Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive239

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

Jim Butcher

User 107.14.25.33 is continuously vandalizing page with defamatory information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Butcher&type=revision&diff=714502808&oldid=714502318

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.118.152 (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2016‎

The content has been removed and the page semi-protected by User:Bilby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Waleed Aly

The article states that Waleed Aly resigned from all positions at the ABC in 2015. I heard his broadcast at 11.30am on Thursday, 7 April 2016, as co-host (with Scott Stephens) of the ABC Radio National program "The Minefield."

Carolyn Simmons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.200.13 (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that he left ABC in December 2014 to become the permanent co-host of Channel Ten's The Project and returned in April 2015 to co-host The Minefield in addition to his role on The Project. I have added a couple of sources and updated the text. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hala Al Turk

She is singer from Bahrain (nationality:Bahraini ). But some user Dcirovict keeps changing her nationality to Hindi,Bangladesh. Also user Laval completely removed her biography from the page mentioning no reasons/proofs. Her current occupation is Student and Singer.Her father name is Mohammed Al Turk. As she got famous from live reality tv show Arab Got Talent you can find her correct biography easily from this show episodes.I have some links of the show where she introduced herself Hala Al Turk (Arab Got Talent) Hala Al Turk Biography in Arab Got Talent Please have a look at Hala Al Turk article and update it with correct biography.You can see her biography from her facebook and twitter account too.I can mention link if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khizer-abbas1996 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Tex Watson

This article, Tex Watson, needs some eyes. There are unsourced claims and potential BLP violations. The article has received some press recently and needs attention. Help is appreciated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Aguilar

This article is already marked for deletion, however in the mean time, it is an article without any reliable, verifiable sources on a living person or modicum of neutrality. I'm not bringing up issues of notability here, as I've written why I think this should be deleted in AfD. However, I do think this does not pass muster for a living person's biography and I encourage admins to look at the article with this in mind. TwoSpear 21:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoSpear (talk • contribs)

I don't believe you've accurately described the article. There are several valid citations there. I see no reason for any interference on the basis of BLP violations while the AfD is in process. If you have something specific in mind please list it here. But a quick scan of the article yields no reason for concern to my eye.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian Hanmore

Hi, I am Ian Hanmore, an actor based in Edinburgh, Scotland. For some years the Wikipedia entry which is featured on the results page on entering my name as a search, has my date of birth incorrectly stated as March 24 1945. My actual date of birth is October 16 1953). I have tried unsuccessfully to correct this on several occasions. Age is relevant when casting roles and this error may have resulted in my losing work. I would very much appreciate anyone's help with this. Ian Hanmore (username Kangeroover) Kangeroover (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ian - Wikipedia does not now have a date of birth on your article, has not had a date of birth on there since October, and even then it was the date that you provide. What you are seeing is a Google Knowledge Graph, which is not under Wikipedia control, but is actually fairly easy to request a fix on. See WP:FIXGOOGLE for details. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

David McNeill (journalist / Japanese page)

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I'm writing on behalf of a journalist and friend of mine based in Tokyo, David McNeill, who has recently become the target of right-wing trolls and ideologues over his coverage of sensitive issues, including whaling and comfort women. In addition to Facebook and Twitter, this smear/slander campaign has unfortunately escalated with the publication of a Wikipedia biography in Japanese [1].

This biography ignores Mr. McNeill's academic and journalistic credentials (PhD, work for The Economist and other established media, etc.), choosing instead to refer to a job at a "sausage factory". A section is dedicated to his "coverage stance", in essence claiming that his work is influenced by left-wing propaganda.

The "Sources" section also lists the personal blog of Mr. McNeill's "wife" (his ex-wife in fact), which is hardly relevant to his professional activities.

I believe the article violates several of Wikipedia's rules for living person biographies, and have tried to edit it ([2]) by essentially focusing on factual information and erasing the rest. Less than a week later, the article was edited back in its original form.

Neither Mr. McNeill nor myself can afford to engage in a time-consuming editing war against a group of well-organized persons. After reading several Wikipedia pages on BLP-related conflicts, I'm still not quite sure what's the best way to proceed, so here are my questions:

1. What are Mr. McNeill's options to protect himself from present and future attacks via Wikipedia? 2. Who can he contact to resolve this issue?

Thank you in advance for your time and advice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishaq76 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Mishaq76 the English Wikipedia doesn't have any pull with the Japanese Wikipedia. You need to take this issue up with them, | this page advises you to either speak with an admin over there or send them an email. You can also check Wikipedia's Embassy for individuals that can speak both English and Japanese , if you like. KoshVorlon 16:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Peebles

Richard Peebles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multiple IPs restoring unsourced trivial content and WP:BLP violations. May be ripe for protection, but first I'm asking for assistance, because it's clear that someone has no problem with edit warring on this. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and added some cites. I've also put a Notability tag on it as it's marginal. If it doesn't meet the standard it may be nominated for deletion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. At least now the critiques are properly sourced and presented in neutral--without the 'great disappointment to the United Kingdom'--crap. And notability does seem a bit tenuous. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Francis G. Slay

The article Francis G. Slay has been subjected to persistent disruptive editing by Illusion87. Beginning in March of this year, the user added a large amount of material in a new section, "Controversies During St. Louis Mayoral Term", trying to tie the article subject to all manner of negative events or disreputable behavior. I think that this is more or less obviously an attempt to slant the article against its subject. It certainly seems very dubious under BLP. The material added by Illusion87 has been removed, several times, firstly by user Goethean, and more recently by myself, but Illusion87 seems unwilling to take "no" for an answer, and seems intent on restoring the material no matter how many users remove it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The users need to stop edit warring and discuss the issue on the talk page. I've pinged an Admin and asked them look in on the situation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Illusion87 needs to give up and find something else to do. He has been reverted by three users now (one of them me), and no one is supporting his disruptive editing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Jan Norberger

Could you please review the content that I have added about Jan Norberger. I have cited wherever possible and based early life and RAAF service on discussions with Jan himself. I have visually cited his service record. There is currently a warning atop of the page questioning neutral POV. I do not believe any of the content is contentious or unverifiable beyond what I have mentioned.

MS Joondalup (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you've had discussions with him, then the COI tag still applies. Conversations with him are not verifiable, you need to stick to professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources with no connection to the subject but are still specifically about him, not Linkdin. All material requires citations to verify them, contentious or not. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian.thomson. I have replaced the citations that referred to LinkedIn with Parliamentary biographical and hansard citations as well as providing additional citations for the Early Life section which previously had now. I believe every paragraph and/or key sentence now has an independent citation. Would you be happy to review? MS Joondalup (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Dean Starr‎

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

New editor adding material from public records to support text about bankruptcy, etc. I've tried to make the point about WP:BLPPRIMARY, to no avail; I'm currently at the limit of 3RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Nicoletta Batini

I have come across the Wiki article for economist Nicoletta Batini, and found a slew of issues that likely violate Wikipedia's policy regarding neutrality and verifiability. The article itself seems to have been written by a biased supporter of Batini (or Batini herself) especially considering the page was written almost entirely by one "Aparadisi86", and contains a lot of unverifiable, poorly written, and subjective statements meant to serve a positive image of Batini herself. Examples are given below:

"She is currently rated among the 5% top most cited authors in economics worldwide (RePEc)." This section of her biography claims that she is one of the most cited authors of economic papers, yet lacks an easily accessible citation and only refers to the Wiki page for Research Papers in Economics.

"Quickly renown in the profession for her innovative ideas and publications on monetary policy practices and strategies, launched at prestigious international conferences of the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank..." This section, along with many others, appears to have a noticeable grammatical error, but the main issue is that it claims Batini is regarded as a widely renowned economist, but that statement lacks a citation. Even if it is true, it appears to be a very imbalanced statement.

"In 2003 she went on to work as a Senior Economist with the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C. where she led an era of new economic thinking within the Fund with pioneering work on global imbalances, inflation targeting in emerging markets and the macroeconomic impact of the world’s demographic change, all of which had lasting effects on the Fund’s policy approach towards advice and conditionality toward its members." This section appears to overstate her role by saying that a non-managing director economist within the IMF has led an era of new economic thinking, with lasting effects on policy.

"She is interviewed repeatedly by the media for her seminal work –the first to forcefully challenge, and eventually steer the Fund’s orthodox view on austerity—on the dangers of excessive fiscal austerity..." This section has three citations from news sites, but nevertheless this seems like a self-serving statement that cannot entirely be verified, especially regarding the phrases "seminal work" and "the first to forcefully challenge, and eventually steer..."

I can remove the material myself, but I would rather leave the maintenance of the article to a more capable and experienced volunteer, and I believe that because this article was written to create a falsely positive image of the subject, this is likely a larger issue of bias as opposed to just some bad fact sourcing.

71.191.144.176 (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

This could really benefit from the help of someone who can read Italian. Bradv 14:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke Harding

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

[3] has the (interesting) edit summary: "False claims by known petty obstructionist removed" Engleham

As my edit was intended to give proper weight to claims of fact supported by reliable sources only, I would ask that others examine the "false claims" I am so casually asserted to have made in the BLP, and to weigh the claims so often added to the biography.

Specifically those claims:

Harding's accounting of the events leading up to his failed entry into Russia and their possible justification have been called into question by numerous sources who state that Harding has aggrandised his perceived importance to the Russian state and its security services and attributes quotidian and unrelated occurrences to them sourced to an editorial column by Julian Assange and also to a wonderful source "spiked-online.com" which I do not believe is a strong reliable source for claims of fact.

Harding used to ply his trade taking credit for work by other Moscow-based journalists before his plagiarism was pointed out by The eXile's Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, from whom he had misappropriated entire paragraphs without alteration. For this he was awarded "plagiarist of the year" by Private Eye in 2007

where I suggest that "Private Eye"'s "award" is not generally considered to be of significance as a claim of fact. Any more than an award from MAD magazine would be. This section is presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice, which I suggest is specifically contrary to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP all at once.

I point out that my suggested content included removal of the satirical award. Collect (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jerry Pasley aka Two Tonys

What's obvious is that this is a COI contribution written with far-too-coincidental timing to its creator's upcoming book. A previous discussion which revealed possible BLP ramifications occurred here, but was quickly pooh-poohed as a conspiracy theory intended to sell another book rather than seriously discussed. The BLP issue would be in regard to the implied connection between Pasley's marriage to Pegge Begich and his claimed role in Nick Begich's disappearance. Another issue, not as obvious, is that Pasley's claimed mafia associates in Anchorage just happen to have the same last name as a current very prominent Anchorage businessman. It also states that one of those mafia associates was an active business partner of Nick Begich, Jr. in a jewelry store. The younger Begich would have been 17 at the time of the quoted story, which causes me to question how much of an active role he would have actually had, as opposed to perhaps being there simply to maintain the family's financial interests in the enterprise. Having grown up in Alaska in the 1970s and having read countless works about its history since, I can definitively state that mob influence in Alaska in the 1970s was very much a subject on the minds of many: the Anchorage Daily News won its first Pulitzer Prize for reporting on that very subject. However, this is a bit left-field in comparison to most of what I've read. As AFC reviewers appear more interested in blindly carrying out process than anything else and have a less than stellar record of recognizing problem content, including BLP violations, I felt it may be necessary for others to look all this over. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This article is still in draft space. Also, according to the article, Draft:Jerry Pasley aka Two Tonys died in 2010, meaning that the discussion doesn't belong on this page. Bradv 16:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

And? Draft space has largely been a massive waste of time solely because AFC has been allowed to take it over as their private plaything/dumping ground. Regardless, does that mean that I'm mistaken when I understand that BLP applies to all namespaces? If I didn't make it clear enough, the BLP issue here regards Pegge Begich and "Dr." Nick Begich (Jr.), plus perhaps other locally prominent persons in Anchorage, and the suggestion that not only were they (even if peripherally) associated with organized crime, but that this association extended to a role in the disappearances of two members of the United States Congress, one of whom was the husband and father of the aforementioned living people. Do I need to make that any clearer? That it's an obvious ploy to create a buzz for an upcoming book could perhaps be discussed elsewhere, as I'm not sure it qualifies for speedy deletion. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Postscript: There was a great deal of "cleansing" going on at Mark Begich during his reelection campaign two years ago. As so often happens, conveniently, no one brought up that Pegge Begich, Mark Begich and other members of the Begich family were spanked by the Federal Election Commission in 1984 over campaign finance improprieties related to her campaign against Don Young. I presume we're content to push the POV that Wikipedia = "The Church of What's Happening Now!" and something from 1984 is non-notable because it's from 1984, never mind that it's something which reflects negatively upon someone's sacred cow (in this case, a sacred cow both as a U.S. senator and as a popular Democrat). However, for all intents and purposes, the only reason we care about the Begiches is because they're a political family. So a long-ago episode directly related to their political career isn't relevant, but scandalous speculation about long-ago mob ties is relevant? Help me understand here. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Day

Can someone look at Brian Day, please? There has been a history of POV-pushing, and I think the current changes proposed by Kelseyboultbee (talk · contribs) are continuing this. She says in this diff that she's making the changes at the article subject's request. For example, the edit changes "laws that govern the Canadian Medicare system" to "laws that restrict Canadians from accessing healthcare outside of the Canadian Medicare system". This seems like pure POV-pushing on behalf of Brian Day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry that my edits are unclear. Brian Day requested that these changes be made so that there isn't such negative connotation and so the article is more balanced. He wants it to be clear that he's not advocating for only a private or 'for profit' system, but for a two-tiered, hybrid system. The only source I have is his document with the changes he requested. I'm just the messenger. Please consider making my edits permanent, as they reflect both the updated trial date, and his wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelseyboultbee (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you're reframing the debate in his favor. It could be that the article is skewed too far to the opposite side and is portraying him too negatively. I don't really know enough about the topic to say, and I think other people should look at the article. However, pushing it far toward Day's point of view (changing "laws that govern" to "laws that restrict", for example) is obviously not the right course of action. As far as I can see, we already say that he says he advocates for a hybrid system. Updated trial dates are fine, but we should try to properly sourced them. The other stuff, like saying that patients have died while the healthcare debate continues, also needs to be sourced and phrased neutrally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter Grant (music manager)

The offending edit is this [4] There are two issues. The first is that in the US the word 'assault' has legal connotations, no evidence exist that the subject of the phrase ever faced prosecution . Furthermore, sources differ on exactly what happened in this incident, the only thing universally acknowledged is that there was some confrontation, possibly only verbal, between the guard and the boy. Even the two Chris Welch biographies given as 'proof' of the text are somewhat equivocal on this matter. See the article's talk page for further info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B012:1AF:A16F:4B57:C3AD:775B (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I have altered it to conform to the related incidents in Binden and Richard Cole's biographies. Generally sources describe it as a slap/slapping (except where quoting Matzorkis' boss Graham who is obviously not impartial in the matter) rather than an assault which is a legalistic term. I assume Jim Matzorkis is still alive? Hence the BLP report. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Phil Mason

Mason's article is popular with SPAs. His fans and detractors regularly add drama to it. This looks like yet more YouTube drama that hasn't been covered by reliable sources. It's already been reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No the content sourced to Dramaalert and Youtube does not belong on a BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Danny Jordaan

For someone who is a relatively well-known local politician in South Africa, this article is very poorly referenced. As of the last check I made, there are only three references in the entire article and some sections have absolutely no citations whatsoever.SmallMossie (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was very poorly sourced. I've added several new reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Markus Gabriel

I just made this edit to remove a poorly sourced, contentious BLP allegation.

I noticed that the article's subject has entries on the Catalan, German, French, Spanish and Japanese versions of WP as well. With the exception of Spanish, I don't have the language skills to verify whether the same allegations are present, but I notice that the same problematic references are present on most of those articles. While writing this, I've noticed that the allegations have been restored to the English WP article already. In addition to fixing the EN-Wiki article, is there a way to address the issue on the other wikis?

It looks like there are at least several other subjects that might be vulnerable to accusations from the same individual, but I haven't looked into whether any of those have WP articles yet. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that user HARRYCRAIG is a WP:SPA here to right great wrongs, his only edits so far have been to the Gabriel article and yesterday (April 13) he created the article Gabriel Vacariu, which is also being edited now by another WP:SPA - Vacariu.bucharest, and this article (Vacariu) is a hot mess with WP:COPYVIO and probably a WP:COI as well. It all appears to be related to allegations of plagiarism which have apparently been de-bunked here - there are no plausible grounds to believe that Prof. Gabriel violated the standards of good scientific practice by making improper use of the ideas expressed in your published texts. This may need some admin attention.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: The article about Gabriel Vacariu is now listed at AfD. The copyvio has been removed and there have been no further attempts (so far) at re-inserting this allegation to Markus Gabriel.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Pich Sophea

I'm up to two reverts on this page so it's time to ask for help. The creator of the new Pich Sophea page seems dead set on maintaining their awfully written description of the Cambodian singer Pich Sophea, along with such gems as:

"Pich sophea was fallen down and started gain weight...During that year she was almost forget because of her fat body and the company has keep her song without any promote and let her down."
"The Legacy was become a first boy band of Rasmey Hang Meas, but their promote is fail. After fail promote of Legacy..."
"Pich Sophea was born in poor family. Her family situation was very bad. She dropped out high school and started to earn money to support her family. First she sold sugarcane juice, snail, and more, but that didn't give her enough money for her family."
"Before Khmer New year 2015 Pich Sophea was release her status that She will make only new original song, not copy from the other. And then She really gave her fan a high hope."

My approach was to basically blank everything, as I think it needs a complete rewrite. Creator reverts any changes. I'm awareof the fact that the page creator is likely not a native speaker of English-- the issue here is more the tenacious reverting of the page to its awafully written currrent condtion! Any help is appreciated. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted all the references which were dead links, blogs, wikis, etc. There's not a lot left actually referenced: essentially your stub was correct, but I'm taking smaller steps for the moment. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No sources have been added after 48 hours so I have now deleted the biography section. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And now the creator's back tryng to restore the old version. So it goes. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A double check requested

Just today, Jack McCullough, who had previously been convicted for murder in the Death of Maria Ridulph, has had that conviction overturned, with a new trial to be had. In checking, we had a disambiguation page for the name with "Jack McCullough (murderer)" as the redirect from that name (there's another Jack McCullough so disambiguation seems necessary). Being BOLD per BLP, I have deleted this redirect, reworded the entry at the Jack McCullough disambiguation page and instead provided the direct link to the death case, and removed one other instance where it was being used. I would like someone to double check if this was appropriate actions to take. I couldn't figure out of this McCullough really has any other "profession" that could be used to replace "murderer", so I felt it best simply not to have any redirect. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur that the actions described above were taken appropriately. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

James R. Schlesinger

Would an experienced BLP editor please take a look at this article? Seems quite under referenced for the negative things it says. Especially glaring is the large unreferenced section about the "real" reason for his dismissal. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: this person died in Spring 2014 but BLP guidelines should still apply.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe -- we should have sources for stuff like this in any event. But can we please not blank it -- the material is accurate (in my own recollection of the matter), and sources are surely available. In fact Woodward is indicated as the source here, even if not via the usual footnote presentation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Large portions of the article appear to have been cut and pasted from this source. It does not appear to be a mirror site but can someone check and make sure? I've tagged the article in the meantime.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the content in question (that you are referring to) came from a *.gov website, doesn't U.S. Government Works apply here (In practice, this means that much material on *.gov and *.mil, as well as material on some *.us web sites (such as the sites of the U.S. Forest Service), are in the public domain). If an article and/or other content on a *.gov website is authored by someone other than an employee, they are required to place a copyrighted notice on the page, I didn't see one here on Schlesinger's page.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It may be public domain, and thus not a copyvio, but it's still plagiarism and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The article should be rewritten to avoid the direct copy, or at least attributed to its source in quotations.

The section in question consists of three paragraphs. The first and last are direct copies from the US Gov source Keithbob mentioned. The second paragraph, however, caught my attention because of the odd quote, which had a few too many ellipses for my comfort. The quotes seems to have been cherry picked and spliced together, and the rest of the paragraph looks like rather close paraphrasing of this book. (A little too close for my comfort.) That should probably be checked for copyvio. Zaereth (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

siim kallas

BLP of Siim Kallas is under censorship by WP user Nug, so much so that it does raise eyebrows and makes me think of concerted action with a clear prejudice towards the presentation of Siim Kallas as a successful candidate at Estonian presidential elections 2016.

Although presidential elections in Estonia do not allow self-presentation as a candidate, but requires 21 pro-votes in a 101 seat parliament Riigikogu, Siim Kallas has recently (on 16/04/16) announced that he consideres himself a candidate.

http://balticbusinessnews.com/article/2016/4/18/siim-kallas-launches-presidential-bid

Earlier in 2015, leading newspapers in Estonia announced that Kallas has hired a PR-company to help him.

http://www.aripaev.ee/uudised/2015/03/27/siim-kallas-palkas-appi-pr-firma

I wish that a wider board of trusted WP experts would have a look at the recent history of Siim Kallas WP-page and put extra attention on the section "Criticisms and drawbacks".

Perhaps information that has been provided about Kallas past should be covered. At present, I suspect that the article is a mere copy of Kallas´ biography from European Commission home page. If not literally, then, with a few additions, in spirit.

Gratia!

PS: Here is a link to the article in Estonian Wikipedia (in Estonian) that covers one of the court cases that user:NUG does not see worth to mention.

https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_miljoni_dollari_af%C3%A4%C3%A4r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeliskaldalu (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

MeelisKaldalu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeliskaldalu (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Melliskaldalu were you editing | as an IP on that article, as I don't see you editing under your current name. If that I.P edit was yours, I'd have to say that Nug is correct. The article needs to have reliable sources, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for itself, so your et.wikipedia reference is gone, one of the sources doesn't mention Siim Kallas by name, so it can't be used, the next one doesn't mention his involvement in what you state he is involved with, some look to be unreliable as well, so no, it's not censorship, it's simply following WP:BLP. KoshVorlon 17:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Pete Zorn

2600:380:1945:98A0:A14E:3C66:FF19:E18C‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has thrice today added the claim that musician Pete Zorn died, but hasn't provided a source. Absent that (and google doesn't find anything), I've reverted and told the IP that a source is mandatory. My feeling is that an unsourced claim of a BLP's death falls squarely within WP:NOT3RR, but nevertheless I'd appreciate it if some others could watch the article for a day or two. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for any news reports. I've reverted again because it's sourced to FaceBook. David in DC (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Pete has surely passed and that facebook page is clearly correct, its sad and a shame that we can't report that. https://www.facebook.com/PeteZorn01/?fref=nf - see also - http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/pete-zorn-multi-instrumentalist-passed-away-in-his-sleep-this-morning.527846/ - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper, so we can't do the OR needed to report this properly. Facebook and forums just won't do. If it just happened this morning, then it will probably be reported soon, but we don't need to try and scoop anyone. When it's printed in a reliable source, then we can add it. Zaereth (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Zaereth It's not a scoop its more about respect. Also, his notability is limited (see the current reliable sourcing on the biography, about zero, this is the only dead link http://www.richardthompson-music.com/catch_of_the_day.asp?id=149) its possible no WP:RS will report his death. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is deletion a better option than being unable to report his death? Govindaharihari (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. If you do a google search, there are plenty of reliable sources to use to improve the article. If the sources are easy to find, but not yet in the article, policy says we don't delete. I've found an obit on a quasi-reliable source (a site that does online music journalism through a current events blog). But the only source IT cites is the family's Facebook post. In a few hours, more conventional journalism sites and periodicals will be putting out obits that will make improving this article a cinch. David in DC (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Ok, thanks David in DC, lets hope so. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Rakesh Khurana

The "controversy" section is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.252.226.105 (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the undue weight and bias and also removed a lot of promotional tone and tagged unsourced content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up even further and put a notability/primary source tag on it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Shauna Garr

A revdel may be warranted for at least the edit summaries of the following:

[5] [6]

The stated reference is spurious and the accusations speak for themselves. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You've removed the objectionable content what are you asking from the BLPN? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the edit summaries, which repeat the offensive content. I apologize if I wasn't clear about that above. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The vandalism is now being restored by IP user 66.87.117.70; please advise if there is a different venue through which to request a block. I'm really unsure at this point whether this is an AIV, page-protection, or AN-I issue, or if it appropriately belongs here, as I've not dealt with this issue before. Thanks. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I have semi protected and rev-del as needed. If anything addition needs to be done let us know. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Adler

LAEditor83 (myself) works for Lindsay and I'm updating her wikipedia page to reflect her current status, career changes and overall update the information listed. However I noticed after making a couple edits they were "undone" and reverted back to her original page. I don't understand why.. and i've already messaged the two people who have made the changes. So can someone help me understand? I have stuck to the guidelines... 22:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)LAeditor83 (talk)

This edit comes nowhere near sticking to our guidelines. It inserts a bunch of promotional phrasing making it look more like a hype piece than an encyclopedia entry; it violates copyright because it is copied from here; it adds a second "official" site when our standards say to have just one; and it's insertion by a paid editor who had not previously disclosed that status under the guidelines at WP:PAID. I realize that you're new to Wikipedia - I heartily suggest that you review WP:PAID before you do any further editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

(Darn edit conflict...) My reply pretty much mirrors Nat's. Sorry, but that edit was not even close to the guidelines and policies. Please read through the tutorial that someone left on your talk page. All content needs to be cited to a reliable source. The edit you made was very promotional in its language and tone, and not at all neutral. The writing style was more like a Facebook profile or advertisement rather than written in encyclopedic style. In short, it was not at all within the guidelines specified in the links I just provided.

Also, you may wish to read our policy on conflict of interest. We discourage people from making changes to articles where personal affiliations make it difficult to edit in a neutral way. Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary

I need some advice on this. Back in 2013 I created Caleb Lawrence McGillvary Kai the Hitchhiker) shortly after he was arrested for murder, as I figured he'd pass notability guidelines. It was nominated for AfD by NorthBySouthBaranof and their concern was that Kai was only notable for one event, since the murder allegations were just that and he hadn't gone to trial yet.

Cut forward to 2016 and there's no trial and I actually have to say that now I've kind of changed my mind on this since all of this essentially happened in the same year within a span of a few months. (The hatchet video happened in February, the murder allegations in March.) All coverage since that point has been over the allegations, which I'm not certain would really be usable per notability guidelines, especially since the coverage has slowed to a trickle after 2013/4 for the most part.

I'm kind of thinking that it'd be best to send this back to my userspace, but I'm not entirely certain about that so I thought I'd ask here before anything else. I know that if there'd be a good consensus to move it to the draftspace, it'd have to go through AfD again and I'd rather that we get prepared for that since that leads to my next point:

Right now this article is regularly watched and edited by Kai fans and looking at the edit history, it looks like there has been at least one clear COI account on the article. If this is to be kept it'll need to be heavily pruned for unsourced and WP:SOAPBOX material. This leads to another problem: if this is renominated for deletion there's a strong chance that there would be people coming in from the outside to weigh in, so there'd need to be some preparation because they likely wouldn't understand policy. My reason for stating that is that we'd have to have a good argument for deletion that they could understand, so they don't think that this is just an arbitrary thing.

What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

So basically, NBSB, if you (or anyone else) want to renominate it then I'd endorse it and ask for it to be draftified. I could renominate it myself but I really want to make sure that this would be something that should go to AfD. I'll ping DGG since he's a good judge of borderline cases like this and I can use some good advice. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

no lasting importance. Let me know if there's a AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You interested in going in on an AfD with me? I want to get a good rationale written because again, I'm expecting some pushback with the article if we do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Shirley Phelps inaccuracy

Shirley Phelps

In this article, under the "Career" tab and the "Racial views" subtab, the artcle makes a reference to the subject's Twitter account, but the account listed is incorrect and is a parody account, @DearShirley. The parody Twitter account has been used to fallaciously reference the subject's (Shirley Phelps') racial views and should be removed because it is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbennett16 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Without any evidence that the account in question is operated by the biographical subject, it's not an appropriate source for Wikipedia biographies. I've removed the disputed material. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Name of illegitimate non-notable son removed. Collect (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Clare Short

I have tried to correct the misleading claim on MPs expenses provided by citing the misleading Telegraph report that suggests that there was misbehaviour when this was not true. My attempts to do this have been deleted. I am afraid I have also made a... Please see my amendment to expenses section of bio of me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortclare (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded some of the info and culled a bit of the trivial details. I would like some other BLP regulars to take a look, I would say the entire section even is not really a notable event in relation to Clare Short to be honest. The expenses issue in general *was* notable, but not necessarily individual MP's amounts claimed. Over-claiming and then repaying back 3 years prior to the expose does not seem that a big a deal, likewise the actual amount claimed was not excessively large, and from a brief check, didnt appear to be on on frivolous things like Duck Houses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at other examples where trivia has been included in the apparent attempt to tar people with "expense cheating" for what should be of de minimis import. Collect (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I generally remove the specifics (So and so claimed 500 for a new kitchen) and so on unless its clearly something that had a lot of attention (see Peter Viggers 'duck island') Its more the question of 'Is this a significant enough event for the individual to justify mentioning the expenses issue?' In Viggers case, I would say yes. For Clare Short, I would say no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In terms of WP:UNDUE, the test should be significant coverage in RS. A single article at the time of the the expenses scandal does not merit this section or content. Martinlc (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Saran Kaba Jones

Saran Kaba Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A press release about a wonderful person and organization, alas. I came across this just after an IP account added copyright violation text, and an apparent COI account began to make minor edits. A lot of this is unsourced and reads as promotional for her organization, and what is sourced appears to be nearly identical to content seen elsewhere, primarily the subject's bio here [7]. I've made some edits, added tags, and raised the issue at the article's talk page. In 2013 Moonriddengirl removed some copyright violations, but I suspect there are further issues here. Some help will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa

I raised this issue before in January, and the page was deleted. However, it looks like he's created yet another page for himself. He's not notable in any way, and every citation he's listed refers to an ridiculous offer he made to somebody to acquire some sort of property when he doesn't have any of the funding to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.236.6 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Education of the British Royal Family

Some additional eyes on this article - Education of the British Royal Family - would be appreciated. It is an article about a celebrity family and seems to have attracted a lot of disruptive whitewashing from fans invoking BLP as some kind-of silver bullet to obfuscate sourced material. LavaBaron (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Jensen

The words "liberal idiot" seem a bit subjective to me. And I am not sure the reference to being a transvestite belongs in the first line. 96.229.104.192 (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, it was a week-old vandalism [8], now reverted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deborah_fenech_de_fremaux

Not quite a G10 attack page, but a very dodgily sourced article alleging fraud on the part of Ms Fenech de Fremaux. astro (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by Keegan (CSD G10: Attack page) nonetheless. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati

On this page it is stated he is a "is a comparative pathologist and HIV/AIDS denialist, and member of the board of Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives" On the citation listed for this quote there is nothing regarding Mohammed Al-Bayati being a denailist or refers to his association with the Alive and Well AIDS Alternatives. The lead section is not adequately developed. I tried developing it and doing a unbiased overview of this is person was, but a user deleted all of my work. The lead section has a story of a young girls court case. But that does not belong there, that should be added in a court case heading or elsewhere. Also the source listed for that story does not state Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati was involved in the death, it says he worked for that case.

I believe this individuals page was created by someone who did not like his research or who he was. It has a very negative connotation to it.

Thank you!Fatimaalkh (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Tim D'Annunzio

This page is about me and contains incorrect information about the district I am running in and the name of my opponent. It also later make many poorly sourced assertions which the author admits are "alleged." Many of the statement are libelous and should be removed as they add nothing of value to the page. These are political attacks by political enemies and in the spirit of fairness should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideliketherestofthem (talk • contribs) 21:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The page has been put up for WP:AFD here. Meatsgains (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad_Iqbal_Chaudhary

Muhammad Iqbal Choudhary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We believe this article is inappropriate for hosting on Wikipedia. It is based on insufficient or incorrect information to give fame or credence to a person who is not deserving, the high importance tag attached to the article is not appropriate.

This gentleman is one of many many professors in the country, though perhaps in a more favorable political position, seeing the awards which government has bestowed upon him, while no international award has been given to him by any international reputed body like IUPAC, ACS, RSC, etc.

1. There are no references cited for the claim on first line, nor for the second line "He is renowned for his research in the various areas relating to natural product chemistry." In our knowledge he is not among the leading scientists and scholars in the field of organic chemistry in Pakistan, nor overseas. There is no major scientific finding or discovery attributed to him.

2. This article has a lot of information which seems to be incorrect, as can be seen on following lines in the article.

3. The Royal Society of Chemistry has no awards with such names as is claimed to be bestowed upon this person in the article. These are political awards by the government of Pakistan which are based on nominations by bureaucrats.

4. He is not a visiting professor with any of the universities as mentioned in the article. As regards the University of Rhode Island, the link given in the reference is not correct. All other references just pertain to his visits to those universities, not his appointment there as visiting professor.

5. He is not a recipient of any Fulbright scholarship or fellowship, there is no reference for the claim given. He did his Masters and PhD from Pakistan not from the U.S., as the page states.

6. He is not a fellow of Royal Society of Chemistry. The reference used for this purpose is misleading. It just leads to a search of papers in which his name appears. No announcement of his fellowship is there.

7. The publications as referred to in the page are not from any leading journal of chemistry or organic chemistry, not even a single of them.

On the basis of all this, it may be concluded that this page has insufficient basis and incorrect data to substantiate its existence on the Wiki pages, and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhshah7 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Who are you referring to when you say "we"? No doubt the page needs additional sources for verification and is promotional. Meatsgains (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The page is poorly written and needs copyediting and a trim of some of the puff, but the subject is clearly notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

--202.134.9.146 (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Peckham Boys

This article is about a London gang. It contains a long list of gang members' names, none of which are referenced. Should the whole lot be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo Bill (talk • contribs) 18:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be removed if unsourced. Looks like it has since been deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Terry Brennan

Paul Horning was not the only Heisman trophy winner to come from a losing team. The first winner, Jay Berwagner. University of Chicago, was from a losing team. See Wikipedia article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.218.244.246 (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced detail for now (slightly off-topic anyway), but the whole article needs more references and a cleanup of the informal tone - from someone interested in American football in the 50s. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Accusations of infidelity

Singer Axl Rose briefly dated model Stephanie Seymour in the 1990s. Opinions are needed on whether or not Rose's article should include accusations of infidelity he made against Seymour. Please comment here. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a worse issue at the Seymour article, which I removed[9] per WP:BLPCRIME. The assault accusations each made against the other were civil, but the act itself is criminal, and anyway, for a not terribly famous actress / model to have a significant part of her biography devoted to 20-year-old unproven allegations of domestic violence with an ex boyfriend isn't good. If the infidelity accusation gets removed from his article it should be removed from hers too, perhaps it should be removed regardless — Wikidemon (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Arun Pathak

I recently closed an AFD for the article Arun Pathak. The nomination contained what I considered inappropriate content, but I feel the nominator may have a legitimate concern about balance in this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Pathak has been courtesy blanked, but the nomination and brief discussion are available for viewing in the page's history. This BLP is about someone who appears to be a very controversial public figure and it seems to be the work primarily of several SPAs and therefore may not be appropriately balanced. It could use the scrutiny an independent editor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sam Pepper

I submitted a hook for Sam Pepper on DYK and originally, it was accepted to be published onto the main page, until it was taken off prep due to BLP concerns. Now, the article does indeed contain many controversial information due to the subject being involved in controversial acts. But, all info containing controversial and somewhat negative facts are heavily sourced, as it made many major media headlines, thus passing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. This also shows that it contains no original research and is completely verifiable. The concern made was the article being too negative, which I do not understand how. Yes, many of the info may be negative due to the subject being controversial, making the article contain a lot of info on the acts connected to the subject. Yet, I feel that there is no way that the article is as negative as it was perceived to where the DYK submission was put on hold due to the concerns. When I replied the concerns, a suggestion was to address them here in order to see whether or not a DYK submission is okay. I hope to have a response back and please address anything in the article to improve NPOV whatsoever. Sekyaw (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Would be helpful to link the current or previous DYK nomination page. MPS1992 (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Here it is. Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Pepper Sekyaw (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Well, I am going to address the concerns here for now, since it's not clear where they should be addressed. Please feel free to refer people elsewhere to my comments here and any replies you make to them, obviously.

" In 2014, Pepper faced controversy after..." and the parts after that up until the next paragraph break, are not clear as to whether they are sourced by the inline citations afterwards or not. This should be clarified. But, maybe we don't need to emphasise or dwell on what people thought was happening there? It is all in rather bad taste so hmm.

Another problem is your proposed Did You Know? hooks. The first is unspeakably boring and thus (in my personal opinion) does not qualify for Did You Know? The second is nearly as boring. The third is a BLP problem or a neutrality problem. Wouldn't it just be easier to go make an article about some other guy?

And then you have the descriptions of the events and videos and controversies. Many of us would regard this as promotional. Personally I repeat my earlier advice, I don't think this should go on the front page of Wikipedia. But, if you have enjoyed the experience of creating, defending, and expanding your first Wikipedia article, then I encourage you to create more, and some of those will indeed hit the main page. MPS1992 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Perry Noble

Perry Noble is the pastor of the NewSpring Church, a megachurch in South Carolina that is one of the largest churches in the Southern Baptist Convention. A new editor has made repeated edits asserting, in Wikipedia's voice,that Noble is (among other things) an "advocate of Fascism" or "Christian Fascism". [10][11][12]. In connection with their most recent edit, the editor left a message on my talk page asserting that these edits are "objective and factual" and that they would "ensure that an accurate objective description of Perry noble is represented". Additional scrutiny and opinions from those familiar with Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy is needed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Steven R. Karp

Please note that the title used for the bio is incorrect - It should be Stephen R. Karp, as spelled in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debbieblack (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I moved Steven R. Karp to Stephen R. Karp. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Nur Misuari

The grammar on the page indicates the writer's first language is not English. Many readers will be confused by it, I think. Needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whiteram711 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey

Is very heavily sourced to "entertainment mags" and "gossip columns" at best.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/lolita-in-the-hood-20140505-37r6n.html , http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/07-04-08.htm%7C, http://blurtonline.com/feature/girl-interrupted-lizzy-grant-becomes-lana-del-rey-2/ , https://www.reddit.com/r/lanadelrey/comments/3o8zxm/honeymoon_album_sales_figures/ , http://www.popmatters.com/feature/183202-a-tragedy-wanting-to-happen-death-and-lana-del-rey/ , a genealogy book Joseph and Mary Dale and their descendants, http://www.nylonmag.com/articles/lana-del-rey-interview-nylon# , http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/lana-del-rey-interview , http://theblemish.com/2012/09/lana-del-rey-goes-nude-in-gqs-men-of-the-year-issue/ , http://idolator.com/7111852/lana-del-rey-ride-video-premiere and so on appear to be poor sources per WP:RS and WP:BLP. IMO. Collect (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate image?

Anyone want to weigh in on whether or not this is an appropriate image for a Wikipedia article? See: Talk:Grey DeLisle#Appropriate image?. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hellmut Haase

In the Selected Works, the entry "Bombing Hitler" should contain "William Odom, Translator." See Amazon listing: http://www.amazon.com/Bombing-Hitler-Almost-Assassinated-Führer/dp/1616087412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461689652&sr=1-1

In the listing "Johann Georg Elser," item 5 under References generally garbled and should contain the basic info on the book (see Amazon link above) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamodom (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue, but I've gone ahead and added a full citation and a link to google books for both instances anyway. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Tom Brady

An appeals court reversed an earlier court decision to block Tom Brady's suspension, and that hit the news today. Part of the problem is the news services, every sports reporter in the U.S. is competing on writing a flashy headline without bothering to worry about accuracy. The salient points, which are repeatedly being ignored in the frantic efforts to change the page are:

Appeals courts do not order player suspensions. This panel lifted a blocking order from Berman, a lower court judge.
The reversal allows the NFL to re-impose the suspension, but it has not done so yet.
Even if/when the NFL re-imposes the suspension, it doesn't change the player's status in the off-season or pre-season. Brady remains "active" at this time.
If/when the NFL re-imposes the suspension, it probably will be the first four games of the season, but predicting that is WP:CRYSTALBALL.

One of the few articles which actually discussed the mechanics, here, comments: It's not immediately clear what the NFL will do next. The league potentially could reinstate the suspension, but Goodell has not commented publicly on the case since before Super Bowl 50, and he would not say then whether the four-game ban would be imposed if the league wins on appeal.

At this point, I've reached 3RR, I can't intervene any more. Not that it seems to matter, none of the various editors seems to be reading talk pages or edit comments. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The decision is an order to remand - so technically the court did not rule on a suspension occurring, only that a decision that the process was flawed was overturned. Collect (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Chloé Valdary

self-published, does not avoid avoid victimization, i dont see the point in this page, it reads like a PR release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:C300:2F80:F2B4:79FF:FE1E:E44D (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Great catch! I'm doing overtime tonight patrolling puff-piece corporate and celebrity bios by publicists (see above). I'll try to get to this in a bit. LavaBaron (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vox Day

Vox Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RedRumMage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There seems to be a recent effort by the above user (and some IPs that may be the same person) to claim that this person is a white supremacist, with what appears to be wholly inadequate sourcing. I would tackle the cleanup myself but there have been several edits by several editors and some may be good edits, so the BLP vios can't be cleared with a simple "undo", and I just don't have the time right now. I have requested page semiprotection. Kelly ^hi! 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources where people claim his views and opinions are white supremacist, likewise there are plenty of primary sources (posts by the subject) that when read by the reasonable person, appear to state white supremacist views. What there is not is reliable sources that outright describe him as a white supremacist, which would allow us to name him as such in the lede in wiki voice. As such I have removed that part as a BLP violation. If anything the section on his views on women needs to be expanded, as there are certainly plenty of material both primary and secondary that address that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Kevin McCall

The Personal Life section of this article is not written professionally and does not have any relevant links attached. I don't believe this section is up to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CEEC:99F0:B410:C552:D868:9AAD (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed some facts without sources there, and I've updated the section to reflect the source. Mrtea (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice Weight

This is not a dispute resolution noticeboard. Please take your dispute to WP:DRN. Thank you.

Surtsicna has been blanking a section [13] on Princess Beatrice of York's long and well-documented struggles with weight gain on the grounds that we only mention a BLPs weight, no matter how well-sourced to RS and significantly covered, if they are in the performing arts (though, as a producer for Sony Pictures, Beatrice would presumably qualify). Should this be included in this article or should WP only chronicle a glamorous, faultless version of Beatrice?

Basically, is it important that WP establish that obesity is a disease of poor people who, like animals, lack any self-control and simply breed, eat, repeat? Meanwhile, should WP preserve a faultless and burnished appearance of the ruling celebrity family (whose majesty brightens our meaningless existence) by purging unflattering facts published in treacherous, disloyal media like The Independent, the Belfast Telegraph, Yahoo News, the Huffington Post, etc.? LavaBaron (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You are deliberately distorting my arguments, but then again, that has been your strategy since this issue was brought up on Talk:Princess Beatrice of York by a third party. Your insinuation that being overweight makes a person faulty (stating that we are presenting Beatrice as faultless by ignoring her supposed weight problems) is quite sickening, to be honest. And so is everything that you wrote in the second paragraph. How you managed to connect Wikipedia's ignorance of tabloid gossip about a hardly notable princess's weight to poor people lacking self-control and breeding is beyond comprehension. It does, however, illustrate what you are trying to achieve on Wikipedia, especially when one remembers that you recently created a fork article called Scandals of Prince Harry. Surtsicna (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, The Independent, the Belfast Telegraph, Yahoo News, are not tabloids. If you think they are, why don't you inquire at the RS noticeboard? I'm sure they'd be happy to set you straight. We don't censor WP because Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, or Beatrice York, might not find their bio as flattering as they'd wish. Your history of creating candy-cane puff-piece bios on crowned celebrities like Prince Stefan of Liechtenstein and Maria-Pia Kothbauer seems to show what you're hoping to achieve on WP. Unfortunately, a biography is a person's life story - good, bad, and ugly. LavaBaron (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing "unflattering", "bad" or "ugly" about being size 10. Chew on that for a bit. An article deliberating on how well someone wore a swimming suit on a private vacation is, by definition, tabloid journalism. Now, my articles about ambassadors ("crowned celebrities"?) Prince Stefan of Liechtenstein and Maria-Pia Kothbauer have both been judged good enough to appear on the main page, while your attempt to place Scandals of Prince Harry on the main page ended with the article being deleted. So either I have already achieved my sinister goal of keeping this encyclopedia free of non-encyclopedic cruft or that's what Wikipedia has always been. And always will be. Surtsicna (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. There is nothing unflattering about being size 10. It's not a big deal to include it if we reference it appropriately and it's not undue. And I have had many, many articles on the main page. Let's not have a "whose is bigger?" contest. I'm trying to clean up all these fanboy, celeb articles. I've already had to nominate the image of Beatrice for deletion (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Beatrice_with_Dave_Clark.jpg) because it is in violation of copyright and this celebrity's fans seem to be taking a lot of shortcuts with this article, like not including information about her weight struggles and uploading copyright-violating pictures. Let's work collaboratively to improve WP instead of trying to buff-up the Wiki-CVs of our favorite celebs. Okay? LavaBaron (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is undue because this woman's measurements have no impact on that for which she is notable. Wearing a swastika has an impact when the person's task is to represent the country (and possibly to be at its head); being perceived as overweight does not. No, you are not trying to clean up anything. You recently created an article about the education of the British Royal Family, where you made a great effort to portray the whole bunch as purely dumb: the Queen as poorly educated as a housewife (again, distasteful comparison), her father as a drop-out, her daughter-in-law as "thick as a plank" (?!), etc. In your endeavour to compile evidence of them being dumb, you went as far down as the "unintelligent" George of Denmark. Then you explained that even those that do have degrees did not earn them properly. [14] That's just bizarre. Oh, and the image is perfectly fine - as confirmed by the FlickreviewR robot. Thanks for taking interest, though. Surtsicna (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Update - in trying to clean-up some of the shortcuts this celebrity's fans have taken with this article, like obfuscating relevant biographical information about her weight struggles, etc., it seems Surtsicna specifically has been uploading unfree images. I've nominated the main infobox image for deletion here (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Beatrice_with_Dave_Clark.jpg). These shortcuts (I'm AGF that's all it was) underscore a bit of my concern with Surtsicna's editing on this article; his apparent intent to push through glamor and flattery regardless of our policies on intellectual property, copyright, and WP:NPOV. I'll start combing through the rest of the images he's uploaded; if anyone wants to help, please feel free to join in. This might take a bit of teamwork to review all of them. LavaBaron (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, lol. Your crusade is getting out of hands. Surtsicna (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Surtsicna, but we take copyvio seriously. It's important we respect others work, particularly visual images. You should feel free to contribute original work, however. I'm sorry you're so upset but I hope you understand no one is trying to "get" you, we're trying to ensure compliance with our policies regarding NPOV and IP. LavaBaron (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean we cannot steal images? Oh shoots! What about text? Surtsicna (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct. The image has now been deleted from the Commons as an unfree image [15]. Please just be a bit more careful in the future. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Include Weight Struggles if Consistently Documented to RS?

Additional input on this RfC would be appreciated. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cindy Brogdon

Please consider revdeling the tomfoolery reflected at [16]. Much appreciated. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, and vandal blocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Laura Jane Grace

There seems to be a split among editors on how to handle the subject's coming out as transgender, specifically references to Grace's birth name, which she used professionally for more than a decade. While it's a dispute that's quietly been edited on the page since 2012, one user in particular has been pushing to remove all reference to the subject's pre-transition name, as he believes it is "Dead Naming" and "abusive". It simply has no precedent, and is constantly removing relevant, neutral information from the article. --Spence The Chef (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization ^Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Doug Burgum

The article regarding Doug Burgum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Burgum) has been edited to include a personal comment from a contributor in the first paragraph of the page regarding Doug Burgum's campaign for Governor:

"He is against the affordable care act so much that I have had to watch his campaign video about ten times on t.v. and three times on youtube.com. This was just today. 4/21/16. He really has it in for Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem."

It should be removed and the page returned to its content prior to the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B047:F44:5811:8512:1558:430C (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment appears to have been removed.[17] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request

Could someone with the proper powers deal with this?? Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

rafael cruz

Well I had edit privileges but now I do not after updating Rafael Cruz wiki.

I have a number of issue on the talk page but do not want to or can't easily make IGF corrections presently.

Newest issue I just saw was it states that "Cruz" (meaning son, but not stated clearly) did not believe Castro was a a Communist as a teenager. Well 1st nobody really knew till '61 and he did not turn on the Revolution or Castro till after he returned from a visit in '59 when he was 20 years old and not a teenager.

I was surprised to see how easy it is to edit, with edit capabilities and not have to resort to edit source. I could see myself catching the wiki bug as it is fun to research and edit, especially where is it really needed.

I understand that edit of living persons is sensitive but having NPOV and accurate info is also important.

Currently editors for Rafael Cruz seem to no be presenting a balanced view. I would welcome some help and a review of my edit ability. I would like to see more improvements but do not want to edit war, especially using edit source.Redtobelieve (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Chi-Huey Wong

I have an apparent COI so I'm hesitant to make any changes directly, but would appreciate if someone would take a look at these recent edits that appear to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Best, Andrew Su (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Done - Agreed. Reverted, watchlisted, user cautioned. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Mee Moua

--WD2002 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC) I have a COI so I rather not make changes directly, but would appreciate if someone would take a look at the multiple edits from user MNTaxPayer that appear to violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

^[1] The edits by the author appear to be exclusively opposition research on the subject whom is no longer in public service.

I appreciate the consideration WD2002 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree; there is significant information which has absolutely no business in an encyclopedia biography, particularly public-record-sourced deep-diving into her personal finances. I have cleaned up and removed a number of public record sources per WP:BLPPRIMARY - if a reliable source hasn't written about it, we don't care. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "Page History".

Taffy Nivert

The last paragraph is incorrect. Taffy moved to Florida in 2013. http://patch.com/florida/safetyharbor/grammy-winner-taffy-nivert-settles-in-safety-harbor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.164.164 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Done. You may of course further edit the article yourself. Fences&Windows 07:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brian Preski

Upon receiving the monthly Pennsylvania Bar Attorney e-Newsletter for April 2016, I read an article reporting the disbarment of attorney Brian Preski. Mr. Preski was disbarred following his conviction on charges "of three counts of conflict of interest, two counts of theft of services, and five counts of criminal conspiracy, and sentenced to twenty-four to forty-eight months’ imprisonment, a five-year term of probation, a $37,500 fine, and $1,000,000 in restitution."

When I searched for information on Mr. Preski, I read what appeared to be a self-authored page on his accomplishments and activities. Frankly, instead of serving as a source of current information for which I normally rely on Wikipedia, this appeared to be a business advertisement. This is especially misleading given the fact that Mr. Preski was convicted and sentenced to confinement for crimes that would clearly dissuade anyone from engaging in business with him.

I modified the page adding only information contained in the Pennsylvania Bar's notice of disbarment. Within twelve hours, however, that information had already been removed, restoring the page to the advertisement-like content it contained upon my first reading.

I seek Wikipedia's amendment of the page to include the following information, contained in the Pennsylvania Bar's report, copied here in its entirety:

"On March 29, 2016, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania published an opinion in the disciplinary case of Brian J. Preski. Most disciplinary actions are decided by per curiam orders, so the publication of an opinion merits the attention to those who follow professional responsibility law in Pennsylvania.

"Preski served as the chief of staff to Rep. John Perzel, former Speaker and Majority Leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He was charged with numerous crimes relating to diversion of public funds to political campaign operations. Preski was convicted of three counts of conflict of interest, two counts of theft of services, and five counts of criminal conspiracy, and sentenced to twenty-four to forty-eight months’ imprisonment, a five-year term of probation, a $37,500 fine, and $1,000,000 in restitution.

"The Disciplinary Board found that Preski violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(b), which states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, with numerous aggravating factors. It recommended disbarment, citing Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jeff Foreman, a 2014 case arising from a public corruption conviction which resulted in disbarment.

"Preski filed a petition for review, arguing that disbarment was not warranted under the circumstances. The Supreme Court found that more mitigating evidence was present in the Foreman case, which still resulted in disbarment. The Court found that although Preski stated at one point that he took responsibility for his misconduct, he made statements at other times which tended to minimize his responsibility and accountability for the actions, and misstated his role in the conspiracy and a company he founded to profit from the actions. The Court also rejected an argument that because he was not acting as a lawyer at the time of his conduct, his conduct did not reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. The Court determined that disbarment was necessary to underscore the significance of public corruption cases.

"Chief Justice Saylor dissented without opinion, expressing a preference for a five-year suspension."

Once the requested changes are made, I ask that unless and until Mr. Preski's conviction is overturned by an appellate court, that page be locked from further changes, to prevent publicly-available information being once again culled from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.101.193 (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is written in a self-promotional tone and could use some pruning to remove the fluff, but you can not add this information like you did here without supplying a reliable source for that info. You need secondary sources that specifically address this issue in order for this info to be included. Here's an example of the kind of sourcing you need: 'A corrupt swindle of the taxpayers:' Pa. Supreme Court disbars Brian Preski for Computergate convictions and Pa. Supreme Court Disbars Ex-House Chief of Staff. You should also read our policy about biographies of living persons, which is probably why your addition was reverted. If you go to the talk page of that article and make a suggestion to what content you think should be added (or removed), an experienced editor can help you.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct that this article has been whitewashed, although the edits about this person's proven misconduct were poorly formatted. Isaidnoway, it is not a BLP violation to report that a person pled guilty to ten felony political corruption charges, served 18 months in prison, and was disbarred by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I have added the information, properly referenced, and encourage other editors to add this article to their watchlists to help prevent future whitewashing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, I never said that it was a BLP violation, I agree it should be included, but the IP editor added the material without a source, and as you know unsourced or poorly sourced info in a BLP is subject to removal, which I presume is why the content was removed in the first place. Thanks for updating the article.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there was a source, namely the report of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, though it was poorly cited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Brooks Orpik

Someone is changing his biography to read that he is "an dirty, slow footed goon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.160.49 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: I've emailed Oversight in case this requires revision deletion. You can undo the edits if you see something like this happen again. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahdi Al Tajir

Persistent disruptive editing (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahdi_Al_Tajir&oldid=718080898 ). --Mervyn (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mervyn: There is now a discussion abut the edit warring here. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Josh_Cartu

Not a notable living person. Reads like a personal resume or bragging page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.159.27 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose

I am concerned with some wording being used at Rona Ambrose ( a Canadian politician ) ... The current wording " prominent feminist" is not sourced in the article nor can I find any mention of her when it comes to begin a "prominent feminist". I agree that she calls herself a feminist as does the media and she is a prominent Canadian....but not a "prominent feminist" inside or outside of Canada. I believe adding the qualifier " prominent" before feminist is a leap and original research by way of association WP:BLPSTYLE - WP:SYNTHESIS. --Moxy (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. When prominent Canadian feminists are listed, Ambrose is not among them. Such a list would certainly start with Thérèse Casgrain, and then it would list later champions of women's rights, including a few men. Binksternet (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that a prominent person identifies herself as a feminist does not, in and of itself, make her a "prominent feminist" — that wording inherently implies that feminism is the thing she's prominent for. But that's in no way true of Ambrose — she's prominent as a politician, not as a feminist per se. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the hell is 'canadian feminist' sourced SIX times? It makes the paragraph look ridiculous. Has someone actually challenged her being canadian or a feminist so that many sources is needed? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No one has challenged her being Canadian or a feminist ...I think it a way they are trying to WP:SYNTHESIS prominence.--Moxy (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

She's notable (prominent, and hence the article) but as a politician and current interim leader of the opposition rather than as a feminist. She is a feminist but she is not prominent because she is a feminist. Grammatically, to say she is prominent and a Canadian who is a feminist the expression should be "Ambrose is a prominent, Canadian feminist" (note the comma) but I agree with User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant's removal of "prominent" as a weasel word. She's notable (or prominent) or she wouldn't have an article, so "prominent" in that sentence is redundant and suggests that she is a prominent as a feminist.

Note that there is a similar but even more questionable case in Pro-life feminism in which Rona Ambrose has repeatedly been added as a example of a "prominent pro-life feminist". Meters (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Oerther

This is a very problematic biography with a serious COI problem; your help is appreciated. I've already gone through and picked out the most egregiously unsourced non-neutral information. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have some eye problems, but as I read things, the guy is co-author of reference #14, which does not mention him in its content, so the claim is unsupported. As for reference #15, I do not think it mentions him at all, so is wothless as a reference. Am I wrong? If so, I will apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lilly Singh

Lilly Singh is not 27 at all. She's actually 21 (born in 1994). You can easily check this information in her youtube video "why birthdays are stressful". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.15.117.21 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

A YouTube video with an ironic title is not a reliable source for a person's date of birth. People do tell little white lies about such matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

A reliable 2008 source cited in the article calls her a third year university student and describes her earlier education in some detail, including high school without saying that she was a prodigy who graduated way early. Do the math. How could she possibly have been born in 1994? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Jon Kedrowski

It is possible sock puppetry is being used to edit the biography and revert valid changes. The wiki page is biased and misleading. Many of the sources are misleading news links which resulted from a relationship with a friend.

While I think it's pretty clearly been written with a COI and needs significant cleanup and sourcing improvement, it's also true that anonymous forum threads are not acceptable sources for criticism, and in fact are strictly prohibited by the biographies of living persons policy. Users interested in improving the article need to provide reliable sources for all claims about a living person. Your claim that the links are "misleading" or "resulted from a relationship with a friend" is at this point nothing more than your unsupported personal opinion. If you have evidence and reasoning as to why the sources should be discounted, you should open a discussion on the article talk page.

It's a borderline notable person to begin with but my best guess is that there wouldn't be a consensus to delete it. I invite you to improve the article or, if you think it should be deleted, use the proper channels to nominate it for a deletion discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: The article already survived a deletion discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I did a bunch of trimming and cleanup. Could probably use more but I think I got rid of the worst of the fluff. Obviously the "criticism" sections that were removed earlier don't belong. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Kroto

Please be advised that Harry Kroto died yesterday (30 April 2016) in Lewes, Sussex, UK. He had been suffering from Motor Neurone Disease.

This was a personal communication from his wife, Margaret.

Colin Byfleet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinbyfleet (talk • contribs) 06:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Colinbyfleet: I appreciate your wanting to keep the article up to date - but we need a reliable published source before we can update the article. For someone this prominent there is bound to be an obituary or formal announcement soon enough, we can update the article once that appears. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As expected, several obituaries appeared yesterday. Looks like the article's already been updated with these to note that he's died. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Population Zero

Hi guys! This isn't a BLP, but it has something that would be a BLP issue otherwise.

Recently the film Population Zero released and the author C. J. Box felt that the work was very similar to a book he wrote, Free Fire, and stated as much in an interview with Crimespree Magazine, enough to where he's said that it looks to have been based on his book but not similar enough to where it'd be plagiarism. There have been some attempts to add this to the article and the IP that's adding the content is pretty nice. He's re-added it, but he's not really pushing the point - they're more just curious as to what would be needed to add the claim to the article.

I'm just kind of doublechecking here to make sure that we'd need more than the CM source to add this to the article since I can see the film's director, Pinder, contesting the claims. I see that CM has been used here and it claims to have won an award, but the interview has at least one error ("to" when it should be "too") and I can't find out what the award is, so I don't know if it's a major one or not.

The IP seems decent enough, so I'm more just asking to make sure that we'd need more than this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Jang

This article includes insults and personal information that presents risk to Kerry Jang, his family and the neighbourhood ( his house location is cited). There is currently security stationed outside his home, possibly due to this article. I am concerned for my neighbourhood's safety as a result of this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.22.42 (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The security is not likely due to this article, as that information has been in there since 2009. I have nonetheless deleted it, for we don't generally list addresses. The insults were added yesterday; I have undone those additions. Someone with the power may wish to revdel them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the exact street intersection where he lives. The vandalism shows that he has trollish obsessive enemies and we do not need to be party to harassment in even the slightest way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I see I misselected my undos and only got part of the vandalism, thanks for the further cleaning. Having seen a return to vandalistic IP editing, I've put in for page semi-protection. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

steve chilcott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Chilcott it says he is "one of only two number-one picks to have never played a major league game (the other is Brien Taylor, the first overall pick in the 1991 draft)". i believe matt bush is the 3rd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Bush_%28baseball%29 thanks, jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Shelly Kagan

The link to Shelly Kagan's Yale web page, which is cited in the text of the article, is broken. As far as I can see, an older Yale web page is cited in the text, but the page itself has changed. So although the information is accurate, the citations no longer apply. This web page, although not literally the official Yale page, has been used by Yale (linked to on his official page), and is more current.

http://campuspress.yale.edu/shellykagan/

He's also just been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.210.31.134 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the dead link, and cleaned up the article a bit while I was at it. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Orna Salinger

This page is mainly untrue information: very few of the biographical/professional details are correct. I have tried to amend it, but the amendments are so extensive that they have been blocked. Could it be checked or taken down?

Many thanks,

Peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.85.212 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Page has been reduced to a stub. She has a major role in an Israeli tv series so I'm guessing the article would survive an AFD - but there aren't really enough third-party RS to justify an article which says much more than that. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto

One user has been trying to edit the article to state that Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous Bitcoin inventor, is in fact a particular Australian who has recently claimed to be Nakamoto. However, there is considerable doubt for this claim, and the article itself contains two sources of doubt here. I'm bringing this up here because I'm possibly violating WP:3RR if I keep reverting. —ajf (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that Marketplace would be considered a reliable source. That's exactly what they reported on today's broadcast. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

To expand on this, the Marketplace story was more on Bitcoin itself, but started out with this and didn't mention anything about the presence of doubt about it. There was a link to a story in the local paper today in which the headline did refer to such doubt, but I didn't read it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36193006 for Reference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Vivian Gonzalez

Content has a commerical like appearance, not based in fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.216.65 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ted Levine, American Actor

A contributor Zeitgeist1977 continues to add libelous information about Ted Levine and his family in the form of a section called "Legal Issues"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Levine&oldid=718388589 where he unnecessarily reports full names of the family members involved. This contributor sites sources with misguiding information reported by unreliable sources to back up his addition to the Wikipedia page. This section doesn't report the truth and could lead to harm or threats to family members involved. I have edited this information a couple of times and finally deleted it because the "Legal Issues" section is not relevant to the article and go against the policies of the biographies of living person policy.

I am requesting that the section "Legal Issues" be deleted permanently and that Zeitgeist1977 is blocked from editing the "Ted Levine" wikipedia entry. Please respond to this claim as it bares personal safety implications to the family members.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizzardCat (talk • contribs) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I mostly agree with WizzardCat though I doubt the section constitutes "libel". I have removed the section, which was referenced to gossip site Radar Online, and to a local newspaper article which doesn't even mention Ted Levine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Zeitgeist1977 appears to be an SPA, |editing only the Ted Levine article and placing the exact same information in each time. This doesn't appear to be a one off occurance for them. I'd suggest a final warning or a TBAN. KoshVorlon 16:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Jose Baselga

Someone brought this up at WP:REFUND as part of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of thing, but the article for Jose Baselga does have issues with a lack of sourcing and some promotional tones. I'm not as familiar with scientists, so can anyone help take a look at this and see if he passes notability guidelines? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitely notable as a past president of the American Association of Cancer Researchers - but the article was very poorly written and referenced. I've cleaned it up and removed a bunch of repetition and puffery, it still needs a paragraph on his research (or at least a short list of some of his most notable publications). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Flydubai Flight 981, Talk Page

I removed an entire new section posting on the Talk Page, per section 2.2 of [[18]]. While the section, by a foreign IP editor, did not name specific persons, it did name a specific law firm, the IAC investigators and Boeing. Since allegations of deliberate deception, scam, and coverup (implied) were stated against those entities, I deemed it as potentially libelous against the persons in those organizations who the IP editor alleged to be guilty of evil machinations. My removal of that Talk Page section is at [[19]] I am thinking that IP editor may try it again and I don't want to be accused of 3rr violations, even though WP:BLP, 2.2 says there is no violation when an editor is following the "2.2 Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" instruction of that page. Thank you, EditorASC (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

BLP doesn't normally apply to corporations or other entities. (I don't know enough about the law to say if it's libel, but could you imagine a world where you couldn't state your opinions of political groups, the government, corporations, etc.?) That said, the purpose of the rant was to persuade the reader ("families and loved ones") to a particular belief, and not in any way tied to improving the article with reliably sourced info. I think there is plenty of grounds for removal per WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rita Ora

There were no persecution of ethnic Albanians on Kosovo. Only war with muslim terrorist group, simlar to ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.144.43 (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

According to an abundance of reliable sources cited in War crimes in the Kosovo War, there was widespread persecution of civilians and massacres perpetrated by both sides during the Kosovo War, and according the some sources, as many as a million Albanians were displaced. Therefore, I see no problem with the single sentence in this article about the displacement of her family. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Jay_Brewer

This is a vanity page. This person is unknown, and there is no reason for this article to appear on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.65.70 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Government Ekpemupolo

This article seems to be created as a propaganda article that only outlines his activities from what he wants people to believe. It contains many unsourced claims (such as that he lead thousands of militants). It does not contain any mention of his supposed and widely reported criminal affiliations and business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.38.117 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Javad Marandi

Hello there,

My name is Bennett Golder and I work at PR agency Weber Shandwick on behalf of Javad Marandi. Javad has instructed us to engage with the Wikipedia community to try to correct some factual inaccuracies that are on his Wikipedia page. We have engaged with the editor who has created the page to make a few corrections based on changes to the third party sources used in the article, though we're now looking to engage via the Noticeboard as I think it's proving a bit difficult for the editor in question to keep up with the requested edits.

1. After legal action, the Guardian Media Group has decided to remove articles in the Guardian/Observer which are citations 4 and 6 on Javad's Wikipedia entry. Owing to the fact that these articles have been removed, we believe they're no longer verifiable third-party sources and references to those citations should be removed. You can see the removed article here: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/09/tory-donor-was-trusted-middleman-for-oil-firm-involved-in-bribes-inquiry.

2. Additionally, we've received word from Director Magazine that they have made corrections to their article about business in Azerbaijan to accurately reflect Javad Marandi's business interests. Specifically, he is not an owner of Pasha Construction (the 'construction company' mentioned in his Wikipedia article), but rather he is an adviser. Additionally Chinar is actually a restaurant in Baku, and Javad Marandi does not own it. We feel this sentence should be altered to more accurately reflect the content within the cited article: "Marandi owns a company in Azerbaijan called Chinar, the country's "largest distribution business" and a construction company.[3]" A more accurate statement would be: "Marandi owns the country's largest distribution business and is an adviser to a construction firm." The Director Magazine article is citation 3 on Javad's Wikipedia page and you can find it here: http://www.director.co.uk/9071-doing-business-in-azerbaijan/

If you have any questions or concerns, please do feel free to contact me here or via my Talk page. As I have a conflict of interest, I'm going through what I understand to be the most appropriate channels for conflicted individuals to engage with the Wikipedia community, and I will not make any of these edits personally. Many thanks! Btgolder (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like historical revisionism to me. If a reliable source reported one thing at one time and another thing at another time on the exact same topic, using BLP as an excuse to pretend that the original reports never existed would seem even more problematic. We don't know if archived copies of the original reports exist anywhere on the web that are publicly accessible. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As a rule we dont require archives of print papers to be available online to be verifiable. If this was an article printed in both the newspaper and online then there is a physical archive available to verify (albeit hard to get) even if the online article has been retracted. If this was an online piece *only* and the article has been retracted, and there is no archive available, then it fails the verification process for sourced information. From a BLP point of view, if an article related to a BLP has been retracted/removed as a result of legal action, we should be wary of including information in the biography. If the source is not willing to stand by its statements, we should not be attributing article content to them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there User:RadioKAOS and Only in death does duty end

Thank you for your replies. Your input and engagement is much appreciated! However, our concern is that not everything in print constitutes a reliable source of truth. In this case, there is no doubt that hard copies of the article exist, however, the fact of the matter is that the publishers, in this case the Guardian/Observer, subsequently have taken the content down from their site.

They have done this because they recognise that the original story may well be defamatory of Javad Marandi and puts them at risk of having formally to apologise and pay significant damages. The existence of a printed copy of the article will not serve anyone as a defence.

If the publisher is unwilling to stand by or is concerned by the content of its story and has removed it from the web, then it is immaterial as to whether or not it’s been printed at one point. This is about correcting factually incorrect information about a living person. As it currently stands, Wikipedia is linking as fact to an article that the publisher themselves are unwilling to stand by. It should be removed as a matter of accuracy and honesty on Wikipedia’s part.

The second source mentioned, Director Magazine, has altered the article to reflect simple inaccuracies – and now the quotes within Javad Marandi’s Wikipedia article don’t even match the information contained within the source cited. We also see no reason why the edits should not be made to the sentence citing Director Magazine.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions or concerns. Btgolder (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

West Ridge Academy

Currently there are links to Court Filings for three court cases in the section West Ridge Academy#Litigation and controversy. Does anyone know if these fall under the part of WP:BLPPRIMARY where it says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? Also, it appears to me that the text for which the court records are being cited goes beyond what can be found at the linked justia.com web page, for example the allegations and status of first case, the allegations and connection to WRA in the second case, and the status of the third case. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Eckhard Wandel

Hi, this article was created a while ago as a direct translation of an earlier version of de:Eckhard Wandel after the German community had decided to remove information about the subject's criminal conviction according to its rules regarding BLP. Can you take a look at this article and check if he is even notable by the standards of English Wikipedia? If yes, do the sources given count as verifiable here? Thank you very much! --Gnom (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

rachel alejandro

I am the husband of Rachel Alejandro. We got married in 2011 not 2012. Please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.155.203 (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Done-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Teresita Fernandez

Hello,

Excuse me if this isn't the correct forum for this, but I was unable to add any notes to the artist Teresita Fernandez's "Talk" page. There are a number of lists I think it would be key to add her article too, which I've listed below. Thanks for any assistance, or if you could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.

List of female sculptors List of sculptors List of Latin American Artists List of Cuban Artists List of Cuban Americans (Visual Arts section) List of Contemporary Artists List of VCU alumni (Art section)

Full disclosure, I am affiliated with a commercial gallery that represents Teresita Fernandez and know the artist professionally.

Thank you, Armchaired (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Armchaired

Ramy El-Batrawi

The entry is not neutral at all. It reads like a PR person's work.

"Ramy El-Batrawi is the Owner, Managing Member of X LLC , El-Batrawi is a deal Maker and an effective negotiator, known for his expertise in structuring winning transactions. He is noted for his adherence to the principles of protecting his investors to the best of his abilities, and for being an entrepreneur, investor, and humanitarian"

"In 2000 Ramy El-Batrawi was honored through his selection to participate on the entrepreneurial panel in GB2000, The Graduate Business Conference hosted by UCLA’s Anderson School of Management."

"-In August 2015 Dr Claude A Ruffalo, Ph.D a top clinical physiologist Ph.D. who has 3 Post-Doctoral Degrees did a neuropsychological test of Ramy El-Batrawi.

The neuropsychological test results:

Verbal Comprehension. Mr. El-Batrawi verbal comprehension functioning was measured by the WAISA-IV verbal Comprehension Subtest, which measures verbal practical judgment. His score on Comprehension Subset was at the 91st %ile in comparison to his age group with an IQ estimated equivalent of 120 in the Superior Range of functioning. Vocabulary. The Vocabulary Subset of the WAIS-IV is considered to be one of the best single measures of verbal intelligence. Mr. El-Batrawi English language Vocabulary was measured by the WAIS-IV Vocabulary Subset which resulted in a score at the 98th %ile in comparison to his age group with an IQ estimate of 135 in the Very Superior Range. This is a particularly high English Vocabulary score given that he was not born in the us, but in Geneva, Switzerland and left home and school at about 12 years of age.

Abstract Verbal Reasoning and Conceptualization. Mr. El-Batrawi score on the Similarities Subset of WAIS-IV which masseurs abstract verbal reasoning and conceptualization was at the 91st %ile with a IQ equivalent of 120 in the superior range.

Discussion of test results. Mr. El-Batrawi score on the WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension, Vocabulary, and similarities Subsets combine to provide very strong and compelling evidence that Mr. El-Batrawi has exceptionally high (Superior to Very Superior) verbal reasoning abilities. '"

These are just some examples of the PR tendencies.

Furthermore, the grammar on the page indicates the writer's first language is not English. It needs significant work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolverinethad (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 April 2016‎

Article seems to have been deleted. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ashley van Haeften

User:Luridaxiom, who appeared out of nowhere less than a month ago to campaign for the deletion of the biography of former WMF chair Florence_Devouard, has created Draft:Ashley van Haeften, a curiously selective and rather one-sided biography of the former Wikimedia UK chair. It's evident that User:Luridaxiom is somebody's alternate account, with a great deal of experience here, and it's more than probable that the van Haeften piece is a sort of campaign bio to be used in bringing Wikipedia infighting into mainspace. No good is going to come of this, and while I've made the draft a bit more balanced, I suspect this is disruption best nipped in the bud. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

While remarkably puffy, nothing in the draft is a BLP violation. Not remotely Neutral of course but since it is not a live article that is not actually a problem at this stage. If it was an attack page (and one could be written easily) it would be another matter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The reason that the draft BLP is one-sided/ puffy is because an earlier (deleted) version was deemed to be an attack piece on van Haeften with poor quality sources. The issue here is the BLP subject's notability for an article, ie. significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (something which Devouard's BLP still seriously lacks after 4 AfDs). How do my edits qualify as disruption, and what happened to civility and good faith ? BTW, Wolfowitz thanks for your editing inputs there. Luridaxiom (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Minnie Driver

Eyes on this one please. Ms Driver has been asking fans on Twitter to fix it so expect some action. Thanks. -ukexpat (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Andrew Miltenberg

We have draft at AfC about a lawyer who "currently represents a number of male students who have been wrongfully accused of campus assault and denied due process rights". The article goes into some detail on a current court case, and makes many statements like "falsely accused" about others. I looked for advice on how to handle the description of current and recent legal cases, but didn't find any. I am uncomfortable that this article appears to make judgments about court cases, but I don't have policy to point the editor to. The BLP issues are not about Miltenberg but the people involved in the various court cases. Any ideas? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers the Columbia case - I do not see any unsourced contentious claims about living persons on first reading here. The most you could ask is that the article say Miltenberg believes the unnamed persons were wrongly accused - as opinion. Collect (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The question may be more of a "legalese" one - the difference between being acquitted or found not-guilty vs. being "falsely accused". Obviously not everyone who isn't convicted is "falsely accused", and the expression implies that the accuser (whose identity is in the article) lied. But perhaps what I need to do is make sure that the article says WHO claims that the person was falsely accused. I'll look at it from that point of view. LaMona (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

John Kenneth Gormley

The relevant content and source are repeatedly being removed. Below is the said reference: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/u-of-s-law-professors-call-john-gormley-twitter-comment-offensive-demeaning-1.3353669

Here is the article location John Kenneth Gormley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Gormley

This information is an essential piece of reading and is being used as a case study in many academic settings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.209.157 (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.209.157 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yassin Kadi

I am a member of Yassin Kadi's legal team, and have previously made a number of edit requests via this article's Talk page and my own, with limited response to these.

I am concerned that several parts of this article do not comply with BLP policies, in particular as to balance, association fallacy, unsourced or poorly sourced material, no original research and misuse of primary sources. I should be grateful if an editor or administrator would review the article and consider how it should be edited to bring it in line with BLP policies, particularly as it contains serious allegations. In the first instance, I would suggest that the section headed "1993: Al Qaeda moves to Boston" is association fallacy and ought to be removed, and that the section headed "Continues to work for National Commercial Bank" places unwarranted reliance on a primary source - a district court complaint document.

I believe the subheadings "Tied to Muslim Brotherhood" and "BMI" also place undue reliance on primary sources (court documents) and blog articles, or reference material that does not support the article. For example the first of these sections refers to “Dr. Ahmed El-Kadi” and the “El-Kadi” family of Cairo. Mr Kadi has no relation at all to that family, and in fact the referenced source does not even suggest that he does, yet this is still included in the article to suggest linkage to the Muslim Brotherhood. Please would an editor/administrator review these issues? Carter-Ruck (on behalf of Sheikh Yassin Abdullah Kadi) (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You can't act on behalf of an organisation, sorry. In fact, I'm surprised that Carter-Ruck, the well-known UK libel lawyers, are even operating in this manner - they usually just slap a writ on someone if the stories in Private Eye are anything to go by. I think you will have to find another way to deal with this. Someone with more experience of the technicalities may be able to assist. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Now now Sitush, this is a BLP and there are concerns. The last paragraph is certainly worth a closer look. Terrorist-by-association doesn't reflect well on us. Although of course, the Muslim Brotherhood is a political party... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. But we don't usually allow accounts to represent organisations and I'm not even sure that this is in fact Carter-Ruck. The matter should be raised via other WP channels, probably utilising a formal Carter-Ruck email address. I'm not sure how familiar you may be with the firm in question. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for intruding, but Sitush is spot on. This is role playing Sockpuppetry calculated to overawe us with smoothly implied legal threats. The community cannot be expected to deal with such pricey lawyers on talk pages or noticeboards. Would we react in the same way if this was a small legal firm representing Joe Average ? Luridaxiom (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I work for one of the largest UK financial institutions ;) What Sitush means CR is that we don't allow group users - one account one editor. So 'Carter Ruck' would not be acceptable, but Dave@Carter-Ruck would be. I'm not up to speed on renaming procedures so someone else will be along shortly to run through it with you. As it stands the article does have issues from a brief look, but I wouldnt be able to go into it in any depth until Thursday. If anyone can take a look sooner. Oh and Luridaxiom we do actually treat small firms the same, both re usernames and BLP issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The older secondary sources are solid (considerable OR/Synth though) but possibly overtaken by more recent events, thus requiring community to essentially compare apples(primary) and oranges(secondary sources). Since verifiability not truth is our standard, IMO, CR should approach "legal_AT_wikimedia_DOT_org" directly. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Na shouldn't be necessary. It does need a much bigger rewrite though - later events have overtaken previous ones. At the moment due to the incremental nature of editing it reads like 'and then and then and then'. One place to start would be grouping the material related to the legal cases in one section as descriptive prose rather than the extensive list as it stands. It might be worth taking the time later to explain on CR's talkpage that absent an outright obvious violation, changing an article of that size will take time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Kadi still remains a US designated global terrorist, so this is a WMF legal issue and the community should not be holding this potato considering the UK law firm involved. Luridaxiom (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well since I'm in the UK and don't give a damn about who the US considers a terrorist after they funded the IRA for decades, I think I will take my own advice thanks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Account raised for attention at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. As the assertion is that this is both a group account for a law firm, and that what has been written is effectively legal advice for their client, this is a discussion that should happen by email. I'm pushing the more formal route with the expectation that the account will be blocked, as a lawyer formally lobbying for changes for their client's Wikipedia biography puts unusual weight on those requests compared to requests from individual accounts... as well as it being against at least two basic Wikipedia policies. --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Professor Alexia Thomas

Dear Wikipedia volunteers,

Please be aware that the biography of Alexia Thomas (activist) is on the whole fictitious. The information it contains cannot be verified from reliable sources and, in fact, the person it relates to has been convicted of criminal offences relating to the services that she claims to be able to provide (referred to in the page).

Rather than edit the page, I felt it would be better to draw this to your attention as the page should simply be removed as it is entirely misleading.

Many thanks,

Rebecca Morris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.23.236 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Dangerous links also, take care clicking on them. Govindaharihari (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is part of a paid editing ring, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satya satapathy. The relevant COIN discussion is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Creation Infoways Pvt Ltd but it has been identified quite late and not all the links have been noted there. —SpacemanSpiff 11:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Brianhe and H.dryad who seem to be familiar with this. —SpacemanSpiff 11:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This does not sound unlikely to me. The page was promotional from the get-go. I have not checked the references to any great degree, but we have had sockpuppet problems here before, which is why I requested that the page be protected, after which the apparent attempts at self-promotion dwindled to some degree. Anybody else have any opinions on this? H.dryad (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I just had to remove some of the references, which were indeed bogus. Some led to pages that did not exist, were private or did not mention the subject of the article at all. Many of the rest are blog posts, so as of now, I am not sure what to make of this, but the entire subject is looking doubtable in my opinion. I wish we could come up with something a bit more solid. H.dryad (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Pam Bondi

Pam Bondi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Single purpose IP insists on repeatedly adding material that makes strong implications that the subject did something illegal and/or unethical. [20]. This may be a situation that merits addition later, but at this point, it's more defamatory than anything. A PAC that she doesn't control took a contribution. There's currently no investigation, no charges, no direct link to the subject. Just some implications. Again, it may evolve into something later, but right now inclusion is probably a BLP issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Gordan Cosic, rodjen 1956 godine u Cacku. 1975 Zavrsio skolu za graficki dizajn a od 1976 zivi i radi u uzicu kao graficki dizajner. Dobitnik priznanja RK SSO "Smeli cvet" za stvaralastvo 1085 godine. Pored grafickog dizajna, bavi se slikarstvom i fotografijom. Sa svojim radovima ucestvovao na nekoliko kolektivnih izlozbi medju kojima je izlozba minijature u Gradskoj galeriji u Uzicu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciklus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Niteshift36 insists on repeatedly deleting info about the plainly controversial close ties between Bondi and Trump, which are newsworthy because Bondi decided not to involve Florida in the lawsuit over Trump University fraud after her PAC received a large donation from Trump. Niteshift36 has obsessively been deleting this info when posted by various editors since 2013, always accusing the other editors of improprieties or edit wars. He has also been deleting any other info about Bondi that might be construed as unflattering. He is a self-described Republican partisan. His "it may yet evolve to something important later" and "Bondi hasn't been convicted of anything yet" is disingenuous given that Bondi is Attorney General in FL and will not be investigating herself for this conflict of interest. He has also claimed repeatedly that he is deleting negative info about Bondi because it is small potatoes and may be forgotten eventually. It's just a series of evolving justifications for deleting other editors' additions if those do not flatter the Republican office holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the content in the diff presented by the OP. It's reflective of the source—a source that easily passes WP:RS. Ideally, additional sources would be found to demonstrate that the content meets WP:DUEWEIGHT.- Mr X 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Good news: here are some additional sources: [21] [22] [23][24] [25]. This easily passes WP:DUEWEIGHT. Omitting it would violate WP:NPOV in my opinion. - Mr X 19:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There's more to this than simply having sources discuss it. The question here isn't whether there are sources or not. It's whether it belongs in Bondi's bio or not. A Trump organization made a donation to a PAC that supports Bondi. Bondi doesn't control that PAC. It's not hers, it just supports here. There has been demonstrated involvement by Bondi herself. There's no investigation. No charges. The only actual complain I see isn't filed against Bondi or the PAC, but against Trump's organization. As I said in this edit summary [26], this issue MAY be relevant in the Trump article, since a complaint was actually filed against him. But at this point, there is nothing but innuendo that the contribution to a PAC that isn't hers got money from Trump, so it must have influenced her decisions. Without more of a connection to her personally, including it in her BLP is problematic because it implies she did something unethical or illegal without any substance or even an actual charge.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

- Niteshift36 is simply lying over and over again when he claims that the PAC doesn't belong to Bondi and she doesn't control it. She made a legal filing in FL stating that she "established" and "maintains" the PAC (called "And Justice For All"). It is her PAC. Absolutely bizarre for Niteshift36 to keep arguing that an illegal donation to Bondi's PAC has nothing to do with her.— 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually friend, I'm not lying. The WaPo, WSJ and others say it's not hers. Consider this a warning for your WP:NPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

- Now you're lying about what the newspapers are stating about the PAC. Fortunately, there are legal filings which we can consult to determine whether the PAC was created by and is maintained by Bondi (it is), without the need to parse the words of journalists. Or the need to depend upon Niteshift36's lies about the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No lies. I posted info on the talk page, with links. You've provided no links to anything. Just repeatedly engaged in personal attacks. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

- You haven't provided "links". You provided a single relevant link to a newspaper article that MIGHT be construed as you wish, plus other links that prove nothing. I have pointed you repeatedly to a legal complaint filed by CREW which goes through in detail the legal situation of the PAC in question. You have refused to address it. Absolutely and utterly ridiculous that someone who just makes things up to justify his obstructionism is allowed by WP to drag this debate out for days (after years of deleting the info from Bondi's page). What does it take to update Bondi's page, a dozen other editors as strong-willed as Niteshift36 determined to force him to relent? Because he is never going to acknowledge the facts.— 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Try again. I provided the links to articles that show a separation. You keep referring to a "legal complaint", but you've so far been unable to provide a link to it. Amazing how someone with all your alleged experience can't perform a simple task like provide a link (or sign a post), despite trying to perform that basic editing task more than once. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again Niteshift36 is shifting the goalposts. It's no longer just innuendo. It's innuendo that belongs on some other page but just not on Bondi's - because presumably nobody in Florida is talking about Bondi's integrity in this controversy, right? MrX above is right, omitting this information is an expression of a political point of view.

Try again. I have never moved from the innuendo reasoning and I made the suggestion about the Trump page 6 weeks ago.... before you ever started editing the article. I'm sorry you can't follow the edit history. Apparently you also struggle with knowing how to sign your posts. Learning to do both will be helpful. Thanks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I could easily have provided other news sources discussing this controvesy, had Niteshift36 ever cared to ask. But, then, he has been deleting various attempts since 2013 to add this newsworthy information and therefore knows it is being widely discussed in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.133.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Are you serious? I asked you MULTIPLE TIMES to discuss it. You never did. You only discussed your half-assed conspiracy theories about my intentions. I started this discussion and invited you to it. You just kept reverting. So don't even pretend like you tried to discuss it my SPA friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You never asked for further cites to demonstrate that the controversy was in fact a controversy. I saw no point in discussing it with you because I knew that you already knew it was a controversy - because you have been deleting every mention of it by multiple editors since 2013, under a variety of pretexts. And in fact your contribution to this discussion thus far has just been to point fingers at me and complain that I'm not playing nice to you. It's not a conspiracy theory to mention that you are a Republican whose every activity on the Bondi page has been to delete factual information that might tend to embarrass her. That's where you're coming from, and it's directly relevant to assessing your opinion that the Trump controversy should be suppressed because it is no big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.220 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.133.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I didn't ask the question you wanted so you chose not to discuss it? That's really brilliant. 100% of your edits on Wikipedia have been about this. 35 out of over 33,000 of my edits have been about Bondi (and not just this single issue). Your agenda is obvious. Again, do you have anything to say on the actual issue or do you want to keep making up baseless allegations? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

- Aha, so the guy who keeps lying about the PAC in question, pretending it doesn't belong to Bondi, has no agenda at all. The editor that guy knows nothing about has to have an agenda, however, because he's getting all factual and stuff.— 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See above and consider this a warning about your WP:NPA. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

- Ha ha ha ha. You keep making outrageously false claims about Bondi's PAC to excuse deleting the info over and over again, and you think you're going to win this dispute by charging the other guy with exposing your lies as lies? hoo boy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.143.249 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Except that I've provided evidence to what I say. You've provided none. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

- All you've done is parse the words of newspaper articles, one piece in particular, to draw the inferences you want to pretend are facts. I did provide you with a citation, which yoiu have refused to acknowledge so far, the CREW legal filing which discusses the legal structure of the PAC in question. Here is the link: 3429baca6f958ccc07_nvm6yx60v.pdf Once again, it states unequivocally that the Bondi filed a legal form in FL stating that she herself "established" and "maintains" the PAC. But you know better, huh?— 72.86.143.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What link? I don't see a link....or a URL. There's that amazing amount of experience you keep claiming to have, but unable to perform basic editing tasks like sign your posts or share a link. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lieberman

I've run out of tags for all the problems in this article, it's pretty much a hagiography full of unattributed opinion, it has hardly any proper references, but is full of linkspam instead. Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources to do a proper cleanup, so I hope this is an appropriate place to recruit help. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

That's one of the worst I have seen in a while. It should be blown up and started again.--ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It has now been reverted to a pre-puffery version.--ukexpat (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Fisk

Needs banner removed, no longer a living person. His agent, Laura Cecil Agency, announced his death this afternoon. https://twitter.com/LCecilLitAgency/status/729985447397609472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.62.111 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was reverted by a user called Jkaharper because he felt that Nicholas Fisk's agent wasn't famous enough. I don't know what to do now, it isn't like a dead guy is going to be getting a better agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.62.111 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit was reverted because Twitter is not a reliable source. As was suggested in the edit summary, best to await a report from somewhere more reputable. Eagleash (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Seal

I am not sure where the source came from that said that Seal's Facial scars are from Discoid Lupus (A condition that affects skin only above the neck}, but that is simply erroneous. I am an Internal Medicine specialists and, as an expert who teaches rheumatology to resident physicians, I can tell you that Discoid Lupus can appear anywhere on the body and shows particular preference for areas exposed to sunlight. There is no place in medical literature that says Discoid Lupus appears only above the neck. Now I have no idea as to whether or not Seal's scars are from Lupus or not, but your supporting facts are wrong.

Edward S. Umlauf, D.O. Vice Chair, Internal Medicine Genesis HealthCare System Zanesville, Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarfarkle (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He's talking about this line at Seal (musician): "Although there have long been rumours as to the cause of the scars on Seal's face, they are the result of a type of lupus called discoid lupus erythematosus – a condition that specifically affects the skin above the neck." --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed that particular detail - the sources cited do not appear to verify it anyway. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxie Marlinspike

At Moxie Marlinspike we've got this in the infobox: "Other names: Matthew Rosenfeld,[1][2] Mike Benham[3][4]". The first source cited for Benham doesn't seem to support this at all. It doesn't even mention Marlinspike. The second source is an email message that gives Benham as the display name for Marlinspike's email address. It's not a WP:RS. At best it's a primary source combined with some WP:OR. There is discussion on the talk page, but it consists mostly of people asserting that Marlinspike must be outed, with no discussion of the BLP issue. I don't think it's appropriate to publish in a BLP what amounts to original research outing the subject of the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The alternate names have (quite rightly) been removed by Only in death, and a warning not to revert without better sources has been posted on the talk page. Looks like the article could probably use a few more people watching it though. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Anna Rezan

There is a "furious person" in particular that keeps reporting the article through various IP's.The person removes citations and references and then reports the articles as poorly citated.The person started a "discussion" about the article.And even though users have been improving the citations,citations are being removed and then the article is being reported again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelSteinman (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this but I believe one of these "furious" people MichaelSteinman was referring to was me, though I was not editing from an IP. An SPI was opened and MichaelSteinman has since been blocked indefinitely. That being said, Anna Rezan's page could use a second set of eyes because it is a mess. Meatsgains (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mee Moua

The single-purpose account created for no other purpose than to edit Mee Moua's biography in a manner which depicts her as negatively as possible has returned and made edits which introduce factual inaccuracies and unnecessary negative inferences. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Sorcha Faal reports fall under BLP?

Sorcha Faal reports is a renamed article about articles, referred to as "reports", by an anonymous conspiracy theorist. The question rises because although there is obviously a real person or even persons writing these reports, they are anonymous. It appears that Anonymous (group) isn't a BLP article, and this might be considered similar. It's relevant to the content because there is a dispute whether this is a list article, in which case every report he ever made could be included, or rather we should only include reports with have had RS coverage, which is what we'd probably do in a BLP to avoid it becoming promotional. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymity is not really a huge issue in this case. Anonymous (group) is not a BLP because it is made up of a large number of people - it is a large group. BLP applies to individuals and (very) small groups. Sorcha Faal is a pseudonym of (by all reports) one person - so BLP applies even if we dont know their real name. 'Sorcha Faal' would therefore be a biography. If it is intended to be a list of Sorcha Faal reports, it could be renamed 'List of Sorcha Faal reports' but the BLP policy would still apply. If it was a list article (I dont deal in lists so please correct me) surely only RS reports would be included anyway? Since without a valid reference any entry can be removed from a list? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Only in death: I agree, and as I stated to @Natalie.Desautels: here: "Anonymity does NOT equate to non-existence." Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Source list Implies that all the usual restrictions for list item inclusion would apply if embedded or stand alone. Now *normally* for creative works this might not be an issue as a primary source is generally reliable for say the author of a book. This may not be the case for Sorcha Faal given their non-standard crediting for their reports. It would probably end up as only RS covered items. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the article now, it is currently a biography with an extended works section. It should be either Sorcha Faal (biography) with the notable reports referenced appropriately - which would remove a lot of extra material on the reports - or Sorcha Faal (biography) with all the in-depth report stuff split off into a proper bibliography/list. Or even just Sorcha Faal reports with all the biographic commentary removed. At the moment it appears people want it to be a biography with all the content of a non-biographic article. It lacks focus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree entirely. BLP applies and the article is a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both @Only in death: and @Doug Weller: that BLP applies, but that "it lacks focus" and is "a bit of a mess." How to focus it and clean it up is the main question. Should it go back to its original Sorcha Faal? If so, what's the focus then? Should it stay as Sorcha Faal reports? If so, how to structure it? Can an authors works stand on their own without mentioning their author? Can an author be notable without noting their works? Any suggestions? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this article is a total mess. Seriously suspect sourcing and blatant misrepresentation of sources throughout. I agree that WP:BLP should apply here, which means that a large chunk of the sourcing (eg, comments by users in forums, snopes reports, etc) should not be used in the manner that the article currently uses them. I'm doing some cutting now but the page desperately needs more eyes/input. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I got sucked in and did a major revision - removed a large amount of material that I think violated a number of different guidelines (BLP vios, OR, non-NPOV stuff). Hopefully it sticks since as I said the article was in a truly atrocious state before. Please help keep an eye on the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note The removal of nearly 80% of this articles content by @Fyddlestix: without following the WP consensus process have been reverted and the discussion about this can be viewed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my edits - the portions of the article that I removed violated a number of different Wikipedia policies, including NPOV and BLP, and prior concensus is not required to remove that kind of crap. I won't revert for now but encourage others to weigh in here, for those who understand Wikipedia guidelines it should be obvious that Picomtn's version of the page is not acceptable, and that reliable sources don't support much more than what I cut the article down to. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Probst

In the personal section, it says Probst dated a bunch of guys. That's not true, or at least not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.169.105 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the names - article has clearly had someone add false information at some point though so it needs a thorough going-over. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Hunnam

There's some question about what policy is regarding the inclusion of romantic relationships that are arguably insignificant (i.e. not married, etc). I wasn't able to find any clear guidance regarding the appropriateness of such material myself. The discussion can be found here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll, the IP insisting that "girlfriends are not listed here" (and edit warring over it) is obviously incorrect as there is no such policy. The relevant question is whether the relationship has enough coverage in RS to be verified and worthy of inclusion. This particular relationship does appear to meet that threshold, although I'd suggest citing it to the many magazine articles about the couple that are out there rather than the Daily Mail Fyddlestix (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment here and at the Talk page in question. DonIago (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Handelsman

My name is Jessica Phillips, I work with Harry Handelsman and I believe this article should be expanded.

See references below:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/17/harry-handelsman-manhattan-loft-corporation_n_6334552.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the1000/the-progress-1000-londons-most-influential-people-2015-property-a2943576.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/station-master-harry-handelsman-6759440.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/property-and-architecture/manhattan-loft-corporation-founder-harry-handelsman-on-why-east/
http://www.building.co.uk/harry-handelsman-the-pearly-king/5055207.article
http://www.propertyweek.com/in-depth/market-features/lofty-ambitions-for-stratford-resi-tower/5075990.article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaSPhillips (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@JessicaSPhillips: I suggest drafting and proposing the specific improvements you'd like to see on the article's talk page, then filing an requests edit request to get them implemented. Our page on editing with a conflict of interest also has a lot of helpful guidance for these situations. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Arseniy Yatsenyuk

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

A new editor has been making significant changes to this article. I've reverted twice and left explanations on their Talk page, which, to their credit, they have responded. Their latest change looks like an improvement over their earlier changes, but I'm still concerned with the significant contradictions of previously sourced material. I'm hampered by the foreign sources, both from a reliability standpoint and from a subsantive standpoint. Hopefully, someone here can assist. I don't intend to revert anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Voris

This article is getting a lot of temporary attention due to the guy admitting that he used to be gay, despite his long held opposition to the homosexual agenda.

As you would expect it's been a bit of a magnet. I've cleaned it up (I think) but as most (probably all) of the unhelpful edits come from anonymous IP accounts, could we have a semi-protect for a couple of months? That should get rid of the worst of it, although I suspect there will continue to be drive by edits after a couple of months - mostly it will have died down.

JASpencer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Could I bump this? I'm getting quite a lot of assertions from anonymous IPs, mostly probably libellow. JASpencer (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Article's been semi-protected for a while so the activity seems to have stopped. Protection will eventually expire though so please help watch the page. Also, article seems kinda bloated to me, could use some trimming in my opinion. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Purported birth name of a porn actor

I deleted the purported birth name of a porn actor because it was not properly sourced. It's been re-added, using youtube as a source. In my judgment, this is woefully short of what would be necessary. I don't want to edit war and the re-inserting editor and I have gone back and forth with similar edits on this a couple of times since early March. I think I'd be justified re-deleting it again under WP:BLPNAME, but I have no corner on the wisdom market. Would others please check this out and, if appropriate, revert the re-insertion? David in DC (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Annamari Dancs

ISN'T "ROMAN", but MAGYAR (hungarian citizen, too), and after 2010 she live and work in the hungarian Capital City's Operetta Theater in musicals and classic operettes. The ENGLISH article is vlach/roman(? (what's ROMAN?) editing is...

NEED modify the article of an alive young actress, - because of the english article is romanian editing, and the NATIONALIST romans the szekler magyar (hungarian citizen) singer girl life - story isn't the whole truth, especially not for a career in the riser is fixed stations! Due Mari Anna Dancs ethnicity!

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyarmati Pál (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It says "romanian" not "roman." But I'm not sure that's reliably sourced, and that goes for much of the article - the only source for the entire article appears to be her own webpage. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)

RfC on possible WP:NOTCENSORED violations. Please see Talk:Yisrael_Katz_(politician_born_1955)#RfC:_Does_the_article_general_content_need_to_be_expanded_to_justify_critical_content.3F. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Steven Salaita

User ObserverStatus has added changes to the article on Steven Salaita that appear to violate standards on biographies of living persons that are potentially libelous. Although Salaita received a one year appointment to the American University in Beirut in the summer of 2015, ObserverStatus writes in the lead that he is now "unemployed" without providing any references and has also added accusations of "anti-Semitism" that are not referenced. VanEman (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's been removed, but people who seem to sympathize with one or the other side of the Salaita controversy have been edit warring over this article for ages, it's getting really old. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Eric Clough

Open and shut case, I'd think. The Eric Clough article states (since May 2015!):

Aspiration for crowd-sourcing: Clough has launched a series of Kickstarter campaigns to raise funds and awareness to build a spiral to the heavens, or even higher.

No citation, and Google reveals he has certainly launched some cryptic Kickstarters, but a spiral to the heavens? I'd remove myself, but I don't usually edit. Just thought I ought to flag it, since it seems to have gone unnoticed in spite of several subsequent edits, and the talk page is empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.143.179 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl B. Schrader

I'm writing to request removal of a section on the biography of Cheryl B. Schrader that discusses a DUI arrest. It was inserted into the article previously and I later removed it, arguing that its insertion into her biography was not in line with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, specifically that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The information about the DUI arrest has again been inserted into the bio, and I have appealed through the Talk page there that it be removed. I appeal to this group to remove that section. Also, there is some dispute as to whether the page in question is a "tvanity page" and whether it should be removed altogether.

Thank you, Andrewcareaga (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed it for now as it appears to have been sourced to a court document rather than a third party RS. It does look like the article could use better sources, and is a bit promotional in tone. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Page has been nominated for deletion. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Porn actress

I've pruned a bunch of stuff out of this article about a former pornographic actress. All of it was sourced to an Indianapolis weekly that does not look to me like a sufficient source for allegations about health diagnosis, a purported birth name and a derogatory claim about a parent. I've been accused of being a deletionist before, especially about BLP's. I'm less certain of my own correctness these days. Would someone give my recent edits a review and revert me if you think I've gone too far? David in DC (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Has there been any discussions on the reliability of the source (publisher or author) anywhere in any context at all? The reference looks fairly well-done, but the mention of multiple personality disorder raises huge questions about reliability and what could be put in Wikipedia's voice, if anything. BLP requires us to be conservative and place the burden on those seeking inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Selim Mehajer

It'd be great if there could be a few more eyes on this page. He's not a very likable guy, but there's an anon who is just obsessed with it and I'm getting tired of having to consistently try to get the article in line with WP:BLP, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, as it has rampant problems with all three. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

François Asselineau

Folks working at the article brought a sourcing question to RSN; see WP:RSN#Fran.C3.A7ois_Asselineau.2C_ad.. More input there would be helpful. It is a BLP issue. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Joe Chenelly

blatant self promotion. already deleted once. see here Lagnansagnan (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Now at AFD, also has a speedy tag on it. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

al-Haramain Foundation

Will someone else please take a look at al-Haramain Foundation#Al-Haramain suit, particularly the bit about documentary evidence (bold in original). Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. After finding this blog about the person being added to the article I've removed it, and several other attempts to spam him into article over the past few years. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Casper Crowell

This bio violates the policy of living persons. It contains incorrect and libelous information regarding my husband who is incarcerated and can not correct it.

Crowell's personal information should not be listed as someone can use it to steal his identity and it is libelous information. He was not born in 1952. He is NOT incarcerated for murder or attempted murder.

This article repeats incorrect and unverified information from the SPLC blog, that was never removed from their site. They did not post any corrections when they were notified of the incorrect information.

It states his role in the Aryan Brotherhood, but it is not verified. It states he left because it was not "pure enough" - which is not true and not verified. Also this article contains person and identifiable information about his wife which violates your privacy of living persons policy. (All information regarding his wife is a privacy violation.)

All personal and incorrect information needs to be removed. Personal information about his wife is posted with malicious intent. Any reference to the SPLC blog/article should be deleted as it contains incorrect information. Just because Crowell is incarcerated does not mean someone can post incorrect information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schatzi3101 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Schatzi3101 I actually agree about the BLP violations, half of that entry was tied to the SPLC blog , which fails as a reliable source, especially in light of what it was reporting. I've hacked a good bit out of that article and left a note on the article's talk page explaining that reliable sources will be needed if any of those claims are going to stand. 16:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure about removing stuff sourced to the SPLC but leaving in an unsourced claim that he has 2 PhDs, and other stuff sourced to the organization he runs... I've started to address some of this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney

Resolved

In Wayne_Rooney#Allegations_of_infidelity, please can someone delink Helen Wood in the sentence, "Helen Wood claims Rooney paid £1,000 for a threesome with her and Jennifer Thompson".

It links to a completely different person.

I don't think there is an article about the prostitute (yet...although to be honest, there probably will be soon. For reasons I cannot legally state). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.18.234 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be the same person (the BB winner), if you can believe the tabloids... Prevalence 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right, OK. I was confused, because I was expecting to see an article about a prostitute, not a BB contenstent. Of course, someone can be both - but in the linked page, it makes no mention of her 'other activities', that's why I was puzzled.

I imagine Ms. Wood will get her own article soon, which will clear things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.18.234 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

DR. Papa Naik H

DR. Papa Naik H Ortopaedic surgeon from Thimmanahally, Talak Hobali, Challakere TQ and Chitradurga Dist, born on 12th of september 1967 at Thimmanahally village as 11th child to Mr. Haridas Naik and Mrs. Hemali Bai. Did Primary schooling at Thimmanahally and for high school moved to Talak, SGT hIGH sCHOOL, 10 Km daily. Did my schooling at Thalak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papa Naik H (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No page exists for Dr. Papa Naik H and from what I can tell, he isn't notable enough for a page. Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrew and Daniel Frankish

I would CSD it perhaps. It's not an article about the two boys, it's an article about the event, which is most likely not notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Other than The Independent, all the sources are notoriously-sensationalistic tabloids which are specifically barred by BLP: Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. I agree that this isn't a suitable encyclopedia article. If this becomes a lasting, notable incident in the history of animal welfare, it could be reconsidered at a future point, but that would require time to pass and better sources to arise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Malan Breton

Today, the article Malan Breton was vandalized, I would say more then six times. I have seen IP address belonging to delete factual information about this topic more than four times. The entry which is already featured on the page is now featured three times due to this IP address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.245.117.1 Please lock the page for entry, editing, or block the editors who have vandalized the page. First this IP added incorrect information, then adjusted it a number of times, at the same time erasing vital facts about this topic. Please see the History report here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malan_Breton&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.170.37 (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Martin Lorentzon

I have put forward some contributions to the biography of Martin Lorentzon but haven't received a response from the biography's original editor nor the most recent one. As an employee of Spotify, I am not permitted by Wikipedia to make the additions myself. Please could you take a look at the proposed changes: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anv%C3%A4ndardiskussion:Entheta#Contributions_to_Martin_Lorentzon.27s_Wikipedia_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinVacher (talk • contribs) 08:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately English wikipedia (en.wikipedia) have no say over content on the sv.wikipedia - I will try and dig up the language ambassador page that might be of some help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sebastian Stan

Saw the post about whoever edited the Sebastian Stan page. Decided to research to get accurate up to date information on the status. This article published by The Daily Beast on May 14, 2016 provides information which clearly states Stan & Levieva are no longer together As outlined below in this exert from the article "In real life, the man who plays Bucky/Winter Soldier, Sebastian Stan, is decidedly hetero, having previously dated co-stars Leighton Meester (Gossip Girl), Jennifer Morrison (Once Upon a Time), and Margarita Levieva (Spread). Here is the link to the full article [[27]] Another thing is IMDB and other sources are slow at updating their sites so they also have outdated information Hope this clears up the confusion Truth Supervisor (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Dahm

The summary of Nathan Dahm's life and work includes unhistorical, biased speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.115.148.184 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the improper material has been deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

George Campbell Jr.

Much of the material reported here under the heading "Cooper Union controversy and investigation by New York state Attorney General" is incorrect, as is much of the material in the Attorney General's report which merely regurgitates a lawsuit filed. The citations here are politically motivated or biased comments by an alumnus with a strong bias and which are potentially libelous. A section of this bio challenging the attorney general's report, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education has been edited out and should be re-added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.13.1 (talk) 16:54, April 2, 2016‎

Jean-Yves Béziau

Arthur blumfield repeatedly adds statements allegedly made by A. Avron and Laurent Lafforgue regarding the subject of the article. The supporting evidence is the website of the subject, Béziau, and a hidden link on the website of one of the conferences organized by the same subject. Neither informal requests to stop doing this, nor formal warning templates, both accompanied with links to WP:BLPSPS and/or excerpts from this policy, have had any effect so far. 80.110.124.29 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just removed a very large amount of copyvio text from this article - someone had copy-pasted in entire blog posts by various scholars responding to Béziau's work, some of them many paragraphs long. He's been the focus of a recent controversy but the only sources on this appear to be blogs [28][29][30][31][32] - nothing published in an actual RS as far as I can see.

Accordingly I've removed both the controversy and the section about the article that caused the controversy - if anyone wants to argue that the academic's opinions are exempt from WP:SPS (as experts) I'm all ears, but I'm being cautious for now and removing it all, since I can't find anything in a third-party, published RS (either on the controversy itself, or to justify the lengthy quotations from the article that caused the controversy). Happy to hear what others think on this one - in fact I'd very much appreciate it if someone could look this over and confirm that removing the "controversy" section was the right move. This does seem like something that could/should be notable, but I'm not seeing the kinds of sources that we'd normally rely on to include coverage of such a controversy (maybe it's all just too new?) Fyddlestix (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've already made a case at the article's talk page why the above cited personal blogs may (but need not be) used as RS in the absence of better sources. They effectively serve as a peer review of the controversial paper by the subject rather than as personal opinions of the blogs' authors about the subject. Let me now make a case why the controversy should be covered here on Wikipedia. This controversy has a real impact on the world of philosophy: as follows from the statement of the Synthese editors-in-chief [33], it was this article and this controversy that led them to start an internal investigation of their publishing practices and institute a temporary moratorium on new special issues of one of the most influential journals in philosophy. Thus, the importance of this incident is beyond one person, the author of the article: it currently affects the whole philosophical community. Secondly, one of the above mentioned blogs [34] is not a personal blog. Its self description is "Daily Nous provides information and news for and about the philosophy profession. The site is maintained by me, Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina." Thus, this site provides a news platform for the philosophical community (it might come as a surprise but major newspapers are not too keen on news about new exciting philosophical theories). So far this site has shown its impartiality by giving voice to all sides of the controversy: it published a link to the response by the subject and it published the statement of the editors. I might add that when major news outlets do show interest in philosophy, they sometimes cite Daily Nous [35]. It would be great if an experienced wikipedia editor could use the coverage in Daily Nous and any other sources deemed RS to make a concise and objective description of the controversy. Charley86 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] "Page History".

[1]