43 ( talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The insidehighered.com article is more nuanced than the other articles and doesn't appear to be particularly negative. It could be a good addition to the article as a reference. It is focused on Folta, and quotes him at length, while the others are more generally about Monsanto connections in academia. Inclusion as a ref is preferable to placement in a 'further reading' section. Dialectric ( talk) 00:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The further reading section feels like WP:COATRACKing to me. Only articles directly about Folta himself should be included there, rather than articles about specific controversial incidents. If the articles are relevant to the conflict of interest allegations, then they should either be worked in to that section if they offer new valuable information or used as additional references for information already included. Adrian ( talk) 08:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that there is edit warring going on there. I would agree that a list of further reading is probably not appropriate there, but that good sources can be worked into the text on the whole controversy. We must note that the editing atmosphere on that page has been very contentious, as it is tied with the whole contentious area relating to GMOs and the agrochemical industry in general. "Further reading" sections can be very useful to a reader, but in this instance, it's bound to rile some tensions. I recommend working good sources into the text. SageRad ( talk) 16:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -- part of the problem is that past attempts to mention and source this controversy within the article have been aggressively obstructed. I believe Wuerzele's addition of links for further reading was an innovative response to historic obstruction to normal editing on this article (and the topic area). That said, I agree with comments above that the content should be properly integrated in the article, rather than tacked on as further reading. The Arb case is winding down, and hopefully the behaviors and frustrations that lead to this type of response by Wuerzele will no longer plague these articles -- but it might take some time before things calm a bit and the wider community becomes aware of the Arb restrictions in the topic area. My advice is proceed reasonably and cautiously on these articles. Minor 4th 17:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• A good third of the article is dedicated to the controversy. If anyone's trying to aggressively obstruct mention of it, they're doing a terrible job. Brustopher ( talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite. The "problem" as far as some are concerned is that the article contains anything positive at all. Guy ( Help!) 21:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What a complete and utter lie. This is not a playground, no schoolyard for your aspersions and sarcasm. It helps NOTHING to resolve the issue. It is plainly WP:disruptive. You should strike this note.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 07:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What I described is what was happening in the past - if that has since changed, then I agree that the further reading links are misplaced. If Folta is truly notable for something other than the recent controversy over his independence - then there should be plenty of sources to write a decent biography. I can't think of a good reason that this negative info about the controversy should occupy a third of the article. Minor 4th 03:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Today, two weeks after Brustopher's revert of my addition of independent and reliable sources the discussion about the sources is basically stalled and has led nowhere. no independent editor has weighed in. Adrian, Dialectric and SageRad suggested to incorporate the refs into the text but have not done so themselves. Unlike Minor4th I think we should not wait for Arbcoms still pending decision to make one on this issue, as "frustrations that lead to this type of response by Wuerzele" more than ever plague this article ! In the meanwhile, the article is unbalanced with a POV worse than ever. The revert has prevented the independent and reliable sources from being used. I had actually suggested to seek mediation, not this, but Brustopher chose this route.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, 'further reading' is not a reliable source issue, its content. Further reading is designed for links that would help the reader of the article understand the subject more (and in the case of BLP's, their views, opinions etc). A list of articles about one specific controversy does not really help that if it is already covered and sourced appropriately. The links (assuming they are reliable) can be used to source changes to the article on that controversy, which is why Adrian, Dialectric etc have suggested you do that, but they are not under any obligation to do so, and given that a significant portion of the BLP already covers the issue, its unlikely you would gain consensus to significantly expand it in order to include the links you think should be there. As per Dialectric, the insidehighered link does appear to be a useful further reading given its content. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've copied the sources to the article's talk page here. Let's discuss there. SageRad ( talk) 13:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fiona Graham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to shine a light on the article about Fiona Graham, where several users, including but not limited to, DAJF, have been, for several years, preventing from putting any positive information, and relentlessly removing any edits that do not fit their agenda. Meanwhile, they have been keeping for five years a birthdate that is both disputed and which sources are either not reliable (citing old versions of the Wikipedia article) or offline (in the case of the Library of Congress, which does not display a date of birth). Biographies of living persons are obviously a very sensitive matter, and considering the traffic of Wikipedia, I believe, while we should be very careful about not writing any lies, we should also be careful about not causing unnecessary difficulty to the person.

In the particular case of Fiona Graham, who works as a geisha, the date of birth especially is troubling, as this is supposed to be extremely confidential. While I understand the point of an encyclopedia, there is also a problem of private life, and in that case, a serious impact on professional life. And for a body of work that is supposed, at its core, to make people understand the world and the different culture, I find the lack of respect for the geisha culture to be troubling, and I believe it should be taken in consideration.

Being relatively new here, is there any higher editor that can help me? Eight years of especially monitoring a page seems like a strong dedication for someone who is not related to the topic at all, unless they are, in which case I believe their judgment can be biased, as shown in their various edits. Does any higher moderator here has the power to ban problematic editors from a wikipedia page?

Chriss1991 ( talk) 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

• There is a 400 year old tradition that a geisha does not reveal her age, but there is a 2,000 year old tradition that encyclopedias provide the most reliable information available. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• If an administrator is going to ban someone it would be the disruptive single-purpose-account. You have the same editing pattern as the SPA User:Boris514 and User:Takuman.sb and User:Henrywoodley28 and IP 201.73.46.114 and IP 186.232.40.77 (using Brazilian IP addresses) and User:Karheimer and User:Stubeellie. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Chriss1991 has now removed sourced details from the Fiona Graham article four times in the space of just over 24 hours, despite being reverted by three different editors. The user has therefore received a warning about edit warring and specifically the three-revert rule. -- DAJF ( talk) 05:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourced? Most "sources" link back to wikipedia pages, and the only two that lead to dates are conflicting. Yet the 1961 date is displayed several times on the page. This is clearly a personal and professional attack against Sayuki under the disguise of following wikipedia rules. Chriss1991 ( talk) 02:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

You are well aware of the link to the Library of Congress website with the exact date of her birth, because you removed it four times, and it has been restored four times, by three different people. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about this link: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/nb2011014699.html I fail to see where you find her birthdate. The other links link to the Library of Congress wikipedia page. Chriss1991 ( talk) 09:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

The birth date was apparently removed from the Library of Congress website on 20 October. It can of course still be viewed at the archived copies such as here, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, her birth date is still reliably sourced and verifiable. -- DAJF ( talk) 10:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BLPPRIVACY provides clear grounds for excluding her birthdate, given her clearly expressed wishes not to have it widely known. WP:BLPPRIMARY says, don't use primary sources for this purpose, only use secondary sources (and then a primary source can be used to "augment"/reinforce). I don't normally resort to the dramatic language of "BLP violation", but in this case it's pretty clear what the policy instructs us to do. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• What evidence do we have that she does not want the English Wikipedia to display her birthday? She gave her age in an interview, and she gave her year of birth in her book when she was an anthropologist. All we have are SPAs saying it violates the geisha tradition. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I can get behind removing the month and day, but even that policy says when a subject objects, "err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Removing it wholesale is not something I agree with. Cannolis ( talk) 14:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's a good secondary source for it, then great. Otherwise WP:BLPPRIMARY is an obstacle. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Library of Congress website is not a primary document, her birth certificate would be a primary document. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the Telegraph article that was cited should be sufficient. This might actually help clear up the somewhat confusing issue with conflicting birth dates from the National Library of Australia Catalogue. Cannolis ( talk) 18:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Although the Telegraph article just gives an age in 2011, so I guess we'd still have to use the September date to figure out her birth year. Cannolis ( talk) 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• What are the conflicting dates? Shouldn't the subject of the article file an OTRS to remove her birthdate? As of now we have 6 single purpose accounts demanding it be removed because of a geisha tradition. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph article, dated 2011, says she was 47, implying that she was born in 1964 (or perhaps 1965). This is of course different from the LOC record of 1961. I don't care about "geisha tradition"; I've removed it mainly because it's not obvious what the right information is and because the source being used did not accord with WP:BLPPRIMARY. I suppose the Telegraph would be okay as a secondary source, but there's a strong impression here that other editors think the information in it is wrong -- so using it sounds like a bad idea. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 02:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue that editors had(or at least the issue I had) with the Telegraph source is that there was conflicting information from the Catalogue and the Catalogue seems to be a better source. But if its use is prohibited by BLPPRIMARY, then the next best thing clearly is to use a fairly reputable secondary source, not omit information altogether and appear to give in to censorship. Cannolis ( talk) 06:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is what the library of Congress has to say: "When we removed your birth date, we added a note that you had asked it not be given. This is standard procedure to prevent other partner libraries from adding it back in. The date is no longer in the LC catalog and hasn't been since 2011 when your record was last updated. As to the privacy issue, the Library of Congress is a federal government agency and by definition, just about everything we do is public domain. You now need to ask Wikipedia to remove the information." I believe this is clearly shows that Sayuki doesn't want her age to be displayed, for professional and privacy reasons. Chriss1991 ( talk) 01:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Chriss1991

So you are Fiona Graham and editing under a pseudonym? That looks like a personal email to Graham. Or are you pretending to be Graham when you are communicating with the Library of Congress? You either are Fiona Graham, or are pretending to be her in communications with the Library of Congress, which is it? Both these deceptive options are very troubling. The real Fiona Graham can file an OTRS report with Wikipedia with a scan her drivers license in the email and the OTRS people will decide if the communication is real, otherwise anyone can spoof being her. Hell, you can pretend you are the head of the CIA to AOL, it isn't that hard. Are you the person with the IP address from Brazil, several times you forgot to login when you deleted her birthday and the edits were under the IP address from Brazil. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not the first time she's done so -- I don't remember off the top of my head, but there's a comment somewhere where she wrote "revealing my name/age, just because I blah blah blah". I suspect now that this puppet's been outed, though, it will go dormant, and in another few weeks (or months if she's busy) we'll see a brand new user breeze in, make a few token edits somewhere to get autoconfirmed, and then immediately take her sledgehammer to this article, to the Geisha article, and start calling for DAJF's banning. 122.25.78.77 ( talk) 12:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a children's book creator. About 10 years ago, I created a biography on myself on Wikipedia. It was quickly taken down and explained that it went against the policy. Understood. Several years later, I'm supposing after winning some national awards and gaining more notoriety, someone else created a page. It was accurate and well used by students at schools. While doing a book signing at a national reading conference two years ago, someone walked up to me and identified themselves as a Wikipedia photographer, snapped a picture. Several weeks later, a picture turned up on the wikipedia site. Recently, a librarian warned me that there was a large warning on the Wikipedia page, saying that it would be taken down soon, as there was some violation. I looked through the page, it was all accurate, the only thing inaccurate, defamatory or libelous was the Wikipedia warning itself, and then the whole page disappeared sometime after that. I have no idea why this happened, or why someone would do that. I played by the rules by leaving the page alone, as someone had created it. There aren't many author bios on Wikipedia that feature people of color, and now I'm wondering if there was some other motivation behind what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.55.59 ( talk) 16:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has criteria for the inclusion of biographies (see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for details). The article Don Tate was most recently nominated for deletion by User:MelanieN. A discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Tate (2nd nomination). Consensus was that the subject did not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and the page was therefore deleted. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Edgar. Actually it was nominated for deletion by User:Smartse. I was the administrator who deleted it, based on the nomination and discussion. People at the discussion did seem open to the possibility that the article could be improved if better sources could be found. I am quite willing to restore the article and try to improve it, which means adding more sources about the subject. Mr. Tate, I appreciate you "following the rules" by not editing the article. You should continue to follow that policy. However, you can use the article's talk page to suggest material to add (such a reviews, or awards you have won), and references that can be used. If the information is verified by sources, someone will add it to the article. I should warn you that this does not guarantee it will be kept as an article; it still needs to meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Awards need to be major, books need to be reviewed by major sources. But let's give it another shot. Thanks for calling this to our attention. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is okay for me, myself, to go in there and add suggestions to the talk page (just not the page itself)? As I remember, the article was pretty well sourced and credible, and all reviews (many are starred reviews, and end of year best-of lists) from major book review journals. I checked around at other author bios on Wikipedia on par with mine, none were any better sourced but still exist. Whoever created this page on my behalf did a pretty good job. However, if you're saying that I myself can go in and make suggestions, I will do that. Where do I find the page to do that, however? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.55.59 ( talk) 18:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you absolutely can make suggestions at the talk page. It is located at Talk:Don Tate, or you can just click on the link that says "talk" above the article. Right now there are several experienced "article rescuers" working on the article, and I think you will be pleased with how it is going. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @ MelanieN: I'm a bit mystified why you've unilaterally restored this when there are no new sources demonstrating notability. If it didn't meet GNG three weeks ago what has changed? I'd request that you userfy it instead until notability is demonstrated and all of the content is properly sourced. As to COI - there's no way that this version wasn't influenced by Tate since User:The Librarian at Terminus knew his DOB and other personal information that hasn't been published elsewhere. SmartSE ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  @ Smartse: I restored it for two reasons: one, both of the commenters at the AfD indicated they would accept the article if it had better sources (although they didn't suggest any); and two, I wouldn't know who to userfy it to; certainly not the IP/subject. I intend to improve it myself if possible, and others are working on it; I see that one additional reference has already been added. If you still find it unacceptable after a week or so, feel free to AfD it again; in fact if I feel that it hasn't been sufficiently improved after a week or so I will G4 it myself. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @ MelanieN: Ok fair enough. Thanks for explaining. SmartSE ( talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @ Smartse: I've now included more pertinent sourcing materials to be used. I'm not a Wikipedia user, so I don't know if I've done it right, but I did include it in a talk area(?). Now it appears the page has some kind of warning across the top which makes it look suspicious, when, again, the only thing on the page that is inaccurate is the warning banner. Did I put the information in the right place?

Also, I've looked up the source mentioned above, "The Librarian at Terminu". I have no idea who this is, though I'm thankful to them whoever they are. As a picture book author who knows how to research, it is not difficult to find a person's birthday. In the day of the internet, it's not secret. I speak at elementary schools all over the country, and I get all kinds of questions, including kids asking me for my birthday.

To the editor claiming to be Don Tate (IP 173.174.55.59), please be sure to sign all your comments. Here's now. Thanks. Czoal ( talk) 22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. Seeking assistance on this. Adele has just announced her new album will be 25. I've tried to create a page for this: 25 (Adele album), problem is when I type this in it redirects to her bio. Anyone know how to avoid this and create a new article for her album? Cheers. RyanTQuinn ( talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

When you click through a redirect, you can see a small link under the title "Redirected from ..." which gives you a link like this which should help. No comment about whether there is yet enough coverage to justify an article though, you are on your own with that. -- ℕ  ℱ 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh so just had to click on the redirect link. I assumed when something notable is confirmed (film, album, etc.) that the green light is then given to start an article. I'll make a start anyway and hopefully it's not deemed premature. Cheers. RyanTQuinn ( talk) 00:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyaag ( talk • contribs) 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what this noticeboard is for; if you think the woman isn't notable, I suggest placing a {{ notability}} tag at the top of that article. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Anne Hillyer - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ludo Campbell-Reid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contains sections with deliberately inaccurate content about a living person and breaches policies:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertwashere ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article the OP is referring to is Ludo Campbell-Reid. At any rate, that article is in terrible shape, not only with its overall structure and bad grammar, but also that it is written in an overly promotional tone. I think someone needs to apply some TNT. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain this person meets WP:GNG. I have removed the obvious puffery and unsourced material. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hansjörg Wyss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. I'd like to point editors to a discussion happening on the Talk page of the Hansjörg Wyss entry about the Synthes USA section.

Wyss was the CEO of Synthes for many years, including during an indictment and ensuing court cases regarding the marketing of an untested medical procedure that resulted in three deaths. Wyss was never part of the indictment, so my feeling is that the level of detail included in his article should be minimal (I should also note that this issue is covered in the Synthes article here). Another editor on the Talk page does not agree. I am also concerned that there's some language in the section that does not accurately reflect sources.

Here is source material from Fortune and The New York Times about the matter, the original text in the Wyss article, my suggested language, and the current text as edited by Rms125a@hotmail.com. I'd appreciate some help from editors here reviewing these and weighing in on the Talk page with their thoughts.

I also need to disclose that I have a financial conflict of interest and I am working on the article on behalf of The Wyss Foundation. That said, my aim is to remain neutral, accurate, and follow all guidelines while making suggestions about the article's content (I don't ever edit directly).

Thanks in advance—I realize this is a tricky situation and will require some effort to get caught up, but the perspective of an editor very familiar with BLP guidelines is much needed. Heatherer ( talk) 18:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Just pinging this thread because I have not had any replies and the issue remains unresolved. Thanks! Heatherer ( talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Lianne Chandler (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

After going through each section, the edits over the last two weeks have vandalized my page outrageously. I cant emphasize the pain and grief this is causing myself and my family. There are endless untrue insertions. the few things that have citations added 10/21 do not support the statements whatsoever. PLEASE RESTORE PLEASE PROTECT MY PAGE AGAIN

Thank you for your time & help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.89.37 ( talk) 06:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Lianne Chandler again

Hello

This page about my life is being continuously vandalized again.

In almost every section stuff has been deleted along with sources and altered.

I know for awhile my page was protected and stuff like this was removed quickly and reversed to its original content.

The stuff over the last two weeks is slanderous, libelous and the sources don't even lead to anything about me or not what is being said.

Please undo this vandalism.

If my page is no longer protected, could it please be flagged to be protected again?

Thank you very much for your time and help.

Taylor Lianne Chandler

I checked and it seems these issues have been addressed. Please let us know if otherwise. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Buika The bio seems poorly sourced and fractious regarding relative, Concha Buika. This article also contains poor English and sounds like it may have been written by someone working for Virginia Buika, almost like a PR release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.229.155 ( talk) 08:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have reduced this to a stub. Apart from the unreferenced and potentially libellous commentary on her relative, virtually the entire article was copyvio from here. This page needs more eyes please. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Garry Sandhu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have Provided all the additional citations for above mentioned article that is= [11].Nothing is unsourced,libelous or harmful.Pls remove the tags created for this page such as - article needs additional citations for verification ].I have provided sound sources and all the data is correct and genuine.I will be very thankful to you for this work. Manjinder3 ( talk) 12:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The tag stating that the article needs improved referencing is very valid. The sources are currently very poor, almost entirely all of them to the subject's own website. I suggest you read WP:VERIFY, and improve the article accordingly. I'm afraid it will stay there until you or someone else provides adequate referencing. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Source of the data in article is from the official facebook page of the singer .the link for official fb page is= [12].This proves that information is genuine.you can check for yourselves.What more I need to do to prove it Manjinder3 ( talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY and also read WP:BLPSOURCES on the sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. Your current referencing is completely inadequate. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added all the important information and cited the sound sources for article- [13].Can u help me to remove the tags and I don't know why it is considered for deletion as I have gave reliable sources and information about person is true and genuine.I will be very thankful to you for removing these tags as there is libelous or harmful material in article. Manjinder3 ( talk) 12:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The only tag on this article is that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranjit Bawa. If the decision is to keep the article, then the deletion discussion notice will be removed. Voceditenore ( talk) 13:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sheldon Wolin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi! This article was edited to add a date of death for the subject, but there was no citation, and I can find no news stories indicating that he has died. However the edit was by a person with a long history of editing this subject, and I don't think this is malicious, so I hesitate to revert it. Advice? Thanks! BenBurch ( talk) 14:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. Malicious or not, possibly true or not, we should never state that a previously living person has died without a reliable published source. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! BenBurch ( talk) 17:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a blog piece News in a reliable source will follow pretty soon. I'll keep looking. David in DC ( talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a blog post is insufficient for our purposes. I'm looking too and will make the change as soon as there is a reliable source. I have just reverted yet another listing of his death, this time by an IP. Doing otherwise is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and no original research. We're an encyclopedia, not the source of breaking news. A delay of a few days has zero consequences. An error has potentially enormous ones, and there have been multiple examples in the past. This article needs more eyes on it. Voceditenore ( talk) 14:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Not seeing anything on "News" page of department where he is professor emeritus or on the various authority-control records. DMacks ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article in Jacobin (magazine), does that make the cut as an RS for this? Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It's basically a copy of the blog post and by the same author. I would want something much more reliable than that. That blog post was written after the death had been posted on Wikipedia. For all we know, the author of the blog post got it from Wikipedia. There was an incident a few months ago where an IP edited Wikipedia to "report" that Nicolai Gedda had died. (Like Wolin, Gedda is in his 90s and a death was plausible.) Norman Lebrecht, heard the rumour of Gedda's death on Twitter, checked Wikipedia, assumed it was therefore true and published a fulsome obituary in his blog. Gedda was and is very much alive. See this discussion. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed by Princeton University office of communications. NE Ent 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added that reference to the article now. Voceditenore ( talk) 06:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew Keen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be vandalism at page Andrew Keen.

It's sat there for four (4) days.

Would appreciate if some other editor could take a look and clean it up.

Thank you,

— Cirt ( talk) 04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to Crystallizedcarbon ( talk · contribs), for fixing it. Most appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 09:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please Note: An image tag has been attached to this wikipedia/google page that directs the viewer away from wikipedia to one of your competitors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no image or file tags in this article, which has been stable since October 8. Perhaps you have had something infest your browser? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Or more likely looking at the Google knowledge chart which gives a credit to wikipedia even though it is grabbing stuff from all over the net. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article contains defamatory material. Statements purporting to be factual are clearly opinions and sound like a hate attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8320:13D0:7400:CD54:7BE9:137F ( talk) 15:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have been removed for now. Looks like the article needs watching though, attack material has been added several times recently. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to watchlist.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 17:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto - Cwobeel (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not sure if this edit is a BLP or UNDUE violation. But I am concerned enough about it to bring it here for more scrutiny. Everymorning (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts on this draft? The article subject does seem to be known mainly for a conviction related to illegal fishing, but I'm not sure this is a balanced biography. Not sure if the best approach would be to have an article on the illegal fishing issue and redirect there. Any input appreciated! Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This was posted earlier, but no comments were received. All of the press coverage on this person has been negative (so it's hard to avoid being biased toward the negative side of things), but I've sourced everything. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Fraenir ( talk) 04:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin MacDonald (footballer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This contains what are probably libellous comments about child molesting. I suspect they have been added today given he has taken over a caretaker Aston Villa manager. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.48.25 ( talk) 12:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. Oversight might be a good idea. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just reverted an unreferenced statement here - I had previously advised that talk pages are subject to provisions regarding living persons, but the advice was not heeded. I would prefer if others take a look/keep an eye on this. There is another unredacted instance where an identifiable notable person is described as "nutty, uninformed, uneducated". This may require similar redaction. There may be other similar instances on this talk page, I haven't read it all through. Samsara 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not as a rule require all statements on talk pages to be referenced. In fact the use of footnotes on talk pages is usually frowned upon. Collect ( talk) 15:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP, especially the third paragraph. Samsara 15:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the person has said he was not allowed in the park, the statement that he is not allowed in the part seems quite non-contentious as a claim. It does not impute any evil or improper act to the person at all. If he had written "George Gnarph is a known murderer" or the like - that requires some sourcing - the case at hand is far from that --- your position would say that I need a cite for "Bob Dylan does not perform under his real name". Collect ( talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you just give the reference then, since you claim to have it? Samsara 16:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I shall not do so - I explained why your edit war to prevent a simple statement which is not contentious was wrong. Having me add reflist here would simply be absurd a la Ionesco. Collect ( talk) 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There has been a lot of on-and-off argument over the "Criticism" section for Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian professor and activist who is known, to be fair, for holding some decidedly non-mainstream views. I'd be grateful for some advice/third opinions as to whether the following sources and content really are appropriate for a BLP and whether it's advisable for the page to load up a dedicated "Criticism" section, which is purely neagtive in tone and devoid of any context, at all.

• This blog post by a not particularly notable left-wing activist and junior academic, focused on attacking the subject, from which the quote "noted apologist for the Milosevic regime" has been sourced
• This somewhat pithy and polemical newspaper column, again by a seemingly non-notable author, which includes the subject among a list of radical university professors who the author appears to dislike. This is the source for an explicit quote describing the subject as one of "Canada's nuttiest professors"
• This op-ed piece in the National Post, from which a quote is sourced that describes the subject as "mouthing Baathist propaganda"

I and others have tried to remove this material and the sources in question, while retaining some more factually sober criticism and incorporating that across the article as a whole, but have been reverted, both recently and a while ago now. There is quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, going back several months, which reflects widespread concern about the appropriateness of the material. However, there are one or two – not inexperienced – editors active on the page who will nonetheless not accept any attempt to deal with this. N-HH talk/ edits 15:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would definitely discard the first source - don't even think about it. As for the other two, they might be usable as sources, but what concerns me about that article's section is that no differing views are proposed. As it stands the 4 paragraphs just list a series of relatively negative notions about the subject with no balance whatsoever. If reliable sources can be found that represent the subject in a different light, then the section needs to reflect those views accordingly. We need to do some research in order to proceed. Cheers, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 03:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're gonna have a hard time finding sources like that - Chossudovsky doesn't have a lot of non-fringe fans. Fyddlestix ( talk) 03:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there don't appear to be that many detailed or objective assessments of him or his views in decent sources, which is a problem for generating content. But does it follow that we use blogs and op-eds which don't really illuminate much but simply fling insults at him? Surely the prohibition on such sources in a BLP is absolute, not "they'll do until we find better"? N-HH talk/ edits 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, surely it's not about looking for outright critics or fans as such and listing negative and positive opinions from each respectively, but about finding objective, broader "secondary" coverage and profiling, which includes any "primary" positive and negative comment within it (and which, yes, may of course end up being quite critical overall). That's so often the problem with BLP pages – editors just chucking in sources, "reliable" or not, that simply present subjective judgments they happen to agree with and hence effectively using the page to conduct proxy political debates rather than actually present information. N-HH talk/ edits 18:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Jigme Singye Wangchuck (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is clearly written from POV and most of the information is unsourced. Not sure what to do with it. Elsan ( talk) 17:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well you could link it for a start! Johnbod ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC) ------------ I used the automatic form and it linked in the title automatically. Elsan ( talk) 17:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It reads very officially, but is well-written. There isn't anything missing from the previous version I think, & generally its fuller and better. The same editor has done the other Kings of Bhutan and may be an official (see Dasho). I've no doubt official sources would confirm it all, and there's relatively little other in depth coverage in the media. Johnbod ( talk) 17:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a notice about neutrality. The content of the article seems good but the tone is not encyclopedic. For example, other monarchs are not called "His Majesty" in their articles. Elsan ( talk) 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I did some cleanup, but it needs additional work and sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I wasn't sure where to start. Elsan ( talk) 05:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Antony Coia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Antony Coia is a BLP. I would like eyes other than those of anyone who has a conflict over anything even remotely connected to this or related articles to check the sourcing therein to ensure claims and sources conform to Wikipedia policies concerning sourcing and BLPs. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 23:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time. The first one it was archived. Stop persecuting me and the articles I create. Please look at here: [14] Pizzole ( talk) 23:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking additional uninvolved editors to keep an eye on a biography of a living person is not persecuting you, Pizzole. Instead, it is good practice here on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Audrey Irmas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aside from not being a notable figure this page includes unsourced and poorly sourced information that is seemingly libelous. Should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.232.146 ( talk) 04:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

She is definitely notable as a major philanthropist and art collector. Everything is referenced; nothing seems libelous. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Zigzig20s. The person is notable and I see no trace of libel or any BLP violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN concerning an editor, one aspect of which is in regard to his editing of a BLP article Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest the discussion be kept centralized there, but the denizens of this board might like to bring their experience with BLP issues to the discussion, which is here. BMK ( talk) 22:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for confusion in not being competent to edit or revise Wikipedia articles. I grew up with an Underwood. I love Wikipedia, especially in historical research. I have no personal interest in the Brugnara case. I am only interested in Wikipedia's credibility. It seems like Wikipedia has been gamed. I hope one of the inestimable volunteers can do what needs to be done. I would recommend that the entire article be rewritten or, preferably, spiked. You can see why if you call up "Luke Brugnara" on Google, a Wikipedia biography apparently submitted by the subject. Then take note of other Brugnara articles and news clips in Google, including his 7-year sentence for art fraud announced last week in the San Francisco Chronicle. See: http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-real-estate-investor-gets-7-year-sentence-in-6583129.php Also see: http://abc7news.com/news/san-francisco-real-estate-tycoon-sentenced-for-art-fraud/1043136/

I am a retired reporter/editor in San Francisco at the Chronicle and the pre-merger Examiner.

Yours truly,

Lynn Ludlow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.88.243 ( talk) 02:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the aricle is terrible and should be replaced. Why don't you write one? --jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 05:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I was hoping that I could get some BLP-strong eyes over at Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. There's some content about crimes the guy has been accused of, and I want to be sure that it's being presented (or not) in a way that is consistent with our BLP guidelines. There have been some problems with editors like this guy being very specific, so that has caused concern. For some background, the subject is an Indian religious leader who has starred in not one, but two self-aggrandizing propaganda films. In one of them, he kicks an elephant's ass. If that doesn't get you interested in this article, I dunno what will! Guaranteed amusement! Here's a trailer for his latest film, MSG-2: The Messenger Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If nobody has time to take a look at this (not a criticism) would it be recommended that I delete the content? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the content until someone can help figure out what to include. Thx. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me the subject is a public figure so if multiple reputable sources tell us he is under investigation for criminal acts, then in a scrupulously neutral way the article should reflect that. Rumiton ( talk) 16:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

apparently there are some BLP concerns about the content at Model Mugging. I based a revert on the talk page comments [ [15]] but there may be more going on [16] and I dont have connection speed or time to look deeper into it at this time.

Other experienced eyes would be welcome. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted, but will not be able to have a deeper look until tomorrow. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, October 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article contains info about living persons, including Kevin McCarthy (California politician). It contains rumor info about his alleged but denied affairs with some female politician, which is omitted in his Wiki-biography. There must be other info omitted in certain bio pages. -- George Ho ( talk) 21:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have taken out some information from the Personal Life section regarding a supposed 'sex scandal' sourced to The Daily Express and The Sun. ( diff) This has been reverted by User:Zoyetu a couple of times now. I believe that BLPs are exempt, but before I get to 3RR can someone take a look at this. Thanks. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted for the last time today, some more eyes on this would be appreciated. -- User:Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is forum shopping and IDHT. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the Bill Cosby talk page about whether the very first sentence of the article should describe him as an "American stand-up comedian, actor,author, and alleged serial rapist". I thought that that was a bit too harsh but the article seems to be full of very passionate people. I was hoping other uninvolved editors could help us resolve this issue. Please see the section titled "Discussion: Should the lead sentence mention the sexual assault accusations?". Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 05:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Note false claim. We are NOT discussing "rapist". That was settled and archived long ago. We have progressed much further in the discussion. That's a very deceptive use of a straw man.

Pinging: User:Minor4th, ·maunus, Ryk72, Collect, DHeyward, User:Only in death, User:Nomoskedasticity, Bbb23, Dirtlawyer1, Notecardforfree, User:Jayron32, SageRad.

Please take a look at the history of my last few edits here, including the edit summaries. You're being seriously trolled, but by IDHT behavior and disruption. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, "serial rapist" should not be used in a BLP unless there have been multiple rape convictions. The allegations of sexual misconduct should be mentioned in the lead, but not in the same sentence as "comedian, actor, author" and not in such loaded, inflammatory language. Minor 4th 13:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Minor4th. Not in the definition sentence. I would add that even if he is convicted it should not be phrased in that way, and probably still not in the definition sentence. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as above. This would be an incredibly inappropriate inclusion. I am also editing the section header; as a WP:BLP redaction. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Expanding on my previous comments - while I concur with some of the later comments below that it may be appropriate to document these allegations in the article, and even in the lead section, I do not consider that the construction "alleged serial rapist" is appropriate, or policy compliant (WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:NOR WP:V). We would be better to focus on less inflammatory & prejudicial phrasing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I thought I pinged you above, but your comment reveals you haven't seen what's been going on. I'll repeat my comment from above. This whole thread is improper forum shopping by Hamsterlopithecus. Here's the comment:

Note false claim. We are NOT discussing "rapist". That was settled and archived long ago. We have progressed much further in the discussion. That's a very deceptive use of a straw man [by Hamsterlopithecus].

Please take a look at the history of my last few edits here, including the edit summaries. You're being seriously trolled, but by IDHT behavior and disruption. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are allegations which have yet to be tested for being unvarnished truth - I understand those editors for whom BLPs are a place to vent on the "evilness of a person", but that is not how I understand WP:BLP as policy. Collect ( talk) 13:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No mention of crimes should be anywhere in the article. We don't have a deadline. About as close as we need to get is the removal of honorary degrees and the cited reasons for doing so. -- DHeyward ( talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You want the article to make no mention of sexual assault allegations? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Unsubstantiated, unproven and unconvictable allegations are not a reason to in the very first line describe someone as an 'alleged serial rapist' and I cant believe anyone actually thinks thats a good idea. (Granted they really do need to be in the article somewhere, if only in denial) Only in death does duty end ( talk) 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Talk page discussion has evolved. Various options have been put forth. In some the language (not the same language as before) goes in in the opening sentence. In others, the language would be in the second sentence of the lead. There is no option to have nothing in the lead, although one person voted "none of the above" for that very reason. It's kind of an informal RfC. The interesting question from an administrator perspective is can consensus violate BLP policy? I don't think so, but there would no doubt be a contentious argument regarding policy interpretation. For the moment, I'm sort of watching and not taking any position.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it is possible for local consensus to violate any policy. It just tends to get over-ruled pretty quickly in the cases of obvious policy violation (especially RE BLP). The only problem would be pointing out which part of the policy is being violated. While I feel it shouldnt be in the lead sentence, technically it would be a hard argument that doing so violates the BLP policy as currently written - given the widely covered allegations (in RS) and the notability of Bill Cosby. At best its a contentious content dispute which would normally be solved by a local RFC. If consensus on the article is that it should be included in the lead sentence, it needs a clear and unambiguous policy-backed reason to not do so. I find it distasteful that absent any conviction people are willing to label a living person 'alleged serial rapist' - NPOV is probably a better policy to apply. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I feel the need to echo the concerns raised above. I'm certainly not here to defend Bill Cosby at this point (there's an awful lot of smoke, even if we can't see the fire), but there is a right way and a wrong way to present this. Including an explicit mention of the allegations against him in the first sentence is tantamount to convicting him in the public eye. Wikipedia does not exist as an encyclopedic lynch mob; the allegations may be reliably sourced, but there have been no criminal charges brought, and certainly no conviction by jury obtained. This is a man who had a very long public career, and a sterling public reputation until these issues become public in the last three to four years. Unless and until charges are filed and a conviction is obtained, we need to recognize the present legal reality and not allow anyone's anger for his alleged misdeeds to get ahead of the legal process. While I have my own feelings about the present public evidence, I will remind everyone of the Duke lacrosse scandal and the mess it made of innocent persons' lives. Everyone needs to maintain a little perspective, and if some editors need to be reminded of that on the article talk page, I am happy to share the perspective of a practicing attorney with them. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's certainly some truth/force in these points. But if we're going to worry about a mess being made of innocent persons' lives in this context, then Cosby is not the only person we should consider; the way we write about this issue can affect other people as well. I'm not arguing that the allegation belongs in the first sentence; I think it doesn't belong in the first sentence. I'm only saying that this discussion requires multiple perspectives. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I will echo what many others have already said; Bill Cosby should not be referred to as a "serial rapist" until there have been multiple convictions in a court of law. WP:BLPCRIME, states that "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis in original). I think it's okay to state that there have been multiple allegations, but we must be careful to not imply that he has already been found guilty of a crime. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's right (and allowable) to include the allegations in this instance is that Bill Cosby is not "relatively unknown". Better not to omit that part of the policy from your quotation, I'd say. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point. As I said, I think it is okay to say there have been allegations (though the placement of this in the lead may implicate WP:WEIGHT issues). Of course, it would be factually incorrect to imply that he has been found guilty of a crime. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 17:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Bold mine. The mention of allegations may be important enough to talk about in the article, and it MAY even be important enough for the lead section. But it is in NO WAY due weight to give it placement in the first sentence. Also, per WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The allegations of possible sexual misconduct are certainly prominent, so I wouldn't say we should avoid them at all costs. Also per WP:LEAD "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." It certainly seems appropriate to put the lead into the format of the article, in general. Place the allegations mention in the lead in roughly the location where it is found in the article. As the allegations are not in the first section of the article, they should not be at the top of the lead. And certainly not in the first sentence. -- Jayron 32 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Would add a second sentence to the first paragraph of the lede, and would not use the phrase "serial rapist" but would say that he is accused of rape by many women, or some other short summary. This situation is of primary importance in who Bill Cosby is at this sad time in his life. It deserves to be in the first paragraph of the lede. SageRad ( talk) 18:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread is forum shopping and IDHT. Hamster totally reordered talk page sections, placing them in opposite order and thus changing the meaning and progression. They also changed headings made by others, and also created an improperly formed RfC to hijack the discussion. All is now restored. We had a consensus until this disruption occurred. This is massive IDHT behavior, and this thread should be closed. Such behavior should not be rewarded. Hamster should be blocked for this -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly accusations against him should be mentioned in the lead, but I would leave it out of the first sentence. Cosby is not notable because of the accusations against him, he is notable as an entertainer and the accusations have attracted news coverage because of his notability. TFD ( talk) 20:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus needs to stop forum shopping. The consensus in talk is obvious. - Cwobeel (talk)

User:BullRangifer, I am just trying to get more editors involved. Please stop trying to shut down the discussion. You have already hijacked the talk page on that article. Let others discuss. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 18:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) (Striking BLP violations. These are proven lies. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 04:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

They are welcome to discuss. I just wanted to make sure they understood the context for this thread. I provided the evidence of your hijacking the discussion because a consensus had formed against your position. You also edit warred with multiple editors, and then you took your war to the talk page in a very bizarre manner: you started by changing other's headings, created an improperly formed and non-neutral RfC because you didn't like the existing consensus, forum shopped others to come and !vote, and then you moved that whole RfC segment up above existing sections which were already discussing the subject.

That placed things out of chronological order so the dozen or so editors you forum shopped hadn't a clue what they were getting into. You did the same here by using a straw man to rile up strong feelings, based on your false claim. That's all extremely disruptive.

The sequence of events, with the damning diffs, are on my talk page. If an admin were to check out what you did they might consider blocking and topic banning you. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 02:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask you to prove your false claims or retract them on my talk page. -- {{u| BullRangifer}} { Talk} 02:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As with the Bill Cosby talk page, User:BullRangifer has edited and modified this section to change the chronological order of the discussion and hence it's meaning. He has, yet again, shut down another civilized discussion about how to improve an article on wikipedia. I recently saw, on his talk page, that he has a strong history of being aggressive, disruptive, threatening, and disrespectful with ongoing discussions and with other editors. He has been warned several times by many editors in the past, has been accused of WP:ADVOCACY before, and has been banned from some pages. I will not waste other editors' time by engaging him. I came here with the best intentions to help improve the article, but it's very frustrating that a single person can derail a discussion like this. Hamsterlopithecus ( talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Alexander (fashion designer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some inconsistencies in the information regarding his personal life and work. Dates don't really add up For example, the article states that Peter Alexander was born in 1965 and left fashion label Sportsgirl in 1985 "at the age of 24" Maybe someone should just check up on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.15.81 ( talk) 10:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Manfred Reyes Villa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The (English language) article on Manfred Reyes Villa does not cite any sources for its information and it makes several claims which seem like editorializing rather than reporting objective facts. Moreover, throughout the entire article, the English is very awkward, as if it were written in another language and then translated. It also has basic errors of proofreading: some sentences are run-on, while not all of the others actually finish.

Stubified. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Melissa McClelland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The url for the official website for Melissa McClellan is not correct. It doesn't look like she has an official website any more since she joined Whitehorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.83.240 ( talk) 18:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Checked, agreed, removed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 20:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I presented a number of sources including CBC and NYT, and a number of books which have called Cosby an "activist". Precisely how many sources are needed before we can use that word in the lead of his BLP? I gave 9 now - and can furnish about twenty more, but I find "citation overkill" to be in poor taste. Collect ( talk) 21:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Collect, Without seeing the sources, I would say that, on face value, that number of sources & quality of publisher would meet the burden of WP:BLP. Whether is is sufficiently important an aspect of the subject to be included is a separate question, of course; but I might be inclined towards a briek inclusion. I would agree that it is unnecessary to include all 30 sources as cited refs. I realise that this isn't very helpful an answer, and humbly apologise. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The single word "activist" was removed from the lead on the basis that there were no sources calling Cosby an activist. I suggested to the person removing the word as "unsourced" (and who then removed it when it had a CBC reliable source as well) then Wikipedia does not need twenty sources for what appears to be a quite non-contentious claim - that Cosby was active in a number of causes including education causes. So that I do not in any way mislead anyone, the discussion is on the BLP talk page. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 22:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything in the body of the article that describes his activism? If so, that's the best basis for using that term in the lead. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that any reliable source which is usable in the lead should certainly be usable in the body of the article. "Activist" was, in fact, in the article for well over nine years before it was removed recently. Did he suddenly become a "non-person" as far as being an activist is concerned? (Note the NYT used the term, so it ought not be contentious, I trust) Collect ( talk) 23:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is not a single mention of "activism" in the article body, and thus it should not be in the lede (no matter how long that word has been in the lede), let alone in the opening sentence. If you want that added to the lede, then go ahead and develop a section on Cosby's activism. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that this is the correct answer, yes. WP:LEAD requires that the lead reflects the body, but that is particularly important here, because "activist" can mean so many different things -- an activist for what? How? Calling him an activist in the lead without answering those questions in the body doesn't make any sense. If it was like that for nine years, then it's just a mistake nobody noticed until now. (Or, alternatively, there was once a section on his activism that got removed or reshuffled to the point where it no longer covers it, but I couldn't find anything like that in a quick glance over the history.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

An experienced editor, Johnpacklambert, is hard at work creating what is, in my opinion, a BLP violating hit piece against Bill Shaheen, the husband of U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen. The editor is extracting every negative factoid he can from sources and adding them to the biography, including much from highly dubious and partisan sources. He is leaving out anything positive from the sources he has cherry-picked and including only the items that support his negative agenda. The very first item he included was the fact that this man's brother in law was convicted of a crime, not mentioning that the source in question stated that neither Shaheen or his wife were implicated in the crime. He engages in synthesis and original research, concluding on his own that the Shaheens must have been involved, since they were in a partnership with the convicted man. This is classic guilt by association, in my opinion, which has no place here on Wikipedia. Experienced editors, please take a look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the line about the pawn shop for the reasons stated about. Calidum T| C 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• The biggest attack is this total lack of assuming good faith. His characterizations of my edits are unfair. By "partisan" he means "non-liberal", although actually the majority of the sources are liberal, so I have no clue what he is complaining about. In fact some of them are inherently pro-Shaheen, or have no reason to be against Shaheen except they dislike his misteps on the Clinton campaign in 2007. The fact that he had previously headed the Carter, Gore and Kerry campaigns in New Hampshire makes his leaving the Clinton campaign more notable. It clearly was the most notable thing that ever happened to him, although his role in the 1976 Carter campaign may have received more recognition in contemporary press sources than I have yet identified. On the other hand Cullen328 has consistently said "shame on you" and in other ways attacked my efforts to create an article on this significant figure in New Hampshire politics. He evidently believes harrasment is OK, and I find that disturbing. The pawn shop has been central to Jeanne Shaheen's campaign talking points, it can not just be removed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • You began the article by engaging in overt guilt by association. As for the positive material in some of the sources about his role in the Carter, Gore and Kerry campaigns, you chose to exclude that from your article. Why? Where is the reliable source calling the pawn shop "central" to Jean Shaheen's campaigns? And even if such a source exists, why would you include this particular garbage in an article about her husband? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sara Alpern (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this person notable? If so, how? Sennater ( talk) 05:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sennater, While the article is definitely a biography, the question is probably a little outside the scope of this noticeboard, which deals with issues in compliance with the WP:BLP policy. Please feel free to try to find additional sources to improve the article & make a solid claim of notability; if no sources can be found, and the article can't meet WP:GNG, then it may need to be discussed at AfD, unfortunately. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72. I definitely don't want to see any articles get deleted if they don't deserve it, but I just can't find anything that would establish this person's notability. And if you look at the references in the article, besides not helping to show she's notable, not one of them is a legitimate, secondary reliable source. I also read all of WP:ACADEMIC but couldn't find any boxes I could check for her. Unless someone can find something that makes her notable, I think someone who knows how to do an AfD should nominate this article. Sennater ( talk) 07:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Sennater:, I'm going to suggest maybe continuing this on the article Talk page; it probably a better venue. FWIW, I share your concerns about a number of the sources, so of which look not only non-secondary, but also maybe not ok for a BLP. Looking at the page history I'd also suggest it might be worth seeking opinions from one of the contributors, @ Billy Hathorn:, to make sure that they're included in any discussions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean Billy Hathorn, who just added this inappropriate content and source to the article? And he is the one who created the article so of course he will never agree that she's not notable. Billy, do you have a personal connection to Sara Alpern? Sennater ( talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia rules on academics say that secondary sources are not required because their work is often unknown to the public. Billy Hathorn ( talk) 11:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It has to be proven that she's notable. You are the one who created the article, Billy. What in WP:ACADEMIC makes her notable? Sennater ( talk) 20:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability can be shown through other means than just existence of reliable, secondary, independent sources treating the topic substantively (this is our current accepted practice, not what I agree with; were it up to me we would use the GNG alone). But you have to separate that topic inclusion standard from verifiability, which is an information content standard. The information content in every article must be verifiable through reliable sources (but not necessarily secondary sources). She may meet WP:ACADEMIC – her many publications and [mere] mentions in various sources give at least a gloss that she might meet some of the bases listed at WP:NACADEMICS. However, all content in the article must be verifiable and if challenged and not sourced through an inline citation to a reliable source, that content can be removed and cannot be returned unless such a source is cited in that manner. See WP:BURDEN. Personally, I don't think this is a good article to go to bat on, as there are so many clearly non-notable topics that I think efforts are better spent on. But if you want to test this, see WP:AFDHOWTO. However, please note WP:BEFORE. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Great input. Thanks. Maybe I'll just Fuhghettaboutit. As long as the creator doesn't try to stick any more crap into the article like he did today. But I invite others to feel welcome to review the article and make any changes. Sennater ( talk) 00:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ipoll7 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Wikipedia page of Rana Ayyub is used for glorification of the individual. The language of the content along with the details are not suitable for Wikipedia's biographic materials. Certain users whose edits are confined only on this particular page is continuously disrupting the attempt to improve the quality of the page. Ipoll7 ( talk) 06:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all content that violates WP:BLP or other policies and guidelines. Left a note on Talk:Rana Ayyub#BLP_issues. utcursch | talk 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I am Heidi W. Durrow, the author of The Girl Who Fell From the Sky (Algonquin Books). www.heidiwdurrow.com 2. Someone keeps editing my biography claiming that Katrina Monet is the author of The Girl Who Fell From the Sky and has claimed my identity as her own. Heidi W. Durrow 3. The latest edits have included potentially defamatory statements about mental challenges and intensive treatments. 4. There is no connection to me, Heidi W. Durrow, and Katrina Monet. 5. By claiming that Katrina Monet wrote my book she is infringing on my copyrighted work. 5. There have been extensive articles written about me and my biography and you can clearly see the person who is claiming to be me is not me. Here is a small sample:

NPR interview All Things Considered http://www.npr.org/2010/03/02/124244813/reimagining-the-tragic-mulatto New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/arts/mixed-race-writers-and-artists-raise-their-profiles.html?_r=0

The New Yorker http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-exchange-heidi-durrows-mixed-chicks The Oregonian http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2011/01/ex-portlander_heidi_w_durrow_k.html The Park Record http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_18272068 Amazon http://www.amazon.com/The-Girl-Who-Fell-Sky/dp/1565126807 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRichardParker ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The claims of Katrinamonet ( talk · contribs) were all unsourced; I have removed them (let me know if I missed anything) and added this page to my watchlist, and flagged that user's account for vandalism. However, I should also note that if TheRichardParker ( talk · contribs) is either Ms. Durrow or some representative thereof, that user should review WP:COI and act appropriately in regards to the article. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The entry for John Harwood, who was a moderator of the CNBC Republican debate last night, describes Harwood as "basically a hack for liberals."

/info/en/?search=John_Harwood_%28journalist%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.9.21 ( talk) 19:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Willis Carto (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another one of those cases where fringe source are reporting someone has recently died (i.e. [17], [18]), but not yet picked up by what we normally consider to be reliable sources. - Location ( talk) 21:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Still says he's dead. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now with a racist website in External links as a source, took that to WP:RSN. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[19] reliable source? Brought question to RSN thread David in DC ( talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject of the article. I was looking at it because it is on a list of articles requiring translation/cleanup. It is however a BLP and some things are said here by an IP address that should either be deleted or acted upon imho. Elinruby ( talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Climate change deniers, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming back to Category:Climate change skeptics. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia team,

I have been requested by News UK to update the biography of John Witherow, Editor of the Times. It continues to say I need to add more citations despite many being inserted and all the information being reliability provided by the News UK corporate affairs team. How can we get rid of the warning from the top of the screen and make the page verified?

Thanks

Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoDaviesLewis ( talk • contribs) 10:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Theo - firstly, this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool, and so the News UK 'corporate affairs team' should not be editing the article as they have a clear conflict of interest. Please can I ask your connection to the subject? Secondly, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information; this is especially important about living people, for obvious reasons. Giant Snowman 10:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, my connection to the subject is that I'm a young journalist who has actually done a lot of work for The Times on biographies. I think I've cited at least 15 reliable sources here - so I'm really bemused to why it is not verified??? All of the information I've inserted has been proven through referencing so I'm a bit stuck. Why do you think that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoDaviesLewis ( talk • contribs) 10:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have a connection to the subject then you should also not be editing. Having a quick look at the article, a lot if referenced to the Times itself (primary sources can be questionable) and also sources not considered reliable (such as the Mail). There's also potential original research. ALso, of course, the article is massively incomplete. Giant Snowman 11:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoDaviesLewis ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There may be a more basic misunderstanding of the situation here. The article is still tagged as needing more information because no editor has removed the tag at the top of the page's file. This is something that TheoDaviesLewis ( talk · contribs) could have edited out himself had he known about Wikipedia tags. He posted here half a day after he completed his edits, during which time just one editor edited the page (self-professed Wikignome bgwhite ( talk · contribs)), doing some fairly automated-looking edits. Perhaps the complaining editor is assuming that this tag is some sort of automated process ("Wikipedia detects fewer than 13 references on the article!") or some review board that looks at all edits within half a day, but the truth is that the tag saying that there needs to be more references is something that can be added by any normal editor and takes an editor deleting it to be removed.

Having said that, were TheoDaviesLewis or anyone else to remove this tag from the article in its current state, it would likely be quickly reinserted, as its placement is legitimate. There are entire sections of this article without any reference being listed. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

But which became our 5th million article? -- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I might have posted this wrong as I just presumed it was a bio.. anyway if anyone knows let me know :)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five million articles and it was not a bio. In fact, there wasn't even a bio in the running iirc. Samsara 15:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Purported image of living persoonia has been fixed. [20] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:BabbaQ, Wikipedia does not have 5 million articles because redirects are being counted as content pages. See here for the content pages. It is clear redirects are part of the list. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. I replied at Talk:Main Page#Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, that definitely would have been cool to be the user who created the "5,000,000th" article. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might not be correctly 5 million articles but Wikipedia is announcing it as such. And therefore it is in my opinion that many millions of articles. Period :)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 15:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am Jeffrey Hoad - lead singer and co founder of Australian Rock Band Kings of the Sun. The page in question is Kings of the Sun (band).

This page has been live for several years and has an extreme amount of non-factual data and is in no way an accurate record of the bands history, trajectory and current data/performances/published articles etc, and reads in an extremely biased fashion. It also contains non-relevant and non-existent links which are sited in the references section.

As this page is a protected page - it appears that it is unable to be corrected. Are you able to offer assistance/guidance as to how to remedy this situation?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Jeffrey Hoad JeffreyHoadKingsoftheSun ( talk) 06:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• JeffreyHoadKingsoftheSun, you were previously blocked under the username KOTStrafJEFFHOAD by JzG for disruptive editing. Technically speaking, this is considered block evasion and you could be blocked for opening a new account rather than trying to seek an unblock under your old account name. I'm slightly hesitant to block you because it does appear like you're trying to do things right this way around, but it's really not a good idea to do this. Given that the prior edits at the article were particularly contentious, there was an ANI thread about your edits, and there was some sockpuppetry, my hand is sort of forced in this matter so I am going to block you. However I do not have an issue with you seeking an unblock under your main account as long as you can show that you now understand the reasons for your block and that you will try not to do this again.

Now that said, can you identify which parts of the article are incorrect or biased? This will help give us a better idea of what to look for. I will say that the article needs a pretty thorough re-write since large portions of the article have huge grammatical errors. Sentence fragments like this aren't really helpful: "Original clip stays in the vaults." This will likely be a massive undertaking since people will have to look for sourcing at the same time to back up the claims made in the article - the band does appear to be notable, but any claims about living people must be backed up with sourcing. I could probably stubbify the article, but I hesitate to do that when I don't really have the time to build it back up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• It actually looks like the article is a copyvio from the band's official page, so it needs to be re-written anyway. I've left more about this on the article talk page, but even if this ends up that the band just cut/pasted from the Wikipedia article, there are some concerns about BLP issues due to unsourced claims - especially since there are claims in the article that don't match up with reliable sources. They're mostly just things like the band's creation year, but this is a reason why we need to source things carefully. I have no problem with things being re-added if they can be sourced. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This entry is a self written promotional biography, written mostly under the user name "Colourman" in order to boost Baty's standing as a consultant. He has closed the Colourman account now to deflect attention from this fact. The other usernames of early editing "Guyopenshaw" "Nunclose" and "Digniora" are all connected to Baty (look on his website). Colourman is a name he uses in connection with his business (again see his website) and his flickr account user name is Colourman This is blatant and inappropriate conflict of interest. I can find no other Wikipedia page linked to a living consultant of this kind so there is no precedent for this kind of entry in general, let alone a self-promoting entry. Comparison of the writing style on his website with the text of the entry will probably convince many that they are by the same hand. Can this entry be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by S15mund ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

We cannot delete the article given he passes Wikipedia's general notability guideline. However, we can improve the article and act upon its shortcomings. I'll go over it this week and see what I can do. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Arun Gawli Unbuttered parsnip ( talk) mytime= Mon 20:08, wikitime= 12:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All lacking citations have now been provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.46.82 ( talk) 20:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a request for comments at [ Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#What does MEDRS cover? ].

At issue is whether the lead paragraph OF WP:MEDRS should remain...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

...or whether it should be changed to...

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

This has the potential to change the sourcing policy from WP:RS to WP:MEDRS on a large number of Wikipedia pages, so please help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thom Tillis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dan Coats (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Cornyn (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Johnny Isakson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul D. Fraim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom Henry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jim Gray (American politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Madeline Rogero (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday several blogs, activist sites, and other random sources repeated the claim that four U.S. senators and five mayors had been outed by Anonymous. ( example) It's one of the most serious accusations you can make against a person (let alone a politician). Anonymous denies releasing the list of names and the claim leads back to Pastebin. As you can imagine, people read it on Facebook (where everything is true) and added it to the BLP articles. Several of these were protected, but I found two ( Tom Henry and Paul D. Fraim) where these libelous claims had remained for hours. I'd appreciate if some others could help monitor these articles until people realize it was a hoax. APK whisper in my ear 07:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hafiz habibullah is the youth president Of ISF in Govt. Post Graduate College Toba Tek singh Pakistan. And founder of NGO (non-profit organization) Punjabi group4 help foundation. He belongs from Pakistan Chenab group of industries and chen one group of shopping malls. Hafiz Habibullah belongs from political family but he is most famous in most famous celebrities and politcians of Pakistan. Hafiz Habibullah has won the best presenter award in 2011 From Govt. Post Graduate College Toba Tek Singh. Hafiz Habibullah is also software engineer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.95.6.232 ( talk) 20:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In Ventura County Superior Court case D352052, April Haney was officially divorced as of 4/7/15. She changed her name back to April Lerman. I have made edits to the page to reflect her marital status but cannot modify her name at the top of the page or the fact it says she is married to William Pearson Haney III.

Mr. Haney is remarried to someone else and showing him married to April Lerman is incorrect.

Please make these corrections. <Ventura County Superior Court case D352052>

157.145.220.3 ( talk) 00:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)X

I'd like to ask an uninvolved admin to review the recent edits of Realskeptic ( talk · contribs). This account is a single-purpose agenda account devoted to promoting dubious or discredited claims about vaccination, which is problematic in its own right, but I think s/he is also edit-warring in ways that violate WP:BLP. Specifically, he repeatedly inserts contentious material dealing with living people and sourced only to a personal website (that of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), in violation of WP:BLPSPS, here, here, and here, among other places. He also edit-wars to include contentious material about living people sourced to court records, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, here, here, and here, among other places.

I warned him and pointed him to WP:BLP here, but he has since continued his pattern ( using personal websites as sources after warning). His attitude toward our sourcing policies is probably best exemplified by his edit summary here, where he refuses to acknowledge the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times as reliable sources because they are "trained by [the] CDC" as part of some sort of conspiracy. In a WP:POINTy response to being called out about WP:BLPPRIMARY, he's started making edits like this, removing huge swaths of content on the (false) grounds that they're sourced to court decisions.

Anyhow... I think I would be justified in blocking him myself at this point, since even involved admins are typically permitted to enforce WP:BLP in this manner, but would prefer review by uninvolved admins. Thanks. MastCell  ^Talk 00:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree a block looks to be justified. RealSkeptic appears to be aggressively (and disruptively) pushing a particular POV and edit warring over the same, showing little inclination for discussion or listening to your (and others') comments. If WP:3RR has not already been breached, he/she is right on the edge on several articles at this point ( Trace Amounts, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Autism's False Prophets, Joan Walsh, 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference, The Lancet, and Salon (website)). A fairly clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I just noticed/ reverted he/she cut about 12k bytes from the Andrew Wakefield article with edit summaries that look to be referencing these BLP issues you've raised (i.e. retaliation of sorts?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not an admin, but these comments and the edit warring on 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference makes it pretty clear this user has a battleground mentality and doesn't care about consensus. APK whisper in my ear 03:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I brought this to ANI. It's getting out of hand. APK whisper in my ear 04:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ken Whitman

I posted the following to the Ken Whitman biography about the newest company he created and projects it was involved with:

Whitman began later doing business in late 2013 as D20 Entertainment on KickStarter. ^[1] Between December 8, 2013 and April 7, 2015, Whitman created and funded 6 projects on KickStarter for 3 short movies and 3 gaming accessories. ^[2]

TheRedPenOfDoom had been deleting any attempt by anyone to put up information that Ken Whitman was the owner and operator of D20 Entertainment and the 6 KickStarters it has ran. He has gone so far as on my personal talk page to accuse me of leading a smear campaign against Ken Whitman and threatened to ban me for trying to post the above statements. TheRedPenofDoom has informed me that the above information is not allowed by KickStarter even with the direct sources listed.

This does not seem correct to my understanding of information sources and information allowed on a biography as I understand the Wikipedia rules and I just think TheRedPenofDoom is trying to stop any and all mention of D20 Entertainment from appearing on the page for personal reasons that I am not sure of.

If I am wrong and the above post I've tried to add is against KS policy ... if someone could better explain to me why this factual statement is not allowed information on a biography page as it would seem to me to be the kind of thing that would be expected to be found on a biography page. Thank you for your help in this matter. GalakStarscraper ( talk) 02:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A cursory Google News search done, there don't appear to be any external reliable sources which make note of those Kickstarters, which suggests that they are not encyclopedically notable. Lots of people launch Kickstarters that are of varying success; unless there's independent reliable sources talking about those Kickstarters, they don't end up in Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NorthBySouthBaranof ... I read the independent reliable sources. So I get the New York Times would be one but are any blogs allowed if they are news blogs? For example this link: https://rpgrunkleplaysgames.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/interview-with-ken-whitman-of-d20-entertainment/ Was done by an RPG news blog and reported on Ken Whitman, D20 Entertainment and the 6 KickStarters and was done as an interview with him. I am seriously trying to understand what is the level of independent reliable source needed for something to be okay to post. GalakStarscraper ( talk) 03:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)