Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive215

(edit conflict)I already answered that question, "You are correct that we do not have a reliable, secondary source giving the name "Lydia Cornell" and the birth date of 23 July 1953." But I think this new ref will resolve this: http://www.delawareonline.com/story/entertainment/2014/07/22/celebrity-birthdays-july/13005405/ --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know, a reliable secondary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Any sketchy raccoons in Cornell's trash are unanimously the Associated Press' problem. Now let's all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, January 16, 2015 (UTC

Given the trivial coverage provided by this source[6], not even a full sentence, and the fact that the unsourced Wikipedia coverage[7] (at least April 2, 2006) pre-dates the newly cited source (July 22, 2014) by eight(!) years, this may be a case of

WP:BLP

violation.

I remind all editors that BLP should be interpreted liberally, and with respect to the subject's privacy. Edit-warring to include potential BLP violations is grounds for sanctions. Editors should seek consensus before restoring contentious BLP information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no one agrees with you. The date has been verified by multiple, reliable primary and secondary sources.

If you want to dispute the sources, take them RSN. --

talk

) 16:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting you were here when I said "unanimously". Fixed. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I doubt the new editor claiming to be the subject of the article is in fact who they say they are. A different IP editor added information earlier that seems credible. The new IP is likely a troll. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's from LA. She's from LA. Who else could it be? Seriously, though, you never know who's who online. But if we disqualify her claim of accuracy on that basis, we can't forget to disqualify the BLP concern. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The math seems simple enough: the newspaper article from her hometown indicates she was 9 years old in 1963. This fits with a birth year of 1953/54. I agree that a birth year of 1953 makes sense given all the research Ronz has put into this. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 08:11, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

More eyes are needed on the Autumn Jackson BLP. Jackson is the woman who claims to be Bill Cosby’s daughter and was convicted of extortion back in the 90’s regarding her threats to go to tabloids with this. The Autumn Jackson BLP is apparently new. It was created after the recent Bill Cosby scandal broke, and it seems to be missing a lot of relevant factual information. For example, the current version fails to mention that Autumn Jackson’s extortion conviction against Cosby was at one point overturned [8] .I think it may have been reinstated. Could someone more knowledgeable regarding all the facts of the case, or else someone with time and inclination to properly research the relevant facts of Autumn Jackson’s case, please take a look at this BLP. This BLP probably gets lots of hits right now because Autumn Jackson’s name keeps resurfacing in the news in light of all that is currently going on with Bill Cosby and it seems to need significant work.

Also of concern is it appears to have neutrality concerns. For example, it opens with a description of Jackson as an “American criminal” instead of more neutral "American woman convicted of extortion" Additionally, the current version is referenced by questionable sources such as website: “Rhymes with snitch, news from the bathroom wall” [9] which is being used to say Jackson was charged with welfare fraud in 2007, but the current article doesn’t tell readers if she was actually convicted of welfare fraud or not. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See [10] "In a highly unusual move, the Federal appeals panel that overturned the conviction of a woman accused of trying to extort $40 million from Bill Cosby reversed itself yesterday and reinstated the guilty verdict against her. The woman, Autumn ..." seems to indicate the conviction was, indeed, reinstated - and by the same court. [11] AP: "Prosecutors said Monday they are seeking the extradition of two women, one of whom was convicted a decade ago of trying to extort Bill Cosby, on unrelated charges of grand theft and perjury in a welfare fraud case. " indicating an arrest for welfare fraud. No later AP story on that case it appears. Most likely plea bargained in some way, I suppose. Collect (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, that's interesting but It seems there's still so many unanswered questions. Was she returned to prison? According to that source "Mr. Baum said Ms. Jackson would surrender to prison authorities, but he added that he would then seek her release on bail. He said he was considering seeking a review by the full Federal appeals court" Did they appeal again? It seems the current version of article does not adequately address a lot of the relevant details of this case and was hoping readers of this noticeboard could fill in the missing info. Also, if Jackson was not convicted of the 2007 welfare fraud accusation, it seems this potentially should be removed in accordance with

WP:BLPCRIME which states, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured". --BoboMeowCat (talk

) 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely she went back to prison for the extortion. Multiple sources. And we have no record of fraud charges being dismissed -- odds are very high that a plea bargain ensued. As to calling her "relatively unknown" I fear that horse left the barn a few years ago (and she is notable enough for her own BLP). [12] shows one reason why she was likely convicted - she refused to take any DNA test. The court reinstated her sentence - no reason to doubt that it was reinstated. And by the time any court would or could hear another appeal, the 26 months would be long over. I did find multiple sources for her being charged with welfare fraud though, and held on $110,000 bail. A tad more significant than a simple minor arrest. Collect (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I've read through the sources currently used in BLP, and also the one you linked above, and none of them specify Jackson was returned to prison. This source currently used in BLP suggests public sympathy had shifted toward Jackson by 1999, at a point when she had not yet been returned to prison, so I'm curious to know what eventually happened with her case: AUTUMN JACKSON has two living, breathing, toddling reasons why she desperately does not want to return to prison. The woman who her entire life has believed that actor Bill Cosby is her natural father does not want her twin sons — born while Autumn was behind bars — to grow up without a parent, like she did. “It felt like a kick to the stomach,” Autumn told me yesterday about an appeals court’s ruling that she go back to jail....Now Autumn and her family are awaiting word on when she might have to finish the last seven months of her sentence....“This is devastating. My family has already gone through this, over and over and over. “If I go back in prison, my boys are not going to trust me going anywhere. Even now, when I go out of the room, they have fits....Autumn said of Cosby. “And my advice to anyone contemplating something like I did is: Stop and think what’s important in life before jeopardizing what you have.” [13]. This source from '99 ends with "Hasn’t she been punished enough?". I did find this source regarding the blood test refusal saying the test was indeed refused by her and by her mother because at that point they deemed the results would not help her appeals in any way [14].Regarding the welfare fraud accusation with conviction status unknown, I don't see how Jackson being notable enough for a BLP makes her ineligible for the above mentioned clause from

WP:BLPCRIME. Clearly that is a policy applied to people notable enough for a BLP. In my estimation, Jackson seems comparably less notable, as far as BLP subjects go, considering the things she is notable for happened back in the 90's, and she only got a BLP a few weeks ago because the extremely notable individual here, Bill Cosby, is back in the news regarding all this. --BoboMeowCat (talk

) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you feel she is "not notable" then AfD is the proper recourse. Propose it. At this point, she appears very notable indeed. And since she was the one who sought the notability, it is hard for me to say she was only accidentally notable. And having a $110,000 bail set on the fraud charge is substantially more than a traffic ticket. [15] just came out - including tarot readings from the author. It does state that Autumn was careless about writing bad checks, though. WRT being convicted of extortion - the conviction remains in any event. Much of the remaining 7 months (out of 26) was likely reduced - but it appears she did have to report to the jail to be processed after the conviction was upheld. Her own aunt paints a very disturbing picture, though. Collect (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never suggested Autumn Jackson is not notable enough for a BLP. I have said that the welfare fraud accusations against Autumn Jackson seem to be covered by

WP:BLPCRIME, if we cannot find a source which says she was convicted of welfare fraud. This is the specific part of the WP:BLPCRIME policy I'm referring to: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.". I do think Autumn Jackson qualifies as "relatively unknown". As far as BLP subjects go, she seems to be minimally known considering she is notable for something that happened approx. 20 years ago, but she only got a BLP a few weeks ago, likely due to increased attention on her old case as a result of Bill Cosby being back in the news regarding sexual abuse allegations. --BoboMeowCat (talk

) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And unfortunately she is not "relatively unknown" and if you feel she is not notable, the proper course is to start an AfD discussion on the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The image of 'Randy Ayers' in 2008 is NOT a picture of Randy Ayers!

Incorrect Image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg/220px-Randy_Ayers_in_2008.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.5.223 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree based on other photos of him available on the web. His hairline is completely different. You can remove the image from the article and correct the name on Wikimedia Commons, or nominate the file for deletion.- MrX 15:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I came across this Rolfe D. Mandel article in the new pages feed. A significant portion of the article is sourced from a reference described as: "Personal Contact"; as primary as a primary source can be. With one exception the citations using this reference appear to be for factual information and not analysis or contentious material. I am curious to know how such situations are handled. Vrac (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We require

reliable published sources. Any content sourced to "personal contact" should be removed.- MrX

15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Jenny Willott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An anonymous IP, User:86.3.108.93, is repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the page of this British politician. See their most recent edit here: [16] (The first addition, regarding her school fees, is sourced, though of questionable relevance. The second and third additions are entirely unsourced criticism.) I've warned them a couple of times on their talk page for re-adding this material with no response. What's the best course of action here? Should I request the page to be semi-protected, or the IP to be blocked? Robofish (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I Reverted unsourced allegations in the BLP, I warned 86.3.108.93 about edit warring and 3rr and added the page to my watchlisht.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Polaroid Kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, We are experiencing repeated vandalism on our page for several days now. Our page is about a rock-band. Someone deletes the name of one of the band members and says he is not a part of the band which is wrong. Every time we edit the page, this person deletes what we have done, without checking our information. We do consider this as threat and it is very harmful for the band's reputation and for the band members. We would like to block this person and then prevent them to vandalize our page. Thanks for your help. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: (AOM) & @InstantSnapFeedback: (ISF-who appears to be the party AOM is complaining about).

•It appears that you are both edit warring. The proper first venue for

wp:content disputes like this are the article talkpage i.e. Talk:Polaroid Kiss

.

• You are both apparently, new editors, and I

wp:AIV on their seventh edit [17] Odd also that the account was created 3 July 2012 [18] but didn't edit until 11 January 2015. [19]

• Artemis, who is the "we" you keep referring to? What do you mean by "Our page ..."? (see

WP:Ownership

)

Nb. I have welcomed both editors and left a warning template about edit warring on their talkpages.--220 of ^Borg 07:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Borg Thanks for your reply and for your advice on my talkpage.

I created my account a long time ago but never really use it. I started to contribute a few days ago on Polaroid Kiss page. "We" and "Our page" refer to all the contributors to this page, from the very beginning. As we are a community, I thought it was normal to use the plural form.

@InstantSnapFeedback: did edit a very important part of the biography by deleting Steve Hewitt, one of the members of the band. This edit was done several times and with no intention to even check if this was the truth. I have contacted Steve Hewitt himself and he confirmed that he is a current member of the band and did contribute to their last album. Deleting him from this biography is wrong, that's why @InstantSnapFeedback:, who never contacted anyone, has to stop editing the Polaroid Kiss page. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information is encyclopaedic, and reliably sourced then 'ISF' should not be removing it. If the account is yours alone, I would write in the singular "I". "We" tends to be used by accounts that are set up by companies or similar to promote themselves. The fact that you were able to contact Hewitt suggests that you may have a close connection to the band, which is OK so long as you maintain a wp: Neutral point of view (NPOV) in your edits to that page, if you do have some connection to them.

Note that the

three-revert rule does not apply if you are reverting wp:vandalism, but a content dispute is another thing again. Also remember that any editor is free to make constructive edits to the page, or challenge and remove un-sourced content. 220 of ^Borg

15:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Borg "ISF" did some edit once again without checking anything. They claim that I am Brandun Reed, which is wrong. Is there a way to prove it and show them that I cannot be Brandun Reed? I know that my IP address can be used but how can I do that? The information about Steve Hewitt is official, Hewitt is a member of the band for years now. There's a new album, 'Youth', which is going to be released on 20 March 2015, and he contributed to it by playing the drums. I can contact him yes, but my point of view is neutral as what I put in the biography is the reality. My only goal is to protect he band from vandalism.

The edit war started again today. "ISF" edited once again "Hewitt" and "Dublin". Hewitt is of course a member of the band and Brandun Reed is a resident of Dublin. He is Irish, which should not be an issue, unless some people don't like Irish people. This story about a supposed "obsessesion with U2" is extremely harmful to the band and its reputation. What I believe is that this "ISF" person is a former member of the band who tries to compromise the band and Brandun Reed just before the release of their album. "ISF" has started to vandalize Steve Hewitt by removing some information. I undid what was edited because this is just a way to continue the edit war. That's why it is very important that this user "ISF" is blocked. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  AOM, please note I have added indenting to your comments per

wp:indent by adding one or more 'colons' or : at the start of the line. --220 of ^Borg

16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I am getting a bit fed up with this issue, plus the fact it past 3:30 AM, where I am! If you think they are 'vandalising' the page, try

wp:AIV (though I think you did and the issue was rejected or WP:Requests for page protection (wp:RFPP) . --220 of ^Borg

16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say it's very annoying to always keep an eye on the pages in order to prevent any vandalism and make changes all the time. I spend hours on this every day. I made a request on

wp:AIV and yes this was rejected. I will try WP:Requests for page protection and hope they will accept my request. Thanks for your help! ArtemisOfMars (talk

) 16:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AOM, I have feeling that it may be rejected again as this appears to be a content dispute. I have asked InstantSnapFeedback (talk · contribs) to come here to discuss rather than just reverting. I have also asked if anyone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians can help.[20] --220 of ^Borg 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help in resolving this issue. I requested a page protection and I hope I'll have a positive answer. It's not only a content dispute. Constantly removing the name of a musician on a band's page can be harmful for this musician. It's just as if what he did for the band was erased too and the band not acknowledging his contribution, which is rude.ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this little micro-drama for several days and I think both editors or all three depending on the truth of the sockpuppet allegations, should be restricted to the talk page of this article. ArtemisOfMars and Drameu, whose editing I can not tell apart on this issue, clearly seem to have a COI here. InstantSnapFeedback may or may not have a COI but they have made the article a BATTLEGROUND.

I scoured the web for any reference to Steve Hewitt being a member of the band Polaroid Kiss. The only article is the one the OP referrs to written in 2010 where he says he is colaborating on a project by that name. The original insertion of Polaroid Kiss, as far as I can tell was in 2011 in his discography where he is credited as a Collaborator. I have been unable to find any credits for other alblums by this band. If it were a major part of his life I would expect to see something more than a comment in the middle of an interview from over four years ago.

I would hope that InstantSnapFeedback will come here to comment. I would also think that it would be a good idea to see what is going on at Steve Hewitt. If there is nothing here to show him as a member of the band then it is certainly UNDUE to mention it in the lead of his biography. (I tried to use Wikiblame to see who first put Polaroid Kiss in the lead but could not get anything usable). RSN might be a good place to get opinions on whether the cited source is good enough for the claim he is a member of the band. JBH (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

JBH What I don't understand is why InstantSnapFeedback is only editing the name of Steve Hewitt (For your information, his name appears on the band official SoundCloud ^[1]), what about Perry Bamonte or Kevin Drake who were members of famous bands too? After all there are no interviews given by them for a few years (this one is from 2011 and about Kent (band) and Perry and Steve are referred as members of The Cure and Placebo ^[2]), which is not that surprising. Musicians are not that fond of journalists and as they were working on several projects they were not available for promoting a band who was recording a new album. Promotion only starts a few weeks before the release of an album. That's marketing. On 4 January 2015, ISF stated that about Hanin Elias "Hanin Elias is not currently involved with Polaroid Kiss". Hanin is the lead vocalist on "It All Makes Sense", the eleventh song of the new album of the band. So ISF was very wrong, which should give you a short view on what he is trying to do: harm the band and get his revenge on the members of the band because he did not take part to the new album and lose money. This is just a COI and a quick look at what this user wrote on my Talk Page will give you some good information about his motivation and, from what I see, this person knows Brandun Reed personally. The battle has started on Facebook and continues on Wikipedia. It's nothing more than a defamation campaign. I would like to suggest you to check this person's Facebook page but I cannot give names here so if there's a way to communicate a link to you privately, I'll do it. About interviews, many artists do communicate on Facebook now, it's easier, faster and the information is shared very quickly. But from what JBH said, a Facebook link is not a reliable source. So how can I show you that Steve Hewitt is actually a band member and is the drummer of Polaroid Kiss? I know that they are going to promote their new album Youth shortly, so new interviews are going to be put online. I'm not involved in this band, so there's no COI on my side. And I'm not Drameu. I don't know this user. I think that our IP addresses may appear somewhere on our profiles, so this could be easy to check them and see that we are not the same person. I really hope this "battle" will stop quickly. It's very annoying. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies to both Borg and JBH for wasting your time here, and also 'outing', which I was unaware is forbidden.

However, to address denials of COI, and contrary to prior assertations related to this issue; I strongly believe that ArtemisofMars and Drameu are not only one and the same, but is also a member of Polaroid Kiss. AOM has also made a number of claims relating to this "battle" which they know to be untrue.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback I'm not Polaroid Kiss related, I'm not a band member, nor the founder of the band. I'm not a musician. I sing under my shower and when driving my car, not on stage. How can you be so sure of what you say without even checking with the people concerned? That's incomprehensible to me. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

* :  Further to my previous comment, regarding ArtemisofMars, and to quote The Bard:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

Regardless of whether ArtemisofMars is a member of Polaroid Kiss or not, they have peddled at least a couple of outright lies. Namely: Richard Brandon Reed, AKA 'Brandun Reed' is not Irish, but American. 'Brandun Reed' resides in Stockholm, Sweden.

Further to what has been claimed by ArtemisofMars; Hanin Elias, like Steve Hewitt, was briefly involved with Polaroid Kiss; however her experience was far from pleasant, a sentiment shared by former members of Polaroid Kiss who have been edited out of the picture and / or uncredited for their efforts, including, but not limited to, Earl Dixon III of Audesi, Ian Pickering of Sneaker Pimps and Tom Shear of Assemblage 23.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@InstantSnapFeedback And you keep saying there's no COI on your side? If I understand what you say, you're a former member of the band, aren't you? And you're trying to transpose on Wikipedia a battle that started on Facebook and other medias. Following your quote, I'm a lady... so how can I be the founder of Polaroid Kiss band? Do you believe I'm one of the female vocalists? What's the purpose of my action in that case? Why editing an information about Steve Hewitt? It is very interesting to read that now you say that Steve has been briefly involved in Polaroid Kiss. You claimed several times that he never was a member of the band nor has ever been involved in the band itself. So you changed your mind. For your information, Tom Shear is credited on the "Pay Your Dues Maxi Single" (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Dues-Ltd-Polaroid-Kiss/dp/B00OU7S6AA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1421594554&sr=8-2&keywords=polaroid+kiss) and Hanin Elias sings on the eleventh song of the new album ("It All Makes Sense"), a very beautiful song and her voice is perfect. I think that giving the names of the other members of your group will be considered as another outing by Wikipedia. And about artists names or aliases or I don't know what, Paul Hewson is Bono, Allen Zimmerman is Bob Dylan and David Jones is David Bowie ... Anyway, Wikipedia is not a battlefield, so please stop editing Polaroid Kiss article and let it live its own life quietly. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

reliable sources to back it up so I am inclined to send it to AfD as it stands.

Finally, please stop bickering between yourselves here, it does you no credit and puts off others who might otherwise be willing to help here. If you must argue feel free to do so with me over the points I have raised, preferably over at the article talk page.

JBH (talk

) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Quoting, for context, doesn't make you a lady anymore than a brief association makes you a member of a band. That is all.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback Say what you want, I don't care anymore, you know you're a liar, involved in a COI, and that I'm right. The release of the new album will solve all these issues and I will ask for public apologies from you. The End ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemusOfMars My apologies for not answering your question earlier. If you want to show Steve Hewitt is a member of Polaroid Kiss take a look at Identifying Reliable Sources. The essence is that a source must be published by a reliable third party with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Press releases, self-published material (Facebook) and such are not acceptable. Sometimes blogs and such can be used for non-controversial statements a subject makes about themself. The reason I object to the blog interview is (1) it is a blog; (2) it is old and even if true at the time the claim may not be true now; (3) if Polaroid Kiss is a notable project in his life it would have been mentioned somewhere else in the last 4 years. The prime rule we have here for BLP's is:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

There is a lot of single purpose, likely COI editing going on with

@Jbhunley:

This is my point entirely - namely that a single article from an unverified source over four years old is being used as part of a PR campaign to associate Polaroid Kiss with more famous artists. I understand that the article has been locked now to prevent further edit-warring; however, I would have expected that until Steve Hewitt's membership, or otherwise, could be verified through a reliable source (or number of sources) that he would not be listed as a member of Polaroid Kiss in the article, as it is simply misleading.

• If you try fishing for any trouts on Mars, you could be waiting a long time...

InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@JBH Thanks for your help JBH. Polaroid Kiss is going to make some interviews in the next few days, it's promotion time for them now they are releasing a new album. In fact, they had no real interviews for quite a long time because they were working on this album which was a bit delayed. They released E.P.s in the meantime but didn't give interviews. Now that they have been signed by a label (Prussia Records), things have changed, which is good. So if I find an interview of them and if I put the link on this board, will you tell me if it's a reliable source? And if I can put it on the band's article? ArtemisOfMars (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:RSN

If you and InstantSnapFeedback agree with this please say so and we can move to the talk pages. If not please feel free to make changes that you all can agree on. If anyone else has some input, feedback or whatever please chime in. JBH (talk

) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH

I am in agreement with your proposal.

That is what I have wanted all along - reliable sources.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH Thanks for your answer. I will send you all the links that I'll find for your approval before putting them on the band's article. About Steve Hewitt, the thing is that I don't want him to be hurt by this story. He contributed a lot to the new album, playing drums on almost every songs. He is an excellent musician and has a very good reputation. He may not liked that we cancel his name from Polaroid Kiss article. That's not polite and may been seen as disrespectful. May we just wait for a new interview to be put online? The first single of the new album is already in the German Charts (Deutsche Alternative Charts), so a new interview will come soon. I agree to move this discussion on the band's talk page. Thanks for your understanding ArtemisOfMars (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH ArtemisofMars' reply is completely disingenuous. It should be obvious from the tone of their language that they are a member of Polaroid Kiss. They don't want references to Steve Hewitt removed from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, not because it might 'hurt his feelings', but because allying Polaroid Kiss with Steve Hewitt (and by association Placebo) helps the afformentioned PR Campaign for a 'band' that has constantly been promising, for over three years now, an album that has failed to materialise.

Therefore, I suggest that your suggestion of removing all references to Steve Hewitt from the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry until verifiable sources are provided is adhered to. Otherwise, you may be waiting as long for them as a bite when trout-fishing on Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH If you don't mind, let's move this discussion on Polaroid Kiss talk page. I'm not a member of the band, I don't know how to prove it on Wikipedia but you have my word that I'm not a member of the band and not affiliated to them. I like what they do and just want the truth to be known. This discussion is a living nightmare. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH ArtemisofMars summing themselves up perfectly, there - 'I don't have any evidence for my claims, you'll just have to take my word for it'. Sorry, but to be taken seriously you need independently verifiable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InstantSnapFeedback (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Conflict with ArtemisOfMars

@

WP:BLP

.

@

WP:AGF JBH (talk

) 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH I just found this: http://home.earthlink.net/~thechurch/side-projects/polaroid-kiss.html Is it enough to show that Steve Hewitt is a member of the band? It's a discography of The Church, Steve Kilbey's band. The official website for The Church is this one (http://thechurchband.net/) and when you click on "Discography", that's what you find under "Side Projects". It's official matter. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion no, it is an Earthlink account, seems to be a

WP:ABOUTSELF. Also, let's do sources at the talk page after an agreement on how the article should be at this time, based on the current sources or lack thereofJBH (talk

) 19:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH I don't want the name of Steve Hewitt to be removed from the band's article. I know the band for about 3 years now and I follow them on their social medias. I'm aware of what's happening on their lives because I read their news and buy their E.P. (yes, some of them have already been released). InstantSnapFeedback is a former member of the band, that's is more than sure for me because he gave the names of all the members of a Facebook group who called themselves "Ex- Polaroid Kiss Members" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1540049712882097/?fref=ts). They were fired from the band and did not appreciate it. And did you read how he is talking to me on my "Talk Page", calling me "Brandun" and saying horrible things about the founder of the band? He knows Brandun Reed personally. I decided to take part of this "battle" because I cannot stand lies and what this guys are trying to do. I know that it's not that important to know if Steve Hewitt is a member of the band or not, so why having such a fight? Let his name appear on Polaroid Kiss's article and that's all. Why does ISF always says that he "knows" that Steve Hewitt is not a member of the band? How can he be that sure? I'm sure of what I say because it's written on every official websites of the band. If it's official for the band, how can it be wrong? When you read some news on some other bands official websites, do you believe what they say is wrong? No. So why doing this with Polaroid Kiss? It's a complete non sense for me. If it's officially stated on the band's official pages and websites, this is the truth. Nothing more. About The Church official website, they do use this discography to reflect the work of their members, so they acknowledge what is written on it. The name of Steve Hewitt appears in the "credits" of "Pay Your Dues" single CD by PK. I really hope this whole thing will stop because it's totally driving me mad. I've never seen this before. That's incredible. All this battle for one name of an article? That must be a bad joke. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH In response to your last post, I did edit under 'Sailvasnapshot', but forgot the password for that account. I can guarantee that ChristianSands, Sosgeneral, Drameu and ArtemisofMars are also one and the same, namely a single member of Polaroid Kiss, but you won't get the same honesty from them.

As, I have stated many times before, ArtemisofMars is a liar. If you wish to contact EarlDixon III, Ian Pickering and / or Tom Shear they will confirm this and contradict the assertion that they were 'fired' from the band. I am sure your forensic analysis of this micro drama has already made you incredibly suspicious of ArtemisofMars. InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:OTRS if they have a concern. OTRS has procedures for handling intractable BLP issues but it is my understanding that they require very strict documentation of who they are talking to. Best to follow the previous link since I do not know much about them. JBH (talk

) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JBH Thank you for your time, discretion and impartiality. My only regret is that without the lies, deception and negativity of ArtemisofMars none of this would be necessary.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

@

Tokyo Girl [27] to weigh in. They are all neutral editors who have a lot of experience in BLP. JBH (talk

) 21:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Skimming through the above text, I don't see independent sources being listed. Do they exist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN You won't get that from ArtemisofMars, who is a member of the band.

Can someone from Wikipedia's editing team remove references to Steve Hewitt until if and when independently verifiable sources are added to the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, please?InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at the source present in the article. It has these Hewitt quotes:

• "But also I’m working on another project with a guy called Brandun Reed, who is an ex-session keyboard player and used to play with Queens of the Stone Age, and he’s got a band/project called Polaroid Kiss. We’ve been working on that and we’ve got about 15 tracks so far. I’ve done the drums already, and I’m just working on some celebrity vocalists at the moment."
• "... I’ll be in the studio all December with Brandun, and hopefully celeb vocalists to finish off the Polaroid Kiss album, which will also be out on Ancient B records"

What is your issue with this? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN Firstly, that article is over four years old (2nd November, 2010) and from a blog. A brief association is not membership.

Secondly, 'Brandun' Reed was never a member of Queens of the Stone Age, that is an outright lie, one which I have no doubt he told Steve Hewitt to lend Polaroid Kiss authenticity.

If you speak to any of the numerous former members (brief collaborators) who have left (or in the words of 'Brandun' 'been fired from') Polaroid Kiss, they will attest to this.

The man is a fantasist, as is ArtemisofMars.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

NeilN InstantSnapFeedback It's not written that Brandun Reed was actually a member of Queens of the Stone Age, but that he was an "ex-session keyboard player" and that he played with this band. And if you have a close look at all the references that are put on Steve Hewitt's article, you'll see that the majority of them are from webzines or blog, or Facebook! So what's the issue with this interview of Steve and the fact it was made a few years ago. I search the web to find up to date interviews but the man is not talkative with journalists. He was working on all his different projects. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Keeping this focused on content, a blog is not a

reliable source, especially for BLP-disputed content. As the article is fully protected, I've made the appropriate edit request. His name can be added back in if appropriate high quality sources are found. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

21:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN I agree with your opinion.

However, the Polaroid Kiss Wikipedia entry, as edited by Panyd, is still referencing Steve Hewitt as a member.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback: As I stated, I've made an edit request as the article is fully protected. [28] An admin will look at it and make the edit (hopefully). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN And what if the next interview is not considered as a reliable source by Wikipedia? Do you know that most of the source used on this website are from blogs and webzines? What if Steve Hewitt doesn't give any interviews this year? To me, the official website of the band is a reliable source. Oh, and to clear things up I am not Brandun Reed... English is not my native language... I thought this was obvious. ArtemisOfMars (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@ArtemisOfMars: It is absolutely not correct that most of the sources on Wikipedia are blogs or webzines. Sources like the one we're talking about are rooted out quite quickly when spotted. Wikipedia only covers what reliable sources have previously published. If the connection is important, an independent source will cover it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN My apologies for being hasty in my response. You strike me as a thoroughly reasonable individual.InstantSnapFeedback (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@InstantSnapFeedback: Writing "@NeilN" will not send me a notification if you don't sign your post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN My apologies - schoolboy error.InstantSnapFeedback (talk)

There is a sentence in the Tony Sly Wikipedia entry ("It was later determined that a drug-related seizure was the cause of Sly's Death.") that is not cited. I cannot find any resources online that would corroborate this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.166.11 (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the offending text as unsourced, here. It has been removed previously for the same reason and re-added again by IP editors to this and related pages. Note that you were able to remove this yourself. Additionally, until I restored an earlier version there was no source at all re Tony Slys death! --220 of ^Borg 15:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• If it keeps getting re-added then a temporary semi-protection might not be a terrible idea. I don't see where it is warranted now since most of the action happened last year around September/November, but it's something to look out for.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  06:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

An SPA, first using an IP, then a user account

I'm not sure where to post this, actually. Choor monster (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Choor monster: Anything added to lists like that should generally have their own article to show notability. Removing the name is a good call. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

We are allowed red-links to notable people—that just means the relevant article hasn't been created—but I'm a strict amateur at identifying notability of people in the entertainment industry. I suspect non-appearance on imdb is almost definitive. I was worried that PAgrad46 (I assume this person is a class of 1946 HSoPA alumnus) would newbie edit-war. There has been no response on his Talk page, but there have been two days of quiet now.

I'll point out that PAgrad46 correctly added Arlene Martel to the list. Choor monster (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not without good sourcing that shows notability (as you alluded to), we don't (especially for BLPs). Most drive-by editors just add a name. For notability for entertainers,

WP:ENT is a good place to start. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

22:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Steverci has created in his sandbox an article titled Crowe propaganda. It appears in a google search.[29] I'm thinking the title is a BLP violation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Steverci/sandbox/Crowe propaganda --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could please help me with the NLL table, I have tried over and over to edit it properly but I don't know what I'm doing incorrectly. Thank you! --

I think that's fixed now.14GTR (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The photo linked to Robert Wiley (Robert John Wiley is a former Australian rules footballer...) has the wrong person's photo listed, being Robert Wiley - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The first photo on the attached link is the correct photo. Can you please change it? I have confirmed this with Robert Wiley personally so he knows I'm requesting this on his behalf.

Dee Walsh

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=robert+wiley&safe=active&biw=1680&bih=869&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WMO9VOnkNorn8AWXzILgDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&dpr=1#safe=active&tbm=isch&q=robert+wiley+carlton&imgdii=_&imgrc=zYXSiNGBsWN-7M%253A%3BJI3p7p4Hj6LdxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%252Fgi%252FRobert%252BWiley%252BFg33H-nffoem.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.zimbio.com%252FRobert%252BWiley%252Fpictures%252Fpro%3B360%3B240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.250.9 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Wiley (the Australian rules footballer) has no photo and hasn't been edited in about seven months. We can't add a random photo from the internet because of our copyright policy. The copyright holder needs to release the properly cropped photo to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license, and it can then be added to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.--ukexpat (talk

) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See

WP:FIXGOOGLE as well, which we should probably expand. There was a screenshot that was very useful but it keeps getting deleted from Commons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak

21:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear friends, Recently I wrote in WP:BLP page, under the heading Beatrix Campbell, as follows: "I would like to learn in particular whether there is provision, if an erroneous paragraph is continually reinserted into an entry, of placing an immovable statement to the effect that the subject of the biography contests its truth. And secondly, is there provision, in cases where the subject of a biography finds it continually misrepresents her, to have the entry in her name removed from Wikipedia completely. Advice will be very welcome." You will see from the last entries to the Beatrix Campbell discussion on WP:BLP that her version is still being contested. I have not received any reply,giving the advice I request.Bold text Could somebody help please? Sturdytree (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You,

the dispute resolution policy, which would include coming back to this noticeboard after the issues have been discussed on the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk

) 15:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article seems like a large

There is another newsweek story, directly about the real people from the time the real story broke. Ironically, it is not used in the article at all.[33]

Additional input would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

A somewhat controversial former mayor who is, apparently, running again. The article is poor and has mostly negative (though sourced) information. There is more out on the internetz (here, for instance) but I haven't found anything positive. Whether the guy is notable in the first place is an interesting matter. In the second place, I wonder if recent edits have anything to do with his campaign. Your eyes are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the detail per

WP:UNDUE - watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk)

16:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Too bad we don't have a List of mayors of Brownsville... we could totally redirect there. Not enough for a bio and will always be negative. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Being negative is not a good reason to remove content; this would be a terrible encyclopædia if we were never allowed to accurately report on subjects that have been criticised in the real world. However, poor sourcing or low notability is a good reason to remove content. bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Poor sourcing isn't either, but an eternally negative stub is better off as a redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Cathy Gannon

This article's title is inaccurate. Gannon's name is "Kathy" not "Cathy": http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kathy-gannon-canadian-reporter-wounded-and-photographer-killed-in-afghanistan-1.2597928 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.131 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Now moved to Kathy Gannon. Thanks for letting us know.--ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

More eyes are needed, there is one camp turning the article into a hagiographic (and extremely extended) speakers promotional blurb and another camp attempting to insinuate that she has lied about everything she ever stated. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Profile pic is of the wrong person - definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.37.103.10 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Carol W. Greider, a 2009 Nobel Prize winner, has recently been editing her page (along with her assistant) to remove mentions of her husband, Nathaniel C. Comfort. Both User:Carol.w.greider and User:Scrow1 (her assistant) have deleted the references multiple times without adding any additional sourcing. It's evident based on a number of different sources that they were married in 1993, but I've yet to come across any sourcing to indicate otherwise. Per a note left by User:Scrow1 on my talk page, she's attempting to remove mention of her (apparently now ex-)husband.

My question is since Greider is clearly a public figure, 1. is she (or assistant) allowed to edit her page without it being a conflict of interest, 2. is she allowed to remove current, sourced information, and 3. to what extent, if any, is she allowed to dictate what appears on her page?

Thanks.

—GauchoDude (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In order: 1. There is no absolute prohibition, but it is "strongly discouraged". 2 and 3 No. provided that the article complies with

WP:BLP and other relevant policies and guidelines.--ukexpat (talk

) 17:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What happened is that an unregistered editor (whom the original poster implies is either the subject or her assistant) removed the mention of their marriage both from Carol W. Greider and from Nathaniel C. Comfort. Their marriage was not referenced to a reliable source, although the original poster provides a source. As the original poster implies, it is likely that they are no longer married, in which case it is probably best to allow the deletion of the reference to their marriage. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: @Robert McClenon:, yes there were a number of edits removing the mention of the entire marriage, which I edited back. While seemingly an uncoupling is most likely if we believe the duo above (whom I cannot verify if they are who they say they are aside from their word alone, in addition to not being able to find any mention of this potential event to source), the history of the marriage should not be in question. Per the sources in the article and above, both primary and secondary, it is black and white that a marriage did, in fact, exist. I am curious as to if this person has the ability to remove said information even though there are sources present that show it existed and, essentially, to cover up the past by "censoring" the page at their will. —GauchoDude (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The way that you are asking the question is "loaded". Content in Wikipedia is determined collaboratively by

consensus. This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone (with the exception of banned and blocked users) can edit. Of course anyone can edit it. The question is not whether they have the ability to remove the information, but whether its removal is appropriate. In general, the place to discuss article content is the article talk pages. It appears that neither you nor the unregistered editor has used the article talk pages. I would suggest that you post a question about whether the marriage should be in the article on the two article talk pages, and that you notify the unregistered editor on their talk page. At the same time, I would advise that if someone says that the subject of the article does not want the marriage mentioned, and there is no compelling reason to mention it, that it be omitted out of respect for the privacy of living persons. (Do you have a specific reason, other than the fact itself, why you think that the marriage should be mentioned? Is there anything in your past that you would prefer not to discuss? Unless you have a specific reason, I suggest that, out of respect for the privacy of living persons, some facts can be omitted.) Robert McClenon (talk

) 21:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

kajol is born in 1975 as i heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reloade (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@

reliable source? We don't change biographical articles only based on what somebody "heard". —C.Fred (talk

) 19:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a

reliable source, you can propose a change at Talk:Kajol. Since her birth date is referenced to two reliable sources, I would not recommend editing the article without discussion. Robert McClenon (talk

) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jayne Heitmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DO NOT change the year of birth to 1970. Jayne was born in 1960. The date on the photos linked below (1979 in both cases) is the year these people would have graduated high school, not the year the photo was taken. Jayne could not have been in both grade 4 and grade 6 in the same year. To graduate from high school in 1979, she would have to be born in 1960

This kind of OR is unacceptable in biographies, and while my removal of the DOB was not challenged, they insist on keeping the external link, which makes no sense since there no biographical information regarding the subject's early life, and in any case it is an unacceptable source to begin with. Further, Harry the Dirty Dog has apparently managed to elucidate which of those children is actually the subject, based on some unknown criteria (age regression?) and a faded 36-year old signature. Is there consensus that this is acceptable as a standalone external link? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jayne Heitmeyer can be used for context on how important this apparently is to the editor, and the amount of OR that has gone into it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I had actually removed the link before this notice was posted.

There is also this link, [34] Heitmeyer appears in the bottom photo on page 62. She is named, and it is a PDF of the yearbook which appeared in 1974. She is clearly much older than the 4 years old she would have been if she was born in 1970.

I am actually happy to have no DOB in the article. What is important to me (and should be to all editors) is that we should not have the wrong one. My only aim has been to avoid having misinformation in a BLP. If you go back through the history of the article you can see that a year of birth of 1970 had been added on the very first edit with no reliable sources. The photo that is in question here is signed by Heitmeyer, so there can be no question that it is genuine. A signed document by the subject is certainly valid as an external link, as is a PDF of a yearbook in which she appears. Whether or not it confirms a year of birth is a separate matter, and I am happy to accept that it may not be sufficient, but if it is not being used as a source for a year of birth, but merely a link illustrating the subject, there is no reason for it not to be there. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the question then is: "Is a yearbook published by the school a primary source?" I'd say yes but I'm not 100% certain so that's why I brought it here for further discussion. For the record, I don't doubt that this is Heitmeyer and your investigation is correct - but that's not the point. This would be acceptable only if a secondary source had done the research, and linked to the yearbook. There's a not-so-subtle difference, which is encoded in the OR/SYNTH and BLP policies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree since in this case the DOB seems to be contentious. My purpose in assembling what evidence I could that 1970 couldn't possibly be the year of birth was to avoid the incorrect year being reinserted. But if we are happy that that there should be no DOB on the article then the issue is moot. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and I didn't adjust the DOB in any case because that would have been equally wrong. We're better off without it altogether. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Is

British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that there were no-go zones in the UK, describing Steven Emerson, who had made the same claim previously as "a complete idiot".

Directly relevant to a BLP about Bobby Jindal? Collect (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes -- it's a direct extension of Emerson's claim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • • And you assert that Jindal is directly associated with Emerson in some manner? I found no source making that much of a reach - the quote is about Emerson (see section above) and is not about Jindal unless one wishes to use Wikipedia to imply that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot" for which, again, I find no reliable source. Comments about third parties are generally not considered relevant in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - [35], [36] [37] [38], [39] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • • In what way? Or just "yes"? Collect (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Cameron was responding to Emerson, not Jindal - and I very much doubt that Jindal's comments would have been noticed at all without the earlier nonsense. The article previously gave the entirely false impression that Cameron had somehow made the comment for no reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• NO that edit implies that Jindal said that there were cities which were all Muslim. Cameron's statement against Emerson was in response to his statement that Birmingham was 100% Muslim. Not only is it a BLP violation, but it presents a synthesis of material problem. I can't believe that anyone is defending such a clear violation, and it should be removed immediately. Arzel (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  Can you explain why, in removing this 'violation', you left a claim that "British Prime Minister David Cameron had earlier denied that such zones existed in the UK"? You have just asserted that Cameron said no such thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make uncivil comments like this. You show a lack of good faith in this type of edit comment. Arzel (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's nitpicking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

How about a good-faith explanation for why you complained of synthesis, and then restored the claim you objected to, Arzel? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I said the claim was wrong -- and you appear to have agreed that Emerson had not made "the same claim" which is SYNTH as the source did not say "Jindal made the same claim as Emerson"[40] in point of fact, and Cameron's reference to Emerson applied to Emerson only and not to Jindal (SYNTH) refers to the "same claim" and connecting Emerson to Jindal. Textbook case, in fact. Collect (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC) .

I have revised it to read 'a similar claim' - which is what the Christian Science Monitor says. [41] And the fact remains that the article pulled Cameron's statement out of nowhere, removing the context which explained why Jindal's comments were seen as significant in the first place. It is entirely clear from the sources cited that the media see a direct connection between Emerson and Jindal, and that they reported his assertions because he was making similar claims to the ones that Emerson had to retract - similar claims to the ones that Cameron responded to in the manner he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It still implies that Cameron called Jindal a "complete idiot". It is really almost beyond belief that some of you are defending this. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• No. The comment was referring directly to one person's statements -- it's inappropriate to use that to make inferences about someone else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• No This is not an improvement to the article. Emerson doesn't work for Jindal, he isn't apparently connected in anyway except that they are both Americans that have spoken about no-go zones. This is a Bio article about a specific figure not a forum for broad or extended commentary and context on no-go zones. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Contrary to what some people have asserted, there are numerous reliable sources which explicitly link Jindal's comments and Emerson's (e.g. The Guardian, CNN, the International Business Times, The Week, Bloomberg News, etc). So I don't see any grounds for the
  recentism in giving a lot of airtime to this incident, but those are appropriately handled on the article talkpage rather than this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk
  23:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - Per the sources presented by Cwobeel and MastCell that unequivocally make the connection. If would be
  WP:UNDUE not to include a mention of this. "Similar claim" may be preferable to "same claim", but that's really splitting hairs.- MrX
  01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  So do you think that Cameron is calling Jindal a "complete idiot"? Because that is what the section implies. Arzel (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  No. Jindal is repeating a claim which Cameron described as complete idiocy. Numerous independent, reliable sources say as much. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  No, Cameron called Emerson a "complete idiot", he didn't call the claim "complete idiocy". That is what prevents us from linking the two in a BLP.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  I think that's hairsplitting, but in any case there's no need, and probably no reason, to include Cameron's "idiot" quote. My main point is that there is no

  WP:BLP violation) in linking Emerson's and Jindal's comments, since they are extensively and explicitly linked by reliable sources. My sense is that people are perseverating about the "idiot" quote rather than acknowledging the sources and working to find an acceptable way to reflect them. MastCell ^Talk

  17:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  Mast, here is the section from CNN. "The Prime Minister said he choked on his porridge after hearing the claim by Steve Emerson, a Fox News pundit, that non-Muslims “simply don’t go” to Britain’s second-largest city.... Mr Cameron said: “Frankly I choked on my porridge and thought it must be April’s Fools Day. This guy is clearly a complete idiot." Jindal made no such statement. Seriously, how can you make that claim. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't feel it's important to use Cameron's quote, which as you point out was addressed to Emerson. On the other hand, it is clearly appropriate to draw a link between Emerson's and Jindal's comments on a broader level, since many reliable sources explicitly make this link. I think that focusing on the "idiot" quote is attacking a strawman at this point. I'm not defending its inclusion, and I don't think anyone else is either. At the same time, there needs to be some acknowledgement of the content of reliable sources and the response to Jindal's comments. At this point, it should be clear that there is no distinct BLP issue, and the matter should be returned to

  recentism. MastCell ^Talk

  17:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• No The inclusion can be seen as an attempt to implicitly apply the label (and the insult) to the subject via synthesis - assuming that wasn't the intention to begin with. When Cameron calls Jindal an idiot then that can be added to Jindal's bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, I think it's relevant given that Jindal has made similar sorts of claims to those made by Emerson. If nobody else had made the connection it would be OR, but the media has done so, so it's an acceptable thing to mention. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC).
• No I read the CNN link and the "idiot" remark was made towards Emerson for making the "whole cities" comment. Jindal's statement was, by all accounts not as inflammatory. This is synthesis per FRF. I haven't checked all the links, but I suspect they are quite similar. If someone wants to present an unadulterated quote from a RS that supports inclusion, that would be helpful. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  Let's be frank. If you want to link the two, it's doable. But wanting to include the "idiot" part speaks volumes about some of you. Take it to Twitter with the rest of the malcontented. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there are numerous ways to go about presenting the fact that Jindal was soundly criticized, for both the initial statement and the refusal to retract it when proven false, without the need to resort to the "idiot" comment which was not directed at him. I don't think it is a BLP violation per se in its present form, just poorly realized. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• No, I can't believe this is even under discussion. It's not only about relevance - it's about importance (weight). Jiminy Cricket. Atsme☯^Consult 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• No -
  WP:10YT for a relevancy check. Comments and reactions by others to trivial comments made by the subject are rarely encyclopedic. ChrisGualtieri (talk
  ) 00:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • recentism, more generally) are legitimate concerns. MastCell ^Talk
    04:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• No - In the end, the comparison is barely relevant and any criticism can be presented better. Tarc has it right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This issue could also belong at

The book has been "published" by soft drink makers. I would say, not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The book does not meet

WP:BLP requirements for a high quality source. ChrisGualtieri (talk

) 00:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There's some editing that needs further attention -- see this section of the COIN. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the subject field to look at it with the necessary care DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajin_Vass_Gunawardena&curid=27170258&diff=643823440&oldid=643808700 is a large edit which looks to me to be laden with potential BLP issues. I reverted it once (no time to pick through the whole thing and it looked like it would clearly violate BLP policy if left alone) but it's back. Some of this material has been in before, and the page was semi-protected in December 2013.

I'm calling for help; it seems clear there are BLP issues, but equally some of the material may be good. I have no time to pick through it, and know nothing about Sri Lankan politics. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongjam (talk

) 19:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Think of the hundreds/thousands of notable people who dropped out of the public eye many years before their death, which consequently went unreported in secondary sources... GiantSnowman 19:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If a secondary reliable source does not think it is important enough to mention, neither ought we. Collect (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is if they have 'dropped out of the public eye', you may well end up reporting their death based on a public record concerning another person with the same name. Which, if the subject of the article is alive is definitely a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the general trend of discussion here of not including an article-subject's date of death unless reported by secondary sources. If the person is indeed notable, their death should be a de-facto part of the article where applicable and is not a weight issue. CorporateM (Talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is right. If someone passes GNG and has an article, the fact that they have died is always going to be noteworthy for inclusion in the article, even if we have to make do with primary sources. The alternative is that people who are not-so-famous when they shuffle it off are immortal for Wikipedia purposes, which would be a bit silly. Of course, we also need to ensure accuracy, but that doesn't rule out using primary sources per se. Formerip (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps so - but there have been examples where "

the wrong box" occurred and the person was actually not dead. Collect (talk

) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

But common sense and

WP:V ought to be enough to prevent that. Formerip (talk

) 00:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I recommend reading

WP:FRANKIE. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

05:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederick Meyer looks like it might good example of the dangers of taking secondary sources at face value, or even just an illustration that there are some cases where Wikipedia gets it wrong if the media gets it wrong first. There's nothing in the example that says we should ignore primary sources. Formerip (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The initial question was much more broad. We should be careful using primary sources for adding details about a persons death (e.g. suicide, details of an accident, etc.) This is especially true if this for someone recently deceased. Editors should also be very careful about conducting OR and linking a primary source to the subject of the article, and until it is established by reliable sources that a subject is dead, or that enough time has past that it is obvious they are dead (i.e. they would be unbelievable old if alive) then

Strongjam (talk

) 17:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Where we are wrong, we are at least definitively wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's presumptively fine. To quote policy:

I worry about this. True, we do cover people who become notable then leave the public eye. But in most cases a local newspaper will run at least some obituary. It doesn't even need to be a long one, just "John Smith, former drummer for the One Hit Wonders, leaves behind two daughters and a dog." Otherwise, if all we have is "John Smith, died February 31", we are in real danger of referring to the wrong one. Sure, there can be a little bit of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and if the person's name is clearly unique (Honoria Winifred Funkenstein), maybe the primary source will do. But in general, when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not; we are better off by not writing the truth than by writing misinformation. --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

...and "clearly unique" is quite dubious. We spent some weeks at my old parish praying for someone named Leontyne Price, who proved to be the mother-in-law of another parishioner and not the opera singer. We shouldn't go by name alone. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"... when there is a reasonable possibility of doubt, I would say not..."

This is 100% the right attitude, but it has nothing directly to do with using primary sources. You could have a secondary source that is unclear or you could have a primary source (a probate document, for example) that gives the person's name, address, date and place of birth, the names of all her children, her profession, and so on. Formerip (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor does the section heading. The administration expressed confidence that the Director answered in the least misleading way possible, given the wording of the questions. To use the phrase "False testimony" is an opinion and is not supported by any citations to legal findings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.224.205 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bit where someone asserted he was lying, since it was nothing more than an opinion. Articles are supposed to be neutral and reproduce only what the available sources say. As to the lede, I don't think there's a problem with it because all that is sourced later in the article, and it is worded neutrally. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's called mind reading, where the writer assumes to know the intimate thought processes of the subject. Strongly discouraged in professional journalism, it has no place here either. (Fine in The Onion, though).--Auric talk 20:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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

As the template for BLPs says "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns", material has been repeatedly inserted and undone, and there are concerns outlined in the Talk page for the subject in question. In particular, COI via self-promotion self-referencing, (indirect) libel, and relevence of putting outlier information not shared by mainstream sources.

Not sure how much detail I should add here, but the gist of the concern is in the Talk Page for the Wikipedia BLP mentioned above.

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

Subject of BLP continues to make edits to the bio, removing all content that is negative towards him or shows verifiable proof of his past work actions, in violation of BLP guidelines and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.17.230 (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Holy edit warring. But the removal is justified as the placement of the material is unacceptable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If an admin processes this, can we get the article semi-protected so the IP's use the empty talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've semi'd it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Both IPs are past 3RR, but User:Callanecc has saved them from themselves by semi-ing. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. User Brian Dell seeks to demonstrate or imply that David O. Carpenter is a biased editor-in-chief of this journal. For an editor of a peer reviewed journal, this is a serious allegation. Brian Dell has advocated persistently on the Talk page [44] since his Dec 7th edit[45] and subsequent attempts have been rebuffed by 2 other editors and myself, who joined the conversation with a 3PO. Dell and User:Randykitty have been edit warring IMO, though they do discuss in Talk and both avoid a formal 3RR violation.

The most recent Dell edit[46] does finally provide a source for the allegation against Carpenter. However, it's from an admittedly biased source -- and so the controversial allegation is very poorly sourced. Maybe reliable sources will come to light? Meanwhile, I am concerned that Dell's edits violate our BLP policy and should be removed. Is it appropriate for me to report this and then remove the problematic edit myself? Thanks! HG | Talk 06:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt you to make the good faith assumption that I'm simply interested in having Wikipedia fulfill its role as an information source, and accordingly opposed to efforts aimed at suppressing controversial information about this publication simply because it's controversial. I am also of the view that you are misrepresenting the background by having it appear that the same sort of edit has been at issue for some time. The earlier edits constituted efforts on my part to avoid having critical material in the article and avoid leading readers to the conclusion that there is a controversy while still suggesting to them relevant facts readers could use to inform themselves but you rejected those efforts of mine calling my efforts to make any criticism more indirect "original research". The edit now at issue cites a source questioning a "publication's credibility" as opposed to that of an individual (either living or dead), such that it requires some

WP:SYNTH to get even a possible BLP concern here. Re "very poorly sourced", aside from the fact that WP:RS says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...", Scientific American does not just use the source but directly links to the source's website. The source is also used by US News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, the LA Times, USA Today, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. I could go on.--Brian Dell (talk

) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It'd be good to get input from an experienced BLP editor. I think the source is unacceptable for this kind of allegation. This is the proposed edit, "Energy in Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility." I compared it to Energy & Environment, where allegations are mentioned due to sources like The Guardian and Chronicle of Higher Education. The petroleum association may be a credible or sufficient source for some things, but not for whether Wikipedia should cover allegations against one of its academic critics. I do agree that we should assume that Mr. Dell is editing in good faith. HG | Talk 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, which is generally known to have a perspective that is more in line with the environment lobby than the industry lobby, was cited for a grand total of two sentences. And the Chronicle of Higher Education was not cited for its main point, that there's a "fierce" scientific and political controversy, but to pluck out a quote that's used to present Boehmer-Christiansen as having a "political agenda". Which she does, but not just this citation, indeed, most of that article, is material contending that Boehmer-Christiansen (who, say what you will, is an "academic") had an "agenda", something I would think you would deem a BLP violation if you were consistent.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• This situation is pretty clearly covered by
  WP:BLP policy. (Note that the WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures; arguably, Carpenter is not a public figure and thus would qualify for even more stringent protection against poorly sourced accusations). MastCell ^Talk
  17:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it too here. If "WELLKNOWN provisions apply to public figures [and] Carpenter is not a public figure" then you can't cherry pick a clause from WELLKNOWN just because it serves your purposes. Either WELLKNOWN applies or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then cite the policy that does.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of a public figure. Public figures are "fair game" in many ways, but even they are protected from poorly sourced accusations by

WP:BLP and, as an admin, I will treat it as such. MastCell ^Talk

10:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see how the use of that source would be appropriate in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

How about

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists observation but a question about what you think the standard is. Just giving an opinion without any reasoning is not helpful, at least not to me.--Brian Dell (talk

) 01:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Without a reliable independent source asserting that he is biased (and in this case it would need to be a source specialising in the scientific literature in this field), it's
  WP:OR. His views are entirely at odds with the scientific consensus, and that may well end up going badly for him, but it hasn't yet and we're not here to blaze the trail. Guy (Help!
  ) 20:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If Energy in Depth does not know the "scientific literature in this field" then why do publications like Scientific American turn to them as a counterpoint to the articles that appear in Reviews on Environmental Health? I'll add that we see "Mr. Carpenter’s claims are way out of line with the actual findings of the Hites study" in the National Post, so it is not like Energy in Depth is the only one to question Carpenter. In any case, this is all a side show, since it's entirely possible to not make any reference to Carpenter. The appropriate thread is therefore over at the RS Noticeboard.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Guy et al. Mr. Dell has reinserted the allegations from the (biased) industry publication. Now the allegations do not contain the BLP name, but the source is unreliable and the implication against the individual is clear (and in the industry allegation). Thanks. HG | Talk 04:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"the implication against the individual is clear" is not true. The only reason we are here and not on the RS noticeboard is because of forum shopping. Repeating "source is unreliable" again and again is not going to make it so without some evidence and argument that the editors of everything from federal government presentations/handouts to industry journals to the Wall St Journal should have their editorial judgement replaced with a WIkipedian's judgement as to usability.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The source supports the claim about the publication, with no names mentioned. It does not support allegations of bias against the individual, for that we would require reliable independent sources that are properly qualified to make the statement, and make the statement in those terms. If you're not already aware of them,

novel synthesis from primary sources, find a reliable independent source that makes the same point you want to make, and attribute it. Guy (Help!

) 15:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Please see DIFF by Murry1975 (talk · contribs).
2. I had removed a sect from an article with completely unsourced info about
   WP:BLPs
   .
3. WP:BLUE" and because the "articles are linked"
   .
4. Last I heard,
   WP:V
   are policy.

— Cirt (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLUE is irrelevant - the colour of the sky is common knowledge, whereas who won an Academy award etc for a particular year isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely shouldn't be added back without adequate sourcing. GiantSnowman 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

All sources are available at the linked award pages, citation over kill for a page that has clear links.

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced"

How are actual facts contentious?

How is removing vast sections, linked to sourced pages, across multiple articles "improving" wikipedia?

Removing material, blanking when sources are available on the linked articles is actually disruptive. If the editor in question would like to improve rather than delete. Utter tautology. Murry1975 (talk)

No, Murry1975, refusing to use citations is disruptive. As for whether the material is contentious or not, put yourself in the shoes of the person that actually won the award. We have a serious problem with these unsourced award sections, and a lot of them consist of false information.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information is well-known and obvious, then it should be trivially easy to provide a reliable source for it. It's not "oversourcing" to provide such a citation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The My Left Foot artilce, is it contentious that Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar? Is it not counter productive that instead of drawing attention to the possible need for inline citations, the section is removed? Is it not counter productive that when an article is linked that instead of transferring inline cites that the accurate, neutral infomation is deleted? Common sense is meant to used. Murry1975 (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First, if they are sourced at the article for the award then the addition of the award to other articles is entirely appropriate. Per

WP:POINT of these removals is but they do not improve the encyclopedia. MarnetteD|Talk

19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added the unref section tag instead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

And based on the logic of blanking the whole section, then the article for 43rd British Academy Film Awards should be blanked too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A third of it sourced in 5 minutes. You can bow down and thank me later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me see, Lugnuts, you knowingly restore unsourced material about a living person after its been objected to and then expect thanks? I assume that you will accept this block warning instead. Never, ever, again, under any circumstance, should you restore uncited material about a living person to an article after it has been challenged for lack of sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please get off your high horse. What an attitude problem you have. I've added several sources to that article. How many have you added? None. What a hypocrite. Another admin who thinks they're better than the editors who actually do the legwork around here. Pathetic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Gone quiet now Kww, haven't you? Not surprising now you've been outted as a bully. Go on, take me to ANI about adding unsourced text with a ref needed tag. I dare you. If you think anyone who adds any unsourced info to an article is going to get blocked, then pretty much every one here is in the shit. Including plenty of admin lackeys. I bet your edit history is worth looking over while we're on the witch-hunt bandwagon. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with this comment by admin Kww. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

(

WP:CIVILITY, and threatening to block someone for good faith edits that improved the article is clearly not acceptable behavior. Calathan (talk

) 20:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, agree with admin

WP:BLP to a page. — Cirt (talk

) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not objecting to Kww complaining that Lugnuts added some of the information back in unsourced, or to Kww removing the unsourced portion again. What I feel is inappropriate is the block threat over what was a good faith edit that improved the article. It would have been even better for Lugnuts to add citations to the info in the same edit where he added it back in, but his actions were still helpful and certainly not something someone should be threatened with a block for. Calathan (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I can agree with that part. :) — Cirt (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)