Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive157

• Canoe, in regard to this edit, I cannot find what kind of publication On Principle is and we should err on the side of caution, so I agree with the removal. This is supposed to be a GA, and while I haven't plowed the history yet, this discussion is insightful. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Meles Zenawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Meles Zenawi is already semi-protected (by me, until July 20), so what I am actually requesting here is that others will keep an eye on Talk:Meles Zenawi for further edit requests (I've already responded to one request). Meles Zenawi is currently ill, and has not made a public appearance for some time (news link). This has led some opposition groups to claim that he is dying or already dead. As of this writing, this is all that reliable sources have told us. Yesterday (July 16 through early hours of July 17), the Meles Zenawi article was changed to indicate that the subject had already died, though none of these edits cited a source (and for that matter, the date and cause of purported death varied among the edits). When the edits continued, I semi-protected the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Azeb Mesfin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Azeb Mesfin is the subject's wife and I think this could use an extra set of eyes, as well. (Wasn't sure if I needed to make a separate entry for it, since it's the same issue for both articles.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed two BLP images. They can be seen at the BLP articles. If you wish you could delete every blog and BS backed statement and then see if reverts cause issues for consensus on the talk page. Just my thoughts though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best if it was just reverted back to the date prior to his edit contributions which is this [11]. There's so much to cut out that it's a bit overwhelming. ViriiK (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed to the version you suggested and left a trite summary.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I assume it's done at this point but I will keep an eye on it and see what the user says. ViriiK (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism started by

This page has been vandalized at least a dozen times over the last two years. I admit that the page is vandalized only ever month or so, so it isn't happening everyday. This is why nothing has been done in the past. However, since this the vandalism is the addition of accusations of criminal activity (ie child molestation), I feel that it need to be addressed and stopped under

The article was essentially dormant from July 2011 to July 2012. Then, an IP, starting with 75., vandalized the article, and it was reverted. Nottoohappy hasn't edited since July 2011. There might have been some connection between Nottoohappy and IP 69., who vandalized the article about about 3 weeks after Nottoohappy's last edit. But the latest edit was from an IP in a different range and a year later. I could be wrong, and you can, of course, file a report at

WP:RPP - there simply isn't enough activity to warrant protection at this point. I've put the article on my watchlist, if that gives you any comfort.--Bbb23 (talk

) 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I found the SPI report you opened in 2011, where you reported the 69 IP. The admin blocked the IP for 3 days. You created the

WP:SOCK states, "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." Clearly, you shouldn't have put the latest IP in the category, and there's no point to the category now. BTW, I know your only interest is in protecting the article; I'm just trying to sort through the procedural issues. If there's an SPI expert lurking, jump right in.--Bbb23 (talk

) 00:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I say leave categories to the SPI clerks. I'm just a trainee there, but it is often better if you don't tell an IP or sock that you suspect them, don't tag them, and just quietly take it to SPI. The biggest advantage is that there are a lot of eyes there from checkusers and very experienced clerks (and few less experienced, like myself) who know the tools to compare socks first hand, and who can archive and create categories later. Not tipping them off with tags and categories actually helps set a firm match because they continue to edit, giving us more material to do a behavior match (we can't do a checkuers against an IP, after all). In my own opinion, I want editors to quietly bring me 6 quality diffs, and let me sweat the paperwork so they can get back to making articles. I will compare, tag and bag them and shuffle the papers. If you are mistaken about the sock, no problem, we just close and no one got their feelings hurt. If you are mistaken and you have tagged or categorized them, it can cause drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

• Deleted. Utter nightmare re BLP issues, completely unmaintainable. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Jains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A list of supposed followers of a religion, lacking any citations whatsoever for almost all on it: a clear violation of

• It has already been discussed on the article's talk page at Talk:List of Jains#Cleanup (both sections). Also notice attempts to rein this in in January of this year. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I need some help on this article--see the history. An editor (also an IP) has added and keeps restoring totally unacceptable and unverified information--BLP trivia, unsourced stuff, poor writing, even a call for a job. Some people think that MySpace and Facebook are just fine as sources, apparently. Anyway, they've reverted me plenty already and I could report them for edit-warring I guess, but I don't really want to go there. I'm at 3R; besides, it's probably a good thing if they hear it from someone else. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User reverted and issued a final warning; article added to my Watchlist. GiantSnowman 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Said user blocked for edit warring and repeated addition of unsourced info on a BLP. GiantSnowman 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated malicious, libelous, and defamatory personal attacks on the wiki Richard Machowicz page. Please place stricter standards onto the page so that it can not be edited without a Wiki Administrator's approval. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmamiller (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems the opposition to this is a

WP:SPA has demanded that page be "Please restrict edits to individuals who have at least set up Wiki accounts" even though the information was added by User:DocumentMack, a wikipedia username account. SkepticAnonymous (talk

) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of eyes on topic, I have created a discussion for this here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply citing a show name and date might otherwise be okay, but for such extremely libelous statements in a BLP, Wikipedia requires more... specially as the provided show name and date[12] or the host name and key words DO NOT provide ANY reliable sources reporting on this.[13][14]] [15] Contoversial or potentially damaging information in a BLP must be attributable to a source readers can verify. If it cannot be, it IS TO BE REMOVED. See the lede at

WP:BLP. This is POLICY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone blank this edit summary? [16]. Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, plus a subsequent edit summary. I also left the editor a note. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the demographics. The edit summary was accurate in regard to the SEALs lack of diversity and I would encourage you to revert your action. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to offer your sources for consideration, but please understand that while the racial demographics might well be correct, their possibly being accurate about the lack of diversity in SEALs does not cite a statement allegedly made by Machowicz. For example, when Michael Richards made his ill-conceived faux paus in front of an audience much smaller than that purported to have been listening to Machowicz's show, the Richards incident made headlines... covered in multiple reliable sources. So if made, why did none of Machowicz's media competition pick up on and speak about the asserted statement being atributed to Machowicz as slamming the competition would be to their distinct advantage. Any such attribution, specially if contentious, requires firm verifiability. This is why we have policy dealing with potentially harmful statements in a BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole LeFavour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of article isn't neutral and isn't verifiable. It really seems like the subject (or someone very close to her) wrote the thing. Her award citations aren't listed, and she's not listed on her Facebook or campaign page as married, yet the article says she is. Her job listing on Wikipedia and on her website says she hasn't worked as an educator in recent years, yet under "personal details" it lists her profession as a public school teacher. You get the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeyou (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I added an image?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been the most recent editor, but my focus was on standardizing the infobox, presentation, and re-sourcing self-published or unreliable sources to reliable sources; while I agree the article needs work, I don't expect to get back to it until I've finished creating the missing articles for the remaining Representatives, checked those that had existed previously, and checked the male Senator articles that had existed before I created the three that were missing. No problem if others get there first. Dru of Id (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenni Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Biographical article seems to be self written and promoting. It also seems to excessively promote KIRO-tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.4.64 (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenni Hogan as a fluff piece. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Philipmj24 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)The article "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" must be deleted. There was confusion when creating her page. Initially, it was thought that individual was one person. However, There is a "Jody Alderson" and a "Joan Rosazza". I moved "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" to "Jody Alderson". But "Joan Rosazza" is redirecting to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". "Joan Rosazza" must be an entirely new page (or blank page at the moment), as it is a different person, and not be redirected to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". Your help will be appreciated. Thank you.

Place this template on the page with the rationale for deletion in the appropriate space.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How? Philipmj24 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To make it simpler, place this - {{db|reason}} - on the page, with explanation where it says "reason".--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I see you've already figured it out.--JayJasper (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Marie Josée Drouin is her maiden name, and she has not been named as such for a long time. The title of the article should be "Marie Josée Kravis" like it appears throughout the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsayphillips90 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirk Broadfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be a gross misunderstanding over how

undue. Jmorrison230582 (talk

) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Being reasonably well known in Scotland among football fans means he's well known. Scottish people are people too - there's noting in the guideline about being well known outside of Scotland. As a professional footballer and a Scotland international, he is a public figure. And "unsavoury incident" involving professional footballers are matters of public discourse (and well covered by the media!). --Mosmof (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since when do we not mention arrests that don't lead to conviction, as suggested here? --Mosmof (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how either incident is relevant to his notability, as football player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They're relevant to his notability as a public person. He is a public person as a professional footballer. While footballers are generally known for their on-field exploits, people are also interested in their off-field activities as well. Which is why the two incidents in question were well covered by the press. --Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable as a "public person", he's a (pretty average) professional footballer. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what it means to be a public person. You seem to be conflating "public person" and "public figure" with "public employee". A "public person" in the most straightforward sense of the phrase is someone who is the subject of public curiosity and discussion. As someone who conducts his profession in public and whose job performance is scrutinized by the media, and as someone whose arrests appear in the news, Broadfoot fits the definition of a "public person" very squarely. Mosmof (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic in reporting on what appears at most to have been a minor scuffle. Broadfoot was cleared of the charges, and it would be undue weight to include this in a short biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fair for the more recent incident, but does your comment cover te 2003 conviction as well? Mosmof (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly - and it was 2004. Frankly, 'footballer involved in scuffle' isn't news. And neither come to that is 'Scotsmen involved in scuffle - drink involved'. And before you ask, I am partly Scottish myself ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oktay Sinanoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd really appreciate someone else helping me look through this entire article. The entire article seems to be constructed of synthesis trying to point out inconsistencies between Sinanoğlu's self-published statements and what other reliable sources say. The entire thing seems like a hatchet job. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing some trimming now. Much of the article is based on this; an autobiography selfpublished on a Turkish website which looks rather like Scribd. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We also have Flickr used as a source; somebody's scanned/screencapped docs about Sinanoğlu are collected together in a Flickr photostream. I have doubts about the authenticity of one of the images. bobrayner (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also: There seem to be at least three different SPAs at work, judging by the page history... bobrayner (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I cleaned out a load of content which relied on synthesis, nonexistent sources, and most of all selfpublished sources; but Fightingagainstlies (talk · contribs) is just hammering the revert button to return to their preferred version. Oh well... I'm going to step away from the article for a bit. Anybody else got any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've reduced to a stub, protected the article against a revert war where the three-revert limit was already exceeded within a span of just over 20 minutes by the person reintroducing badly-written biographical content, and requested an immediate explanation at User talk:Fightingagainstlies#Revert warring. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• If any other editor wishes to work up a proper reliably and independently sourced stub, better than the one sentence that's there now, please do so on the talk page. If you manage to get together three or more paragraphs of properly written good content, let me know and I'll transfer it to the article. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, the version that I cut it down to (considerably longer than Uncle G's version but half the length of Fightingagainstlies' preferred version) would not be a good basis for future improvements because I didn't yet fix all the issues, which run quite deep. Probably better if somebody starts it from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• It appears that DGG is willing to start from scratch. See User talk:DGG#An academic for more. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do BLPs remain in Category:Prisoners and detainees and its sub-cats after they are paroled?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless otherwise specified or unless obvious from the name of the category, categories apply both currently and retrospectively. Thus, if someone is categorized as an actor, it doesn't matter if they no longer act. This particular category is problematic because of the BLP implications. The issue was raised on the category Talk page in 2009, but it was not resolved (there's a pointer to a discussion for a particular person). I think the question merits further discussion. My view is that if the category is appropriate to use in an article, it doesn't matter whether it's current or past. In other words, if the article is about a criminal, then even once they are released, the category can remain. OTOH, if the article is about an actor who was jailed for a week for DUI, the category shouldn't be used at all. But that's just my off-the-cuff opinion, and a broader discussion could hopefully flesh out the issues. Unless you have someone specific in mind, this discussion probably belongs on the category Talk page or on the BLP Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did have a BLP in mind. I just noticed that they were released and still in the cat. I am not concerned about removing it to avoid the Streisand effect. If others wish to bring up the unresolved discussion then that is up to them. I suppose it should happen in the highest level category as it has 100's of subs. I will resolve this section for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Laura Chinchilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You have her as married to Ricky Martin (with a link), and claiming that the current president of Costa Rica has a son by the Puerto Rican pop star. I'm not quite sure how to change it, so I'm leaving it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.96.174 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All vandalism and removed, thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anton Maegerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear all, I come back to en:WP today because of the following: Anton Maegerle is a German journalist which is member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and is one of the experts about right-wing extremists in Germany. There is a right-wing campaign against him since many years with the aim to label him as "left-wing". In Germany Maegerle was able to reject those baseless allegations and e.g. one of the political magazines called FOCUS, who wrote that Maegerle is "left-wing" was defeated in a lawsuit. The magazine signed a cease and desists. Despites various won lawsuits against these allegations in Germany the German Wikipedia article was a target of the right-wing campaign. Because in de:WP they do not have any chance to label Maegerle as "left-wing", they have recently announced in de:WP to do that in en:WP. As you can see the article was changed recently in this way. What would you recommend?--♥ KarlV 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I can see, a single purpose account has made this edit last year.--♥ KarlV 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are correct that no one can legally call him left wing in Germany then I assume we shouldn't call him that here either. You could make the changes yourself if you are not COI. If they are reverted then admin that speaks German may have to look into it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - no one can legally call him left wing in Germany. I would not prefer to do the changes by myself, because of my history in en:WP. I am mainly working in de:WP and came the first time to en:WP because a political incident coming from de:WP to en:WP. Because I was inexperienced in en:WP (things are going another way) I got in serious conflicts with your en:WP policy. Because I do not want to come in any conflict in en:WP again, and also because I know that the changes will lead to major conflicts here, I sincerely would prefer that this issue would be handled on an administrative level. I wrote a documentation - unfortunately in German - about the serious abuse of de:WP in this special case here. Kind regards --♥ KarlV 07:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it while discussion ensues - We usually don't follow laws apart from Florida , although occasionally a sympathetic approach breaks out. - The article is a bit promotional of the subject and I was going to remove a bit of it , the usual , and he has worked for 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 - lists with links to front pages with no details about the subject to be found at all - and magazine articles and blog posts linked to as if notable reading etc - Youreallycan 07:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thank you very much, but there is still this edit with a citation from FOCUS 1996, which was not repeated by Jesse neither by FOCUS all the years after 1996 until today - with other words a suggestion which was unproven until today. Regards--♥ KarlV 07:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Somedrive by german IP address just removed that cited and attributed content -I replaced it a cited content attributed likethat needs more discussion and a degree of consensus for removal - thanks - Youreallycan 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw this. Anyway - do you think that addition of the whole story would bring more clearness on that issue?--♥ KarlV 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

KarlV is spreading lies here. FOCUS and

Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue)

08:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, "left wing" is not an illegal term in Germany nor in the EU in general. The claim that it is illegal to use the term is errant, and likely aimed at conflating any reasonable proper editing on this English Wikipedia, bound by US law in any case. I would suggest that a member of an avowed "centre-left" party is not really in a position to object to the term, as long as a reliable source uses the term, and is properly cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In the German article we had a long dispute about exactly this citation. Jesse, who was labelled as belonging to the New Right by e.g. Lars Rensmann in a scientific paper, made his statement 1996 (!) not in a scientific paper, but in a half sentence of an opinion/comment article in a political magazine FOCUS. After the political campaign to label Anton Maegerle as a "left-wing-extremist" failed in 2008 because of the lawsuits, protagonists tried to bring the allegations again via the citation of Jesse from 1996. The disputes on German Wikipedia about the Jesse-citation leads to the following decision: the citation of Jesse 1996 is irrelevant because he did not repeat this all the years after and since 2008 and after the various lawsuits in Germany nobody can legally name Maegerle a "left-wing-extremist". In fact, the citation of Jesse in de:WP was rejected because of its irrelevance (e.g. due to the fact that his statement was not adapted in any reliable paper after 1996. Apart of that, please read also this. Regards--♥ KarlV 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. How is the procedure? Is that issue resolved or will this keep a source for future conflicts in this article (see also here)?--♥ KarlV 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I have seen that some threads have a "resolved-buttom" - some not. How is the procedure?--♥ KarlV 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with an editor who keeps removing content from Whale Wars, an article about a television program. In the "Cast" section is a table identifying cast members and their role in the program. Paul Watson is listed as "Captain of the Steve Irwin and "Admiral" of the fleet". The editor removing this content claims that this is a BLP and WP:V issue as Watson is not a licensed captain. To put this in some perspective, the MY Steve Irwin is registered as a pleasure craft[17] and therefore apparently does not require a licensed captain. The table lists people according to their role in a television program, which does not necessarily match their qualifications away from the program. Most crew-members have qualifications that have nothing to do with their role on the TV program. Watson is often referred to as captain in reliable, third party publications,[18][19][20][21] so I don't see how there is a BLP issue here. The verifiability matter is a different issue. However, Watson is often referred to in the program as both "Captain" and "Admiral of the fleet". In fact, the opening narrative of every episode of the program includes a reference to "Captain Paul Watson". Interestingly, the only reference in Paul Watson "confirming" his non-captaincy is a November 2007 article from the New Yorker,[22] which is obviously out of date today. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The common usage of wikt:captain is "The person lawfully in command of a ship or other vessel." It is not a BLP violation to use the standard form of words. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The common usage of "captain" and "admiral" means someone who is control of a ship or a fleet of ships. There is no reference in the article given that indicate Paul Watson has been at the helm of an individual vessel or in command of a fleet of vessels. The article doesn't verify Watson's claim to that title.

The common usage applied to the commercial fleet which Watson ostensibly operates is that of a licensed posistion. Watson is a Canadian citizen (as far as I can tell) so the Canadian Coast Guard would have record of his license. Without the credentials, the claim that Watson is a "captain" or "admiral" because he played one in his reality telvision series is as good as claiming that Paris Hilton is a farmer since she tried to examine a cow in her own reality series.

Watson claims to be a "captain" of a 1000-ton vessel with a dozen or so souls aboard, and this is a serious and weighty role. Watson has no credentials to the role -- one requiring a license in any country with a Coast Guard service, including his home state of Canada.

Since he has no claim to the title in its context, the claim should not be reflected in Wikipedia since it simply isn't factual. The replacement of the claim reflects bias to his agenda, since the only substantiation of Watson's claim to that tile are Watson's own assertions.

--Mikeblas (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Several episodes of Whale Wars have shown Watson at the helm of the Steve Irwin. One such case was on February 6, 2009 and is documented in season 2, episode 11 of Whale Wars. Watson is shown at the helm, giving orders multiple times in the episode. Remember though, being in command doesn't mandate being at the helm. The opening narrative of every episode (using Animal Planet's narrator) mentions "Captain Paul Watson" and the series shows him to be in command of of up to three vessels at a time; the MY Steve Irwin, MY Ady Gil (replaced by the MV Gojira/MV Brigitte Bardot) and MV Bob Barker. And again, this is his role in the TV show. Nowhere in the table is it claimed to be his role outside the series. And really, if you're going to raise verifiability issues, the source that you added here is from November 2007, 12 months before Whale Wars first aired. You really need a current reference to claim that Watson "has" no license. At best the source can be used to support "had no license in November 2007". --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He may actually hold a captain's license. I don't think they expire and are hard to revoke like a journeyman ticket. See Sea Shepherd I--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was also captain of this one:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society_operations#Cooperation_with_Costa_Rica_.282002.29--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlene Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

This living biography created a section about a business that Ms. Strong is a founding partner which violates the neutrality of wiki- as well as serves as and advertisement of her new business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mswompa (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a first pass over the article and most of the overtly promotional content and tone should be gone. still needs a lot of TLC and third party sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharwanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Movie name: Naalai Namadhe is redirecting to wrong page. Unable to edit the same.

I've removed those links on the Sharvanand article, but is there a correct destination for the links? In the Wikipedia search, I only found the 1975 movie, nothing else. -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mark A. Howland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia has an inflammatory and inaccurate page on me. It does not accurately reflect my 35+ year career as an environmental consultant nor accolades I have earned. It inaccurately report much content about the one lawsuit I had in 34 years of business and titles me a State Rep which was a period of 2 years of my life and not the 35+ I have been as an environmental consultant. The case never went to court, was settled out of court and is inaccurately protrayed in a libel and slander format which has hurt my career and life.

Please contact me with regard to this matter.

Mark Howland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.108.29 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The material you removed was reliably sourced. The information you added was not sourced at all. Site policies and guidelines, such as

WP:NOTCENSORED

, would say that your edits were unacceptable.

Also, are you calling the article is proper libel? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to contact someone about your issues with the article, you can try this contact help page.

talk

) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person meets our notability standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking the scope of the article's sources, I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not a Massachusetts-focused encyclopedia. While I won't stand to see the article censored, I am fine with it being nominated for deletion for lack of notability (though I will not nominate it myself or participate in the discussions beyond countering any further inappropriate actions by Mr. Howland). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

State legislators are covered in the primary clause of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and are considered de facto notable; we do not have set guidelines for environmental consultants, which would default to the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Dru of Id (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a source verifying Mr. Howland's claim that the case was settled out of court. I removed the wiki-text from 2007 implying that the case was (still) in legal limbo before some judge or other; I replaced with a summary of the terms of the out-of-court settlement.

I certainly don't see any "libel" or "slander," even in the previous version. It sounds like a more measured interpretation of Mr. Howland's post here would be that the inclusion of the windmill controversy represents undue weight in his biography. I disagree, however. These accusations came from the state attorney general's office, not from an opposition blog or activist organization. Furthermore, the report of the settlement includes significant concessions from Howland -- namely, $400,000+ in reparations, and a permanent prohibition for Howland from any further alternative-energy-related business. Unless these settlement terms have been changed or abandoned, it sounds like this incident was a significant controversy involving a public figure, and thus should be included.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

while there was a settlement agreement, there appears to have been issues with the completion of the terms [23] -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a legal decision. I removed the paywall source but found 2 others although one is behind a highbeam paywall. Some wikipedians have a free account there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is NOT married to Giada Delourentis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.20.188 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems the Alton Brown article has been reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anton Maegerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear all, I come back to en:WP today because of the following: Anton Maegerle is a German journalist which is member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and is one of the experts about right-wing extremists in Germany. There is a right-wing campaign against him since many years with the aim to label him as "left-wing". In Germany Maegerle was able to reject those baseless allegations and e.g. one of the political magazines called FOCUS, who wrote that Maegerle is "left-wing" was defeated in a lawsuit. The magazine signed a cease and desists. Despites various won lawsuits against these allegations in Germany the German Wikipedia article was a target of the right-wing campaign. Because in de:WP they do not have any chance to label Maegerle as "left-wing", they have recently announced in de:WP to do that in en:WP. As you can see the article was changed recently in this way. What would you recommend?--♥ KarlV 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I can see, a single purpose account has made this edit last year.--♥ KarlV 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are correct that no one can legally call him left wing in Germany then I assume we shouldn't call him that here either. You could make the changes yourself if you are not COI. If they are reverted then admin that speaks German may have to look into it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - no one can legally call him left wing in Germany. I would not prefer to do the changes by myself, because of my history in en:WP. I am mainly working in de:WP and came the first time to en:WP because a political incident coming from de:WP to en:WP. Because I was inexperienced in en:WP (things are going another way) I got in serious conflicts with your en:WP policy. Because I do not want to come in any conflict in en:WP again, and also because I know that the changes will lead to major conflicts here, I sincerely would prefer that this issue would be handled on an administrative level. I wrote a documentation - unfortunately in German - about the serious abuse of de:WP in this special case here. Kind regards --♥ KarlV 07:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it while discussion ensues - We usually don't follow laws apart from Florida , although occasionally a sympathetic approach breaks out. - The article is a bit promotional of the subject and I was going to remove a bit of it , the usual , and he has worked for 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 - lists with links to front pages with no details about the subject to be found at all - and magazine articles and blog posts linked to as if notable reading etc - Youreallycan 07:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thank you very much, but there is still this edit with a citation from FOCUS 1996, which was not repeated by Jesse neither by FOCUS all the years after 1996 until today - with other words a suggestion which was unproven until today. Regards--♥ KarlV 07:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Somedrive by german IP address just removed that cited and attributed content -I replaced it a cited content attributed likethat needs more discussion and a degree of consensus for removal - thanks - Youreallycan 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw this. Anyway - do you think that addition of the whole story would bring more clearness on that issue?--♥ KarlV 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

KarlV is spreading lies here. FOCUS and

Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue)

08:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, "left wing" is not an illegal term in Germany nor in the EU in general. The claim that it is illegal to use the term is errant, and likely aimed at conflating any reasonable proper editing on this English Wikipedia, bound by US law in any case. I would suggest that a member of an avowed "centre-left" party is not really in a position to object to the term, as long as a reliable source uses the term, and is properly cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In the German article we had a long dispute about exactly this citation. Jesse, who was labelled as belonging to the New Right by e.g. Lars Rensmann in a scientific paper, made his statement 1996 (!) not in a scientific paper, but in a half sentence of an opinion/comment article in a political magazine FOCUS. After the political campaign to label Anton Maegerle as a "left-wing-extremist" failed in 2008 because of the lawsuits, protagonists tried to bring the allegations again via the citation of Jesse from 1996. The disputes on German Wikipedia about the Jesse-citation leads to the following decision: the citation of Jesse 1996 is irrelevant because he did not repeat this all the years after and since 2008 and after the various lawsuits in Germany nobody can legally name Maegerle a "left-wing-extremist". In fact, the citation of Jesse in de:WP was rejected because of its irrelevance (e.g. due to the fact that his statement was not adapted in any reliable paper after 1996. Apart of that, please read also this. Regards--♥ KarlV 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. How is the procedure? Is that issue resolved or will this keep a source for future conflicts in this article (see also here)?--♥ KarlV 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I have seen that some threads have a "resolved-buttom" - some not. How is the procedure?--♥ KarlV 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having an issue with an editor who keeps removing content from Whale Wars, an article about a television program. In the "Cast" section is a table identifying cast members and their role in the program. Paul Watson is listed as "Captain of the Steve Irwin and "Admiral" of the fleet". The editor removing this content claims that this is a BLP and WP:V issue as Watson is not a licensed captain. To put this in some perspective, the MY Steve Irwin is registered as a pleasure craft[24] and therefore apparently does not require a licensed captain. The table lists people according to their role in a television program, which does not necessarily match their qualifications away from the program. Most crew-members have qualifications that have nothing to do with their role on the TV program. Watson is often referred to as captain in reliable, third party publications,[25][26][27][28] so I don't see how there is a BLP issue here. The verifiability matter is a different issue. However, Watson is often referred to in the program as both "Captain" and "Admiral of the fleet". In fact, the opening narrative of every episode of the program includes a reference to "Captain Paul Watson". Interestingly, the only reference in Paul Watson "confirming" his non-captaincy is a November 2007 article from the New Yorker,[29] which is obviously out of date today. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The common usage of wikt:captain is "The person lawfully in command of a ship or other vessel." It is not a BLP violation to use the standard form of words. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The common usage of "captain" and "admiral" means someone who is control of a ship or a fleet of ships. There is no reference in the article given that indicate Paul Watson has been at the helm of an individual vessel or in command of a fleet of vessels. The article doesn't verify Watson's claim to that title.

The common usage applied to the commercial fleet which Watson ostensibly operates is that of a licensed posistion. Watson is a Canadian citizen (as far as I can tell) so the Canadian Coast Guard would have record of his license. Without the credentials, the claim that Watson is a "captain" or "admiral" because he played one in his reality telvision series is as good as claiming that Paris Hilton is a farmer since she tried to examine a cow in her own reality series.

Watson claims to be a "captain" of a 1000-ton vessel with a dozen or so souls aboard, and this is a serious and weighty role. Watson has no credentials to the role -- one requiring a license in any country with a Coast Guard service, including his home state of Canada.

Since he has no claim to the title in its context, the claim should not be reflected in Wikipedia since it simply isn't factual. The replacement of the claim reflects bias to his agenda, since the only substantiation of Watson's claim to that tile are Watson's own assertions.

--Mikeblas (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Several episodes of Whale Wars have shown Watson at the helm of the Steve Irwin. One such case was on February 6, 2009 and is documented in season 2, episode 11 of Whale Wars. Watson is shown at the helm, giving orders multiple times in the episode. Remember though, being in command doesn't mandate being at the helm. The opening narrative of every episode (using Animal Planet's narrator) mentions "Captain Paul Watson" and the series shows him to be in command of of up to three vessels at a time; the MY Steve Irwin, MY Ady Gil (replaced by the MV Gojira/MV Brigitte Bardot) and MV Bob Barker. And again, this is his role in the TV show. Nowhere in the table is it claimed to be his role outside the series. And really, if you're going to raise verifiability issues, the source that you added here is from November 2007, 12 months before Whale Wars first aired. You really need a current reference to claim that Watson "has" no license. At best the source can be used to support "had no license in November 2007". --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He may actually hold a captain's license. I don't think they expire and are hard to revoke like a journeyman ticket. See Sea Shepherd I--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was also captain of this one:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society_operations#Cooperation_with_Costa_Rica_.282002.29--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlene Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

This living biography created a section about a business that Ms. Strong is a founding partner which violates the neutrality of wiki- as well as serves as and advertisement of her new business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mswompa (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a first pass over the article and most of the overtly promotional content and tone should be gone. still needs a lot of TLC and third party sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharwanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Movie name: Naalai Namadhe is redirecting to wrong page. Unable to edit the same.

I've removed those links on the Sharvanand article, but is there a correct destination for the links? In the Wikipedia search, I only found the 1975 movie, nothing else. -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mark A. Howland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia has an inflammatory and inaccurate page on me. It does not accurately reflect my 35+ year career as an environmental consultant nor accolades I have earned. It inaccurately report much content about the one lawsuit I had in 34 years of business and titles me a State Rep which was a period of 2 years of my life and not the 35+ I have been as an environmental consultant. The case never went to court, was settled out of court and is inaccurately protrayed in a libel and slander format which has hurt my career and life.

Please contact me with regard to this matter.

Mark Howland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.108.29 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The material you removed was reliably sourced. The information you added was not sourced at all. Site policies and guidelines, such as

WP:NOTCENSORED

, would say that your edits were unacceptable.

Also, are you calling the article is proper libel? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to contact someone about your issues with the article, you can try this contact help page.

talk

) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person meets our notability standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking the scope of the article's sources, I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, not a Massachusetts-focused encyclopedia. While I won't stand to see the article censored, I am fine with it being nominated for deletion for lack of notability (though I will not nominate it myself or participate in the discussions beyond countering any further inappropriate actions by Mr. Howland). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

State legislators are covered in the primary clause of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and are considered de facto notable; we do not have set guidelines for environmental consultants, which would default to the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Dru of Id (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a source verifying Mr. Howland's claim that the case was settled out of court. I removed the wiki-text from 2007 implying that the case was (still) in legal limbo before some judge or other; I replaced with a summary of the terms of the out-of-court settlement.

I certainly don't see any "libel" or "slander," even in the previous version. It sounds like a more measured interpretation of Mr. Howland's post here would be that the inclusion of the windmill controversy represents undue weight in his biography. I disagree, however. These accusations came from the state attorney general's office, not from an opposition blog or activist organization. Furthermore, the report of the settlement includes significant concessions from Howland -- namely, $400,000+ in reparations, and a permanent prohibition for Howland from any further alternative-energy-related business. Unless these settlement terms have been changed or abandoned, it sounds like this incident was a significant controversy involving a public figure, and thus should be included.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

while there was a settlement agreement, there appears to have been issues with the completion of the terms [30] -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a legal decision. I removed the paywall source but found 2 others although one is behind a highbeam paywall. Some wikipedians have a free account there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Alton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is NOT married to Giada Delourentis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.20.188 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems the Alton Brown article has been reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Official website: celinajaitlyofficial.com
• Twitter: http://twitter.com/celinajaitly
• Yahoo Press: http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news/actress-reiterates-her-name-celina-jaitly-not-celina-183000934.html

Can you please rectify the client's name as soon as possible on all references on Wiki . I tried correcting the same but it gets changed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "client"? Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well that lasted long G. Kww moved it back already under the rationale that the majority of the sources say its spelt with an e. I had a closer look, Times India spells it at least 3 different ways (Jaitley, Jaitly & Jaitely) depending on where its located - Header, link, body of text etc. In some cases spelt differently on the same page in the same article. I wouldnt hold any of them up as particularly reliable in their background research. The sensible thing would be to go with what she self-identifies with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to copy and paste what I wrote directly to Kww about that. I shall simply add that there are far more interesting and creative ways for Indian newspapers to mis-spell "Kevin Wayne Williams" than there are for "Uncle-Ji". ☺ The Times of India should, for one, be spelling Jaitly's name correctly from now on. Read today's on-line issue for why. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you read the comments on the latest article in the Times India? Is there some sort of racial/geographical thing in India with name spellings? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Name should be accurate. Whom should the Passport copy be sent to prove the real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I dont think that will be necessary. It should'nt take that long to sort out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• No, that's not the right approach, and it's not the way that Wikipedia works. (Would you trust me, someone that you've never heard of, if I said that I had a private copy of a passport and knew The Truth?) Have M. Jaitly herself, or an appropriately identified official representative, follow the remainder of the procedure, the first two steps of which have already been taken, that is outlined at
  Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) . She should approach the Volunteer Response Team and politely point out that even though you, an editor, and I, a Wikipedia administrator, both tried (my edit and move to correct title and content are here and here) to get her biography corrected, another editor Bollyjeff (talk · contribs) and another administrator Kww (talk · contribs) insisted upon the incorrect version. Point them to the Times of India piece, the MovieTalkies.com piece, her own public complaints about Wikipedia, and this BLP noticeboard discussion (whose hyperlink is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Celina Jaitly Name correction). Don't mis-spell "Kevin Wayne Williams". ☺ Uncle G (talk
  ) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncle G we are trying everything possible to have it rectified. We will try what you mentioned. The only option we thought was to provide the Identification documents which I proposed in my previous comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look now you will see Jaitley redirects to Jaitly. Problem solved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it looks like that except for the URL name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celina_Jaitley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update --Webonautics (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Subjects notable only for one event
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event

Should This guy get a separate article from his bio at

• This sounds like a question for a deletion/merger discussion; I don't see the BLP issue. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I dont see any issue here other articles that have had the same turnout include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik If this does goto AfD I have the feeling the result will be similar. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's partly because one doesn't take mergers to AFD, and AFD and the administrator deletion tool form no part of the
    article merger process and are not involved at any stage. Project:Articles for deletion is for deletion. Uncle G (talk
    ) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I believe it is a BROADER Wikipedia issue. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Wikipedia should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Wikipedia page, at least not if Wikipedia does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Wikipedia page to gain significant long-term attention and recognition from a
  single horrendous act. In other words, Wikipedia, by providing an essentially in perpetuity memorial page to a spree killer, merely for killing a bunch of folks in a single event, positively—yet perversely—incents these acts in the warped mind of a perpetrator. N2e (talk
  ) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no question. The exact situations for which

WP:PERP were designed. An admin needs to redirect and lock it NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom

00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on analysis from Black Kite, I am no longer sure that the redirect would be the most appropriate thing in this situation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that this is going to generate a large enough article for content forks to be created. And the idea that we're somehow granting someone a special recognition by giving them a Wikipedia page is simply silly. Infamy is just as notable as fame. However, in the interest of article focus and proper development of content forks, it would probably be best for the article on the Shooting and the Shooter to be merged for now. This will make sure all edits get properly vetted by the same editors. They will be re-forked again eventually, that is something that is unquestionable. The only question really is whether it helps more to push them together first or leave them separate. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2011 Yuma shooting has no forks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The two are not comparable. GiantSnowman 13:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We can't know from before if there will be any forks and what these are going to be. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Mathew Wilkinson the actor, the picture on the page is not of me. Can this please be deleted. I am happy to provide a picture for its replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkinsons11 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily hidden the image, but am not familiar with the actor and do not have time to do research to see if there is substance to either side of the claim. Can someone follow up? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the original uploader was....err...not reliable --> see Queer men. Hint: check deleted contribs...to the actor, our sincere apologies. The image will be deleted.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be  Done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please delete this edit diff Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also several others by the same IP Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All of 58.106.163.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably should be deleted. Jim1138 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Monica Macovei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention an anonymous edit alleging drinking problems of former Ministry of Justice Monica Macovei. The edit was from 89.136.42.120.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.9.145 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The BLP is a trainwreck. I removed the "drinking alllegations" but someone should take pruning shears to the entire article - it is a political silly season exemplar for the EU and Romania . Collect (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Robin Brooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article on a former All Blacks player features some very prominent (tabloid style) allegations which I think are undue and a violation of our BLP policy. Thoughts on how to deal with it appreciated. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the first one is fairly well sourced. If he did pay reparations, like it or not that is seen as an admission of guilt. I am wary of the second one 'Allegations of' are very tabloidy and until resolved one way or the other quite prejudicial. The only reason to include them would be that it does indicate a possible pattern of behaviour. If there was only the second one, I would say remove, but it is supporting/supported by the first... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

De-TABLOIDED the first claim - the second claim is insufficiently sourced for a contentious claim in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

4.^ Barry Sherman is known to law enforcement intelligence to be a business associate of Vito Rizzuto and other members of the Montreal Canada based crime family. The Rizzuto family own a large indirectly held share position in Apotex. In Pictures: 10 Billionaire Family Feuds - Forbes.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done It seems someone deleted it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He is now dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.61.5 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he is, as indicated at John Atta Mills.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cassie Scerbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The text of the Personal Life section reads, simply: "Cassie Scerbo is dating Cody Longo, but they broke up when she found out he cheated with his co-star Brittany Underwood. Unfortunely they will never get back together because Cody Longo is now dating Brittany Underwood.But I personally think Cody is better with Brittany.:)<3"

It contains a personal opinion and references no source material and thus, to my understanding, violates policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.130.11 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know - this has been fixed by Uncle G. In most situations like this, you can Edit the page directly to remove the inappropriate unsourced material. --

talk

) 23:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Irina Slutsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please delete this revision (diff)? It was an anon saying something pretty offensive. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I went to the article. The entire paragraph seems to be gone now.Coaster92 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they may mean a rev-delete. It is an old edit and seems a rev-delete may be in order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Coaster92, for that type of vandalism

here). It seems there are no admins on this board? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja

16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted requests deserve cross-posted thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, I did not know.Coaster92 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibi Aisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reworded a portion of the article (its information was based on a recent CNN story) because the tone of the portion was inflammatory, and the content of the CNN article appeared to be editorialized by the Wikipedia editor. Those edits were reverted without discussion on the talk page, and simply re-added because the information was sourced to CNN. While CNN is a reliable source, we shouldn't be making their content MORE subjectively reported. Anyway, I don't want to get into an edit war, and would like someone else to have a look. Thanks.98.94.58.75 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and the CNN piece. The information seems to be taken from the reference, which btw is not listed as a reference this time around. I agree the tone of the paragraph is not appropriate and the language and style are somewhat inflammatory. I do think it would be appropriate to include more detail than was included in the previous version. What is your feeling about including more detail but re-writing the information in a more neutral tone?Coaster92 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly acceptable. Neutrality of tone is probably the biggest issue I see here. In reality, the Wikipedia article would be discussing the mental health state of someone, paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story after a conversation with a psychiatrist, who had initially spoken to Aisha. If we are that many degrees of separation away from a primary source, I feel that we have to be very neutral in order to be responsible editors. Bottom line, yes, I think that's fine. The only thing I would worry about is making sure we aren't simply paraphrasing that entire article to the point of near-plagarization. 98.94.58.75 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

98.94.58.75 is misrepresenting the quality of the edits. There was nothing paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story. The paraphrasing of behaviour was taken from direct quotes by Bibi Aisha's own carers, ie: no degree of separation. The actual words were used with the only paraphrasing being a re-arrangement to avoid a copy vio. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think it appropriate to include detail on her psychiatric problems. They are not the reason she she is notable, though it is relevant that they exist. They can therefore be mentioned, but should not be covered in detail, under the basic principle of proportional coverage. Relying on a single journalist for BLP of this sort is not acceptable. As far as i can tell, these details have appeared only in a single story in one newspaper, & one story in CNN--where all the details are not presently visible, so repeating them here would be an outrageous violation of WP:DO NO HARM, the basis of our BLP policies. I have removed almost all of that section, and will regard restoration of the contents as a BLP violation, unless my view turns out to not be the consensus of others experienced in problems like these--which I very much doubt. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask the advice of some other admin experienced in this about revision deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that CNN was not the source. The source was a two page article in

WP:HARM supports inclusion of some of the deleted text in some form and I'm happy for it to be discussed here. I dont intend to edit the article again so will accept this boards suggestions regarding what should be used and leave it to you to make whatever edits are required. As the News Ltd article is not available on the net I can email a scan to anyone who wants a copy. Wayne (talk

) 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that that it is important here to observe BLP guidelines. This is an article about Aisha's struggles, including the PTSD that has prevented her from having the surgery for which she came to the US. I think it would be fair to mention some of the background related to this decision, not just general statements, though I agree not a gossip piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian Ross (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Approximately half of this article is devoted to "blunders" and "controversies." Isn't that a bit over-weighting the negative for a BLP? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While the word 'blunder' might be an issue, I don't think having all his idiotic statements listed is a problem. They're all well-sourced.

Hot Stop

12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That they are well-sourced isnt really an argument to keep them ALL though is it? A selection of the most blundery under a heading of 'has made many which include' etc would probably cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they're well-sourced, but the volume is what troubles me. If his main reputation is as a screwup, so be it. But we need to grapple with this. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The theme of his blunders certainly has been covered, for example in this Politico.com article that's cited in the wiki article. Not all of what's in that section is about blunders—for example, the bit about Michelle Bachman's bodyguards tackling him seems more sympathetic to him than to her. Furthermore, the blunders seem notable—the blunder about bentonite in the anthrax samples after 9/11 actually had a significant impact on the debate about going to war with Iraq. Similarly, the blunder about the recent Aurora tragedy actually had a serious effect on the person erroneously named. These blunders are well documented, not just gossip. I'm personally very sympathetic to the argument that there is undue weight being given to these blunders, but I think if someone feels that this article is unbalanced, there needs to be some evidence that the article's presentation is skewed other than just the size of the section on blunders. Abhayakara (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely made his share of blunders, and I haven't tried to remove any of the controversies listed. However, the overall impression I get from reading this article is that Brian Ross is a total screw-up and phony. That may be an accurate impression, but something in the pit of my stomach makes me uneasy and I have a general concern that that the thrust of the article is not neutral.CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something is "well-documented" doesn't make it encyclopedic. Hundreds of reliable sources documented what Justin Bieber did on his birthday, but that doesn't make it relevant. A few examples, if they were particularly notable, is one thing. Just a running list is something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The quandary here is that most of the controversies seem relevant. My concern is whether we've got a hit piece here and whether its overall impression of the man is accurate. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• If we agree that some belong, perhaps the place to start would be deciding which ones could go. For example, the Howard Dean thing and the Bachman one seem fairly minor and unimportant. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, though: the State Trooper story was arguably bogus, and was one of a series of journalistic embarrassments that probably affected the outcome of the election. It's poorly sourced in this article, but the incident itself is pretty significant. Guppie42 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good interview from UPenn. I don't think it's necessarily the best source, because it's an interview with him, but it might be a good place to look for leads. Guppie42 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Gawker.com does seem to have it in for Ross, and that may be part of where this is coming from. Here is an example of a story from gawker on Ross that seems pretty weak. Ross says in the interview I linked above that he's experienced a fair amount of retaliation, so it's not out of the question that the theme we're seeing here is part of that. Guppie42 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest also that interested parties go to the talk page. At present the discussion there is dominated by an IP user. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently had this discussion here:

I emailed my local MP's constituency office on another matter, but also asked if they'd like to have his email address in his article and they said they would. Do we do that? I can't find an email parameter in his infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not a great idea. It's sufficient that we link to their websites, which will enable people to contact them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I added his parliament webpage, which has his email address. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I have a second opinion on this, please? Does anyone else have a problem with me putting his email address on my local MP's webpage? If so, could you tell me what the problem is, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In this particular instance, as you have described it, I really don't see a problem. The issue would be that as a matter of general principal, we don't want to encourage editors to dig up email addresses that are potentially private, and add them to BLP articles. Adding non-public emails would be a clear BLP violation. On the other hand, websites are almost universally intended to be public, so it is much easier to adopt a standard of having the link to the webpage and letting anyone looking for contact info find it there if the subject has made it public. Monty₈₄₅ 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is relevant I think. Would you put Steve Jobs' email address in his article? Would you expect to find it in Britannica? Why not? Formerip (talk

) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia foundation members have their emails on their user pages so I don't see why other BLPs can't. I feel we should only add with permission of the BLP and remove when requested.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A BLP article isn't the same as a user page. I don't have a big objection, but I do think it should be deliberated, and Monty's comment demonstrates the sort of issue that might turn up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dru of Id has given me a very clear explanation on my talk page. Thanks everybody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think email addresses need to be in Wikipedia articles. The email addresses for a particular representative's office can change as staff or officeholders change, and if you already have a link to the person's website in the article, if someone really needs to contact the representative, the reader can just go there. Personally, I think initial communications with a rep should be by telephone or postal mail first anyway, with so much email spam, why risk an important concern by sending it into the black hole of email? Wikipedia foundation members aren't elected representatives, and the concerns of a government rep are an order of magnitude more important than the concerns of a Wikipedia board member. As FormerIP says, WP:RECENT is definitely applicable, and things such as telephone numbers or email addresses just seem irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. We aren't supposed to be a phone directory. -- Avanu (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Avanu 110%. That means I could backtrack 10% and still be fully-behind their comment. GiantSnowman 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is up at AfD right now, but there are numerous police officers named by name and title implicated in illegal activities that the references simply don't mention. <ref name=TRIBUNE>{{Cite web|url=http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119066947686494500|title=Jailhouse knocks|publisher=Portland Tribune}}</ref> links back to the front page of the site, and <ref name=SPLC>{{Cite url|url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/fall/behind-the-wire?page=0,1|title=Allegations of Racist Guards are Plaguing the Corrections Industry|publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center}}</ref> mentions no names. <ref name==PPW>{{Cite url|url=http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR22/brotherhood.HTML|title=Deaths and Beatings in the County Jail: Tattooed Gang Roves Hallways|publisher=Portland Cop Watch}}</ref> is not a reliable reference. I think this page should be blanked or taken down immediately without regard to the discussion at AfD.

This name was just added to our article on the

Sorry, I cannot find her name at Grandes de Espana. If this list is accurate, and it may be, then she is not genuine.

talk

) 05:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Paris Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user and others may need help with section titles, order, and format etc. I am not familiar with the policies/guidelines. There are samples on the talk page if someone wants to help out a little? No panic though. No need to discuss here either I don't think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See

WP:MOSBIO.--ukexpat (talk

) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The references are reports of what Apted himself said, so it is not clear why this conflicts with policy on BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 16, 2012‎

As the admin who removed the contentious info based on an OTRS complaint, the purported interview statement I removed was being presented as a fact as opposed to an allegation. There was also a sentence that followed ("suggesting that his threat") which added additional supposition based on the original unsupported content.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an OTRS complaint?Tomintoul (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be grateful for other editors' views on restoring the deletion by Ponyo. Many thanks.Tomintoul (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources, the crux of the BLP issue is that Apted contends one thing and another party denies it. Apted's allegation of a threatened lawsuit could possibly be included along with solid sourcing, but his assertion that there was a lawsuit threatened cannot be presented as fact when it's contentious and denied. You also cannot add the second paragraph as it consists of conjecture (you can see this in the use of words such as "suggesting" and "it is not clear why"). If the material is to be included at all it should be a single sentence noting that Apted alleges that Charles threatened to sue and it needs to be solidly supported by the best sources available.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the denials?Tomintoul (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo, as no other comments have been received are you happy for me to reinstate the material modified in line with your suggestion? I cannot find any public denials, so presumably the denial was from the subject on your OTRS complaint. Is that correct?Tomintoul (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS correspondence is private, I cannot provide any specific details outside of the general concerns I've already noted (and it does not change the validity of the BLP concerns). With regard to restoring the info, please wait to see if there will be additional comments here. If after a week of posting there is no input from others then we can look at the wording - with BLP concerns its best to get it right as opposed to rushing to restore disputed content.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for you advice. We will revisit next week.Tomintoul (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to continue a discussion on the talk page regarding the exact wording that would be BLP-compliant if any of the content is restored.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Cliff Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You can see on the talk page that an editor, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, has been deleting sections of this page for quite some time.

Note: Cliff Stanford, the subject of the article, has edited the page himself. As a result, the page deserves extra attention to remain in line with Biographies of Living Persons. However, Wolfowitz's edits in question don't seem to be focused on the actual court case which was revised by Stanford.

I've requested more information but the only response from the editor is via revisions on the history page.

Wolfowitz refers to SPS; however the citations deleted are www.guardian.co.uk, www.friendsandrrelations.com and news.bbc.co.uk - there are no self-published sources removed by the edits.

His recent revision cites "convicyed criminal polishing his own biography, taking it out of compliance with BLP requirements". This would obviously be cause for concern, but Wolfowitz's changes to the page predate the edits done by Stanford. That is to say, this is a retroactive justification for revisions made without grounds in the first place.

The back and forth is becoming silly. Attempts to discuss the issue directly with Wolfowitz via the talk page have come to nothing, hence my bringing it to general attention here. My standpoint is that statements with valid citations should not be deleted without valid justification. The focus on family members and derogatory references to the subject makes me wonder if Wolfowitz is responding based on personal judgements rather than citations. AkaSylvia (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• 1) Friendsandrelations.com is not a
  WP:RS. 2) The Guardian article only gives the girlfriend's name as "Sylvia" -- we don't know what her surname is. 3) The BBC article doesn't mention Stanford at all and so is irrelevant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk
  ) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the numbered list. Those are clear issues that make sense. Point 2) Full name is used at http://va.issproxy.com/resourcecenter/publications/Corporate_Governance_Highlights/02-32.pdf which fixes that problem. AkaSylvia (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• The Guardian article is also 12 years old, which is well beyond the acceptable range for documenting current relationships. See generally my comment here [31]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if someone calls you a "vandal" repeatedly, and even if that person claims to be the article subject, you do not put "convicted criminal" into edit summaries over and over. Stop that. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm intrigued that you don't see currency as an issue when the woman takes on the surname. Do you feel the type of relationship defines the length of time? AkaSylvia (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Right, the best reference for the Dame Shirley Porter connection is Dimoldenberg, Paul (2006). The Westminster Whistleblowers: Shirley Porter, Homes for Votes and Scandal in Britain's Rottenest Borough. Politico's.
  ISBN 978-1-84275-179-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pages 126, 134, 143 or 171. I've not looked at offline sources before so I'm not sure how to proceed. Should relevant quotes be added to clarify or the text entered somewhere for easy reference? Note the same book is also used as a source on the main entry for Shirley Porter. AkaSylvia (talk
  ) 10:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to copy the text of a book wholesale in order to cite it. But be aware of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's concern that telling only a very small part of the story is misleading. Hosken 2006, p. 346 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHosken2006 (help) makes the point that Stanford's actions were not in fact aimed at Shirley Porter. There's a more detailed and complex connection between two paragraphs in the article than the mere three sentences that the three of you have been edit warring over for nine months makes out.

    It's very disappointing that even though one of the three parties in this edit war knew in October 2011 that working on the wording was the answer, neither xe nor any of the other two of you did anything like that at all for all of those months, and that the article has had effectively zero improvement made to it by any of you in that entire period. None of you has used anything but the "undo" tool, with one actual content-changing edit as an exception, for a span of 53 page revisions. Are none of you writers?

    Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Ouch! OK, what I'd like to do is update with two full name sources for the family material and propose a paragraph or two of text (referring to both Hosken and Dimoldenberg) to deal with the other text which is currently removed. I think it should be straight-forward to make it clear that the discovery of Shirley Porter's money was coincidental to Stanford's intent.AkaSylvia (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What's inexplicably omitted here is that this whole fracas developed because I actually improved the article, adding citations, removing some unsourced content, adding tags regarding sourcing, etc [[32], only to be hounded ad nauseam by Stanford and his girlfriend. It would be nice to see consistent support for routine BLP enforcement and more objection to self-promotion, but those don't seem to be administrator priorities. . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's because what you did isn't anything like BLP enforcement. You edit warred for nine months, partly over something that you began with that diff, where you removed one of the three sentences that you've been edit warring over. (You didn't add citations. That's one of several false claims that you are making about your "improvement" to the article. They were already there, added by JamesGardiner (talk · contribs) and Foxywizard (talk · contribs) years before you ever touched the article. You just moved them. The only things that you actually added were an "External links" section heading and a {{reflist}}, which is not exactly hard work at article improvement.) You made exactly one talk page comment, some six months in to your edit war, where you misidentified this Daily Telegraph obituary as a "self-published source". And when one of the other editors called you a "vandal", you responded in kind and started calling the other editor a "criminal". That wasn't a summary of an edit; that was blatant violation of the Project:No personal attacks policy to make your edit war personal and a violation of the Project:Biographies of living persons policy to make negative biographical statements in edit summaries rather than use them to summarize edits.

        Ironically, it is this edit by the article subject that actually does the things that you erroneously describe yourself as having done: adding (albeit poorly) a Daily Telegraph source, attempting to replace The Register, a potentially unreliable source, with a better source (silicon.com, which is now TechRepublic), and — most ironically given your most misguided "This is whitewashing!" self-justification that comes a day (actually more like 300 days) late and a dollar short — explaining in more detail the criminal offence, including the law that was applied. That was the other thing that you then edit warred over for nine months, even though the second editor attempted to engage in talk page discussion: a discussion that you made zero input to — yet another zero on your side of a nine month edit war.

        It took the imagination of the third editor, having the idea of posting here on this noticeboard, to stop you edit warring with the "undo" tool. It is also that third editor that has pointed to one of the three easily found books that connect Shirley Porter to Cliff Stanford and document events in a lot more detail — detail that, if you actually were interested in article improvement as you claim but your actions of nine months belie, you'd have been adding to the article nine months ago. But, too, there's a big zero on the balance sheet in your search for relevant sources and attempts at making wording improvements to the text supplied by a novice editor, even the ones that that editor suggested on the talk page some five months into your edit war.

        A nine months edit war that you both started and continued with zero discussion, and yes — per the 53-revision diff given above as well as the diff that you've just pointed to where you claim, as your own, work that other editors did years before — zero improvement by you, zero attempts to correctly identify a poorly cited source, zero attempts to find more sources yourself and put the verifiability policy into actual action, zero attempts to collaboratively improve poorly written wording that a second editor even asked you to improve, as well as abuse of edit summaries contrary to the very policy that you claim to be enforcing, is appalling behaviour from a Wikipedia editor with tens of thousands of edits. Shame on you! You're being shown up, as less of a writer, less able to engage in talk page discussion, less able to look for good sources on a subject, and more of an edit warrior, by the single-purpose accounts (which actually have edits to other articles) with less than a hundred edits (even just the one in one case).

        Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to give an opinion, and I am happy to do so. After looking over the discussion and the diffs, it is clear to me that Uncle G's thorough account of the history is accurate, and I can only subscribe to his admonition of a seasoned editor who must have had this article on his watchlist for a long time and never got further in their efforts than "rv as before", as the history shows. That's not defending our BLP policy or guarding against COI; it's obstinate and unhelpful. COI editors shouldn't be given leave to write their own articles--but this seems to be reverting for its own sake. Does that mean that the others are entirely without fault? No--but, in their defense, they are novices, and they tried discussing them.

  Any seasoned editor who knows how to write and has seen the effects of writing knows that the proper way to improve an article is to improve it, and that clearly has not been done. As for the edit summaries, they are obviously out of line, both morally and according to our BLP policy, and really, I'm shocked that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz saw fit to use that terminology. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Kumar Ketkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found the puffery and unsourced statements problematic and generally contentious; the IP's comments, though misguided, are adequate to indicate a challenge to the content in question. A handful of other edit summaries similarly indicate the material was challenged. So I stubbed it and left a tag, along with a note containing a findsources link on the talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't understand this at all. Of course the stub was awful, but did no one think to actually look for sources and, ahem, find some (since that's easy)? The article was even PRODded--for the second time, and the first time around, the BLPPROD tag was placed even though this reference was from a reliable source and clearly established at least some notability. The PROD was removed by by Phil Bridger, for all the right reasons. Anyone of a half dozen or so editors could have reverted to this version--and improved it. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While removing a blog source from this BLP, I was looking for other sources which might be used as a source for similar information (which is critical of this BLP). This blog mentions the subject of the BLP, but I'm not sure of the editorial control of Forbes blogs, per

• What basis is there for doubting that this one meets
  WP:NEWSBLOG? You say you're not sure -- but why is there doubt? Nomoskedasticity (talk
  ) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't edit BLPs often and was just trying to be sure before adding information that is particularly critical of the BLP, as this a gray area to me. I have no particular reason to doubt that it can be used, especially if attributed to the author, but wanted to make sure. Yobol (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You saw that Steven Salzberg was citing the very same writing by Dr David H. Gorski, didn't you? Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, and normally I'd say that Gorski's blog would be a RS for topics on fringe medicine, however it looks like it might fail the more stringent
        WP:BLPSPS. That Salzberg published it on a more mainstream news website may make such criticism allowable, but I wasn't sure which is why I'm asking here. Yobol (talk
        ) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Rix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Quite simply, the article makes a series of claims of which it doesn't reference.

Also, it describes him as a 'footballer'. Further in the article it mentions that he used to play football at school. That's not pro, nor semi-pro, nor is it equivalent to American college football. If playing for your school means you can be described as a 'footballer', then I am a footballer, and so are the majority of persons.

This article needs properly reviewing by a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adshenshall (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fixing content is everyone's responsibility here, including yours. Talk:Tyler Rix is currently empty. At the very least use it to record your concerns for reference by future editors. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This biography is an awful mess, outdated, full of irrelevant and poorly written information.

Quite an interesting subject - Reuben Singh is a controversial tycoon, who in the 1990s went into Guinness Book of records as youngest self-made millionaire (opened a chain of shops as a schoolboy), later turned out to be a fraud, went on to become bankrupt.

I believe it has excessive Trivia and is biased in positive and negative ways - check out the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanrobson1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't so bad. A bit of cleanup, a couple of tags--the rest is straightforward editorial improvement. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please look at Youvan's biography. There appears to be a concern that Image:Genetic Code Bias 2.svg somehow favors Intelligent Design or Creation. The same figure is in Wikipedia's Genetic Code article. While receiving millions of hits, it has drawn questions (without merit) to Youvan's notability. Such a banner at the top of a living person's biography will make a negative impression on a reader who might happen to be a reviewer, grants manager, potential donor to the Youvan Foundation, etc. and cause harm to Youvan's fundraising and income, which to date is approxiamtely $100M. The users / ediors responsible for the banner have limited knowledge of advanced biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's hope that at least those users understand Wikipedia. I will have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's also hope that any potential reviewers, grant managers, or potential donors, have the reading comprehension to grasp that the banners are commenting on the article and not its subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• The tags are perfectly valid. Article has only a few secondary sources. That KAIROS was founded by him is established by this reference, and that they were awarded a bunch of money is verified by this reference. There is enough here to build an article on the company. But the rest, that's not much more than a bunch of articles that can't be used as references in a BLP, and I do not yet see evidence that the person is notable via
  WP:PROF, for instance. If the IP, which appears to be associated with the subject, wishes a better article, perhaps they should drop some reliable, secondary sources on the talk page. Also, don't use us for fundraising. Drmies (talk
  ) 02:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Murdock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many defamatory statements being made on this individual and there are no sources for this information regarding his personal life. Wikipedia is a fact based informational source only.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.148.10 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not protected. You could remove the unsourced statements youself. You may wish to read

WP:POV in case those may apply to you and other editors.--Canoe1967 (talk

) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You've not cited any example for the many defamatory statements claim. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

I just looked at the article, and it's honestly disgusting. I'd have tried to get it deleted as a negative, biased BLP, but that has been attempted before. I will attemt to trim some of the bias and cruft off. If it were me as the article's subject, I'd try asking to have it deleted under

WP:BIODELETE. --Nouniquenames (talk

) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about recent edits to this article, by

Here, following, is the entry I wrote to bring this to the attention of the NPOVN, which was registered because there was no action given by Nomo... to actually engaging proposed content changes. Response was simply to revert.

Hence, I disagree with Nomo...'s representation of the matter, stated above: My sense/understanding is that this is a single editor v. editor issue: Nomo... seems to be the only one with issue as to content: (There is another editor that seems to be concerned regarding process, Rrius.) Note, both were informed of the NPOVN submission, to allow for a full and complete exchange there.

The question now, is, how should the article remain, until this content matter is adjudicated.

Nomo... has repeatedly declined to engage the proposed content addition in any rigorous or systematic way; rather, the solution has been to revert to the shorter, less content-filled, less-citation rich, shorter version.

I am now stating flatly, in response to the resistance to what strikes me as simple, academic, fair changes to the text aimed at making it more citation- and fact-based, that this is a case of bias with regard to the original short version.

If a course is to be taken, then, this **short version section should not remain in place** while this is being adjudicated. The section should be removed on the whole, until the matter is resolved. This is how the matter is handled in science areas, when the factual basis of a section is called into question; there is never any issue of leaving a section in place if factual accuracy is questioned. Alternatively, the long version can be left in place, and edited down as substantive challenges to its factual content are agreed upon. Either is fine by me.

Regardless, given the time and care that I, as a faculty member, have given to this matter, I believe onus should be on Nomo... and any others beholden to the original short content, to respond to the specific comment-focused comments contained in the NPOV entry below. I.e., why is it better to leave in a wrong name for the Senator's wife, a limited description of her occupational background, and the claims of the WP article on one side of the issue but not the Senator's reply to WP claims **that appear in the same WP article**? And why should the point not be made that the Rubio web pages have indeed changed since the original WP report, and are now more carefully written, and that the passport evidence is consistent between WP and Rubio accounts, and that current Rubio pages at the WP are noncontroversial? Why should these facts of the case not all be set before readers, to make their own decision, rather than the omitting more than half, and letting stand a seemingly biased short version.

Please, instead of accusing of edit-warring, address the substance of what is below. Meanwhile, omit the short as clearly half the story, at best, or leave in the full, as more fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Errant nonsense. Claiming to be a professor does not give you special status. Unless the existing article violates BLP or is unreferenced, it is entitled to remain as is until consensus exists to change it. You do not have some special powers to get around the normal process just by being an expert. You don't even claim on your user page that you are an expert in this topic. There isn't even proof you are an expert at anything, with the possible exception of ignoring calls to read guidelines. You have done that well enough to get blocked, and then simply made the same silly arguments that you are allowed to edit war because you think you are special. To address two points in your second-to-last paragraph, it doe not use a wrong name for her. She was not named Rubio until after they got married. The former name is the proper one to use when saying "[husband] married [wife]". And it is an article about Marco, so outlining her early job as a bank teller, her "interests in fashion design", and hosts bible study at home is pointless and excessive. It is hard to take seriously your claims that you have no bias here when you repeatedly call Rubio "the Senator" and seek to add unnecessary features-style fluff to a politician's article. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Rrius, but that isn't pointless nor excessive (unless the cheerleader bit is also such, and you have not made that argument). I am in support of the additional information concerning her, at least as it is described here. (I might make my way there and try to fix it if everything else on the to-do list gets done.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A brief point about the Joe Francis page:

1. Under the "Charges in Florida" section, the first paragraph deals with 71 charges that either the court or the prosecution dismissed for lack of evidence, so how it is relevant at all to mention completely baseless and unfounded allegations such as "racketeering, drug trafficking, and child pornography"? This whole first paragraph should be removed with the exception, maybe, of the final sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaftergo (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed it a little. The talk page should be the next step if reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A couple of other points:

2. Under the "Civil" section, the second line reads: "In 2008, four women sued Francis' company in Florida for filming them while underage, with one girl saying she had been 13 when filmed." If the matter was resolved with ZERO damages being awarded to the Plaintiffs, highlighting the fact one girl *alleged* she was 13 when filmed, is absolutely not relevant, and is far more prejudicial than biographical. Can we just say: "In 2008, four women sued Francis' company in Florida for filming them while underage." ?

3. The "Federal Tax Problems" section is far too long and detailed. Again, whatever the charges/allegations were isn't really relevant, nor is Francis' attorney's opinions about them. What *might* be relevant is what actually resulted in the matter, which apparently is that "In September 2009, Francis pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns and bribing Nevada jail workers. The plea agreement reportedly requires him to pay $250,000 in restitution. He received credit for the time he served in jail, and would be subject to one year of supervised release.[22]" Can we reduce this "section" to only this sentence? Honestly, the rest of it is poorly written, not supported by the facts/evidence, and unfairly prejudicial/not biographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.183.7 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Herald article linked to re: Hall's lawsuit settlement with Sugarland is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valvicus (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Suzanne Seggerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael R. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are two relatively low-visibility articles that have been getting some attention from an IP account. First, they are trying to add material to both articles that the two are married and some additional material about their family. Second, they are adding material about a 2010 guilty plea Seggerman made in 2010. For the moment, I have removed the family material as unsourced and the plea material from the Meyer article as coatracky.

However, I'm a little flummoxed by the guilty plea. The Seggerman who pled guilty is part of a very wealthy family. Interestingly, we have no article about the deceased patriarch, Harry Seggerman (maybe his only real notability was his wealth). More strangely, assuming our Seggerman and the tax evading Seggerman are the same individual, we have nothing about Seggerman's family history in her article. What I want to know is are they the same person? The Seggerman guilty plea is well-sourced (NYT), although arguably jarring and lacking in context in terms of the rest of our article, but if it's a different person, obviously it has to be removed.

As for the marriage, I've found one or two items that indicate that the two might be married, but they aren't good enough to cite to.

If anyone can untangle this, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is interesting. There's an explosion of coverage on May 12 when the lawyer was arrested, then essentially nothing, before or after. While I certain suspect it's the same person, I don't feel comfortable making the link without more. The subject's website addresses only the video game charity/foundation. I'll do a book search in a bit to see if it reveals anything. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've done some research on this, too. There are more than one Suzanne Seggerman in the U.S.. The problem is that the court case report isn't specific enough to identify which one is involved there; the two 2001 obituaries of Harry Gurney Atha Seggerman that I've found don't specifically identify the daughter (or even agree with each other on her name); and the biographical material of this Suzanne Seggerman, in the article, doesn't give any indication of family background or origins prior to working at PBS. The dots simply cannot be connected whilst stickAing to our content policy to say that this Suzanne Seggerman is that Suzanne Seggerman, or that either is connected to this Michael Meyer.

  We are in need of someone outwith Wikipedia to write and publish a source connecting the dots, if indeed they are connectable.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for everyone's comments. FWIW, I had a conversation with an IP account who represented himself as a journalist and a friend of Seggerman and Meyer. He wanted to link to a marriage license to support the marriage. I rejected that based on
  WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was also unable to verify the license because it was on a website (reliable?) that you needed special access to. He also said that Seggerman is the same Seggerman and she is scheduled to be sentenced on October 23 in New York. I could verify that last part if I wished, but it wouldn't necessarily prove the two Seggermans are the same individual. The IP/journalist seemed like an intelligent, well-spoken individual, which was refreshing, but none of this is really good enough for Wikipedia. At the moment, the only questionable material is in the Seggerman article (the plea) - there is nothing in the Meyer article and nothing about the supposed marriage in the Seggerman article. I haven't removed the material, but I would favor doing so without better support. As a relevant aside, the material is not particularly useful in the article without more context.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 14:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the assertion about her guilty plea should be removed from Suzanne Seggerman's article, since at present there is nothing but a coincidence of names to back this up. The statement (with no context) is not useful, as you say, and the formal lack of a reliable source calls for its exclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Silas Redd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Why is this in Wikipedia? Are we putting just everyone in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marimajazz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Silas Redd? And, if so, what exactly don't you like about the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Silas Redd meets

WP:NCOLLATH but I don't think that the emphasis on an arrest for disorderly conduct (public urination) meets our BLP standards. What do other editors think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Richie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does the lead normally include legal/controversy? I have never edited the article and came across if from a wikilink. It may be

I think it's a judgment call. In this instance, I removed the 2003 arrest from the body (no indication she was ever tried, let alone convicted). I then decided that the material in the lead did not even fairly characterize the body and was poorly worded (too inflammatory), so I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to touch it as other editors may revert because I have no previous input. I will resolve this for now. If your edits are reverted I suppose the next step is the talk page there.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

IP User:70.179.170.114 has posted defamatory claims claims of criminality diff about a private person here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Am_I_getting_ripped_off_by_a_claim_to_need_replacing_the_PCM_on_my_PT_Cruiser.3F I have editted out some of the information and referred it to ANI but on second thought believed a report here might be more appropriate--can the visibility of the criminal allegations be changed? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is about linking Dick Edwards, I had hoped it would bring me to a Disambiguation Page. Sorry that there was none. And no, I'm not giving any criminal allegations here (not intending to.) --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Then show some good faith, rewrite and repost your question without any reference to or identification of third parties, and request here that the earlier comments be stricken. No one has a problem with your asking for advice about a car, so long as something at wikipedia can help you. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done and requested. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been hidden by User:NuclearWarfare an the ANI desk μηδείς (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Josh Lanyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Josh Lanyon is a female not a male as it is listed on the Josh Lanyon page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavingonajetplane (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at two links. They both said 'He'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Josh Lanyon's own website uses male pronouns to describe the author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wim Crusio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for this subject was created in large part by the subject himself using two former editor pseudonyms, now banned, and is currently being actively managed by the subject using a third editor's handle, Guillaume2303. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.57.8 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is the BLP violation or policy concern ? Please provide evidence to support the statements you have just made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A notability issue was brought up on the talk page. It may have looked trollish to an un-involved editor and was removed. I had made a statement but have no qualms about the removal of the section. If there is a notabilty issue it should be decided by a project in that field. It is very technical research that the BLP has done and is doing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • His image links to 7 wikipedias in other languages. All articles named for him. I don't know if this helps notability.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It most definitely doesn't not. The existence of translations of this article has nothing to do with notability. Notability is in-depth coverage by sources from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Given past history on this article (which pre-dates your account and so you might not be aware of, but can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio, and several other places) I recommend taking such talk page comments with a large sackful of salt. The question could be raised by a good faith editor. Indeed, as you can see, it was once raised by the subject as well as by Hrafn. But it has a fairly long history of also being raised by bad faith ones. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• As with other bios of notable Wikipedia editors, this one is from time to time the target of vandalism and trolling. Together with some off-wiki harassment, this was the main reason that I requested a rename of my user account last year. Perhaps I should have gone for a complete clean start, so that no connection could be made between my WP and real-life identities, but generally the people that troll or harass off-wiki are not regular editors who know where to find the rename, so usually the rename is adequate protection. In any case, I would appreciate if someone here could have a look at the talk page edits made in the last few days, especially the reversal of the archiving. I think that archiving this sort of trolling drivel after 6 months is more than reasonable (in fact, I think that this stuff would have been removed from talk pages of bios of non-WP editors). So to respond to Sean.hoyland's question above: the BLP concern is the comments posted by the IP that started this thread. The concerns voiced by the IP above are COI concerns and could easily be addressed by a checkuser investigation. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we list their names and birthdates in articles? If so, under what circumstances? Do they have to add to the notability type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In general a first name and year of birth should be sufficient if reliably sourced and notable. The inclusion of family names is covered under

WP:BLPNAME. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME, we should generally avoid naming children at all, unless there are specific reasons why we should (and being sourced isn't a reason): "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". "X has a son and a daughter" is generally sufficient - And no we should never give birthdates of children, per

WP:BLPPRIVACY. Notability isn't inherited (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), and we should treat the children of the subjects of our articles with the same respect we do other non-notable individuals: more so, if they are minors. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wise responses. Would someone like to edit Nicole_Richie#Family_and_relationships to fit policy/guidelines?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited to state that the couple has two children.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone added names and birth years again. I edited to 1 girl, 1 boy in the infobox. Should the family section in the body include the same?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a law called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], but the law was written with an expiry date and Congress let it expire in 2004. That law banned possession of certain types of assault weapons, including the weapon James Holmes used in Aurora last week. The law banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so people could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. But since the law expired in 2004, Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time. It’s like something out of a science fiction novel, frankly.[35]

The quote was quickly removed as a BLP violation by an editor, who used the summary explanation, "removed as per BLP, no conviction".[36] Is it a BLP violation to cite an acknowledged expert on this case? Is there a problem with Spitzer referring to Holmes in this way rather than as a suspect? If so, can the quote be altered in whole or in part, or paraphrased to preserve the content? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], would have prevented the use of one of the weapons purportedly used in the Aurora shootings. That law also banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so the general public could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. Since the law expired in 2004, weapons that hold 100 bullets at a time are now able to be legally used. - http://www.france24.com/en/20120723-usa-guns-supreme-court-barack-obama-mitt-romney-constitution-right-arms-james-holmes-colorado

Something like the wording above? -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because of the 'Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time.' sentence. I would recommend that all run far and fast from this issue or be dragged into the mud. Editors have been pushing to include gun debates in an article that involved guns. I think this is the 5th dispute forum that it has been brought to on this article alone. I just had a good laugh at an ANI about me moving the discussion to a proper forum. It belongs in a gun debate forum, not every article that has a gun in it. This forks the debate on how much text we should include about gun debates in articles. Like the 'ethno-tagger', 'tabloid-pusher' issues this is in dispute forums, talk pages, Jimbo's email, Obama's bathroom wall, etc, etc. Find a forum to reach consensus on it and stop dragging it all over articles and dispute forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you misreading this thread and confusing it with another discussion? This thread is about including facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting attributed to an expert on the subject. There is nothing here about a "gun debate" or a "forum". If you believe that this expert on gun law is wrong, then provide facts, otherwise, please stop trying to reframe this discussion. The cited material is relevant and topical and will be added back into the article in an appropriate manner. Again, this has nothing to do with a debate about guns. It is a simple recitation of the factual nature of federal and state law from the perspective of an expert on gun law. Per NPOV, significant views should be included and that's exactly what I'm going to do. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the forum:

Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space--Canoe1967 (talk

) 10:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting multiple talk pages and noticeboard discussions. Citing facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting have nothing to do with a "gun debate". Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There's edit-warring on these articles regarding reports of one cheating with another on the third, so here's a place for the centralized discussion. The cited source is

I do think it is true since there are pictures to prove it and many serious sources have reported of it, too.[1]^[2][3][4] These are just some of the articles.teammathi 10:25, 26 July 2012 (CET)

I read this article from the BBC about 6 hours ago, and it mentioned the existence of photographs; now it doesn't. GiantSnowman 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a source for further information on the direct subject, but Stern 2012 makes a good case for sensible editorial judgement. That's sensible editorial judgement by us, Wikipedia editors, as well as by everyone else. (It's amusing when one can just cite sources to make BLP Noticeboard arguments.) Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stern only wrote that Stewart shouldn't be the one getting all of the blame. Nobody here is blaming anyone. It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened and as long as it's written objective I think it should be in the article. teammathi 13:21, 27 July 2012 (CET)

"It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened" - No it isn't, it's a story printed in a gossip magazine with photos (very grainy difficult to see what's happening photos) - The fact that the same story was printed in several magazines makes it no more valid! Severniae (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN covers this extremely well I think, there is an accusation, and a notable scandal. The incident can be mentinoed, but it must not be stated that she objectively had an a affair, just that the story exists. Further, her public apology, the photographs etc push this far beyond mere rumor. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.Gaijin42 (talk

) 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, except that in this case, the public figure isn't denying the allegations, unlike the one in your example. Stewart owned up to it and issued a public apology for cheating. It would be wrong if the article stated "she had an affair" or something like that, because she didn't comment on that - but she DID confirm what the pictures depicted and apologized for the cheating portrayed in them, and that's strictly what her article and Pattinson's article refer to: Us Weekly released pictures of Stewart cheating on Pattinson with Sanders, Stewart in turn apologized for the cheating shown in those pictures. I really don't see why this is such a controversial issue. If Stewart had denied it or even just refused comment on it, I'd say it shouldn't even be mentioned in the articles because it would be nothing but gossip - but since she has directly admitted to it and made it a public issue by releasing a statement, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case.Starswept (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I ran across the Stewart article by accident and believe mention of the stories does not need to be on Wikipedia per WP:BLP. 1) The original source is apparently grainy photos in a gossip magazine. 2) It gets backed up by a claimed "apology" in another gossip magazine. Other media is citing the two gossip magazines looking very much like

WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. FWIW, the Kristen Stewart article links to http://www.kristenstewart.com/ which I assume is her official web site. The bio on that site claims she's "currently dating actor Michael Angarano." That presumably is a case to remove the entire paragraph that covers rumors over her relationship with Pattinson much less that the tabloids are now claiming she's cheating on Pattinson. --Marc Kupper|talk

23:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)]

Stewart and Angarano broke up years ago. That website has not been updated in a long time - look at its filmography page, the last film of hers it lists is from 2010. She's made several movies since then according to IMDB (and general knowledge). Anyways, if the powers that be of Wikipedia don't want any mention of this in the related articles, so be it - but I still find it curious that you all seem to believe an official statement from Stewart is akin to the idle nattering and speculation of a gossip magazine simply because her publicist chose to release the statement to a celebrity magazine, People (as most celebrity publicists do - it would be rather odd if they released a statement to the NY Times or the BBC, which I hope are busy covering actual news). It's rather interesting since Wikipedia articles on celebrities contain so much information gleaned verbatim from celebrity statements released by publicists to People - marriage announcements, engagement announcements, birth announcements, break-up announcements, death announcements, rehab announcements, announcements about injuries, etc. Yet when it's something "scandalous", official statements suddenly become suspicious and apparently moot. I've asked this before, but I still wonder what kind of proof would be necessary to substantiate this story if a statement from the person in question is insufficient (two statements actually, since Sanders also issued one)? As an aside, I find this all reminiscent of the "Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber" debacle, where Wikipedia ends up looking like something of a joke when it fails to include information that is ultimately unimportant to the respective articles, yet because it is well-known, looks like a glaring omission. Starswept (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Starswept

References

• Stern, Marlow (2012-07-12). "The Affair Witch Hunt: Leave Kristen Stewart Alone!". The Daily Beast. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Could I ask for some BLP experts to look at the BLP issue that the LP posted to ANI[37]? I'm open to the possibility that my comment might need rewording, and am trying to work out a way to make my point without BLP vios. However, the LP and others are using it as an excuse to delete content from my RFC/U response[38][39]. The text that the LP objects to has been pasted into ANI twice, once by the LP. The alternative proposal is down here[40].BitterGrey (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you find solid proof or simply retract it until such time as you have proof? Personal attacks without substance are nothing but personal attacks. In addition, being financially rewarded does not immediately create a conflict of interest for every edit in Wikipedia, and also does not mean that even COI edits are bad in themselves. The standard is pretty clear, does an edit improve the encyclopedia or does it fail to improve it? You felt that libel was a quicker route to getting your way in an argument rather than a solid and professional debate. Take it back, or back it up with solid evidence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• - User:Bittergrey has been blocked indefinitely by User:SarekOfVulcan for WP:Disruptive editing - Youreallycan 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)