This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Erika Jensen-Jarolim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently stumbled upon Erika Jensen-Jarolim almost entirely written by Jensen-Jarolim. If looking like the user at the very least has a close connection to this person if not being that person themselves. I haven't talked to the user yet, so I'm not sure if they are aware of WP:BLP, but I practically never deal with BLP type articles, so just looking for some guidance here. Given that most of the article is just a list of the subject's publications, would it normally just be nominated for deletion? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I went and placed the article up for deletion. I'm sure folks here have dealt with this kind of article much more often than I have, so comments are welcome there. [1] Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Jensen-Jarolim voting so far seems to be leaning towards Keep because she does appear to be notable. It does not appear to be written in a promotional manner - and is written in an encyclopedic tone.

There are, though, primary sources where she was an author of a journal article or use of info from her website. It would be better to have secondary sources... and possibly implement a process for ((request edit)) since it seems possible or likely that the user is the subject of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

What is this supposed to mean? From the article: "Spelling's parents were both Jewish, though their ancestors immgrated from Russia and Poland". Are Jewish people not supposed to live in or come from Russia or Poland?

• Obviously, a lot of Jewish immigrants came from Russia and Poland, and Spelling's ancestors are not some historical exception. The easy fix: the "though" should be replaced with a simple "and". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed, along with the spelling error.--Auric talk 13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed potential for pun noted. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

you bio of the former first lady of the Commonwealth is very confusing. At the very end, it states she was briefly married to someone else. When did this marriage occur? Should not that be part of the introduction stating she was married at age XX to XX then went onto to marry the Governor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.186.206 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to clear that up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Added to body. It's not important enough for the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have started an rfc about whether the depiction of Chomsky's views and statements in relation to the Cambodian genocide is neutral. Please participate.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not a biography of a living person, but I see that comments have been added to the article talk page... and the RfC has been added to lists for:

• Politics, government, and law
• History and geography
• Society, sports, and culture

--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI

The article on Mark Emmert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) had a sudden influx of vandalism on Nov 11th. I semi-protected the page yesterday; but I learned today that there is a regional Penn State blog that had been soliciting and encouraging vandalism of the page.

After semi-protecting the article, on my talk page I was accused repeatedly [2][3][4] by 162.242.85.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of working for Mark Emmert. To be perfectly clear: I do not work for Mark Emmert, have never met him, never talked to him, nor even seen him in person. I am in no way shape or form paid by him nor by the organizations with which he is representing or employed.

I've done some cleanup of some of the WP:NOR and WP:BLP items that I saw on the page; but the page will likely need some additional eyes on it to watch for resumed vandalism once the semi-protection expires. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Emmert ordered edits on Wikipedia as the simple truth is that no such claims were made by those deposed, although Williams did state that when they saw factual errors on any site, including Wikipedia, that they sough to correct them. I also note the minor problem that a PDF of a deposition in a legal case is a "primary source." Collect (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

SPAs are clashing over this bio, as a result of recent blog and media attention to alleged plagiarism. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Added to watchlist. Its spammy, but thats expected when there are developments in a story in RL. I don't see lots of edit war evidence at this point, nor do any of the additions seem like obvious BLP violations (although they could be phrased better in some cases) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I just thought people here should keep their eye on it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well this is not good. I removed blogs that were used as a source, and the blogs were reinstated. This definitely poses a BLP issue.[5]. I'm going to revert this but apparently there is an effort underway to use self-published, anonymous blogs as sources for plagiarism allegations. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here. At issue is whether the lead of the article should mention that "fans" have labelled the subject of the article "Dithering Dave". --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

A stubborn very new user keeps adding unsourced material and fan cruft to this article. I should have left a message on their talk page when I first reverted them, but I didn't. In my last revert, I did, but the editor doesn't seem to care much. The article has few page watchers, so no one else is paying much attention to it. I've already reverted more than I should.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not finding sources that indicate notability, and provided an update to the article talk page about notability. Based upon the lack of notability, I tagged the article for Criteria for speedy deletion for musicians.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. While it is true that there is only little information about her easily accessible in English sources on the web, the little that is available clearly indicates notability, as she seems to be well known in among Latin Americans (in particular in Mexico) and has published several albums, some in cooperation with notable musicians, has albums and singles listed in charts in billboard publications and had show or performances in Vegas (for all that info see the links posted on the article's talk page). That should be enough to establish notability. The challenge here is that for writing a properly sourced article containing more than 2 or 3 information bits (like the current one) one has to resort to Spanish sources and offline sources from newspaper and magazine archives. The unsourced material that was added in the past seems more or less correct, but sourcing it properly most likely requires some real work and there might be no quick via googling some sources. As long as nobody has time and resources to do that, the article in doubt simply has to stay a stub, though the addition of a discography probably could be sourced reliably.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, great feedback, analysis, and suggestion!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The "Personal Life" section states in its entirety:

Personal life[edit] A short-lived football "career" at best describes what Mercein did in football. The rest of his life was spent living in the past and battling the challenges of drugs and more. [1]

This is not supported in any way by the reference. Also, his career was longer than average in the NFL.

Removed. This left the article unsourced - I'll add some references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Gottwald Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography has numerous track results listed that are either practice times without citation or possibly fake. Mr. Gottwald has never run times even close to the ones listed on his bio page in real competition. The times he has listed made him a elite among any runner. They are more than likely not real. If he has run 1:49 and 7:52 that must be cited. A 1:49 on 166m track is worth almost 1:45 for 800m on a 200m banked track.

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

I am Clarke Mackey, the person the article is about. The article was vandalized starting at 23:00 on 27 Oct.2014 by 130.15.32.81, gurguy1996, and 130.15.32.58. I am requesting that all those edits be deleted. They were added as a practical joke. Thanks for your help, Clarke

 Done The original content was restored. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Meatsgains (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to have more people take a look at Carmine Miranda, a classical musician. There's a COI problem there, with one self-identified COI editor and two SPAs. See WP:COIN#Carmine Miranda. But I may have been too harsh in dealing with the self-promotion. The article needs more positive stuff that doesn't originate from PR. Because there's a lot of PR, that's hard to find. Take a look and see what should be done. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Jacobs (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article could really do with some TLC. The article seems to have been lurching from mild puff piece to hatchet job for a while. It could really do with some TLC. In my experience, unsourced content attracts more unsourced content like a magnet, so if somebody were to take some time to overhaul it with a neutral, sourced summary of his career, it would solve an awful lot of problems and make it much easier for editors to just revert unsourced addition. I would but I think it's better-suited to an American and I've already acted in an admin capacity so I'm not keen to blur the line between acting as an uninvolved admin and as a regular editor. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Contributor Xxxartxxx created the LG Williams article and there have been several conversations from multiple users requesting the user to better define notability, present the content in an unbiased and encyclopedic tone, and provide content that focuses on the artist's work - without seeming to understand the guidelines. I have tagged the user's talk page with a "possible close connection" template.

This appears to be a ((connected contributor)) and ((conflict of interest)) situation based upon comments on Talk:LG Williams and edits to the article. Comments have become uncivil and it would be helpful to have a second opinion about next steps for working this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I second User / Contributor / Vandal CaroleHenson request. However, the submission to this notice board should be fair and balanced.

True, I did create the page in question. And, for the most part all the Wiki attention this page received was from vandals. Around 20 people visited the site a day, according to Wiki statistics -- and that amount is huge for a self-proclaimed, counter-cultural artist, and Beat Generation admirer like LG Williams. Why did this page receive vandalism, because it was, um, not notable? I don't think so. Vandals only pursue threats.

I never thought of Xxxartxxx "claiming" notability or "defining" notability because no other Contemporary Los Angeles artist page does so, period. Experience and the national and international art community provides "notability" -- I brought the material together. Please check the talk page. I am a wiki user; not an art critic or art museum official.

LG Williams has notability with the highest authorities in the art world: from across the USA and Europe. He has participated in the Venice Biennial; he has had over 100 exhibitions, published over 64 artists book (which are in City Lights Bookstore), the Slate Professor of Art History at Oxford University, Donald Preziosi, featured Williams' in his latest publication (one of only 2 artists!); Williams' had 5 international art exhibits in the last year alone; countless west coast art critics have recorded Williams merit; many international art critics have recorded his merit (See the La Stampa review: "Amongst the sleepy blue chip artists in this exhibition, one sees a tiny LG Williams' and it is a breath of fresh air..."); Cengage Learning published, Drawing Upon Art, the workbook for Gardner's Art Through the Ages; he was the art critic for the Tokyo weekender; the Village Voice and other publications have published his scathing criticism of the contemporary art world and practices; he just had a 25-year artist retrospective in Milan -- which was documented in Purple Diary of all places!! (does international jet-set culture report upon the unnotable? lol ; his last group exhibition at Culture Communication Center, What Is It?, curated by Julija Cistiakova, included some of the most important artists exhibiting today: Seth Price, Hans Op de Beeck, Maurizio Cattelan & Pierpaolo Ferrari, Dan Perjovschi, Dora Garcia, and Christian Jankowski -- with such an international artistic line up of notables would you include a clown? -- Williams' was the sole American!; Williams' studied at the prestigious UCDavis art faculty (turning down Yale MFA program) to be among Wayne Thiebaud, Robert Arneson, William Wiley, Manuel Neri; Wally Hedrick was Williams' close friend and mentor for 25 years -- in fact, Williams is the youngest member of the Rat Bastard Protective Association; he as taught art at University of California, Davis, California College of Art, University of Southern California, Arizona State University and 10 other places; and I could list his merit for another 5 paragraphs -- and I did like all the other Contemporary Los Angeles artist wiki pages. I repeat: User CaroleHenson said that this convention was unacceptable despite its being the convention of every other living, mid-career, notable artist in Los Angeles was inappropriate. See the Talk page. Of course, only her edits were appropriate, despite her edits lack of basic knowledge of the material on the one hand, or rhetorical / compositional understanding on the other hand.

Speckled throughout the Talk page, she repeatedly uses the phrases, "I shouldn't of said that [because it was ignorant]; "I didn't know that"; or "Why is this important?" Can we be honest, if you don't know why the Sociology of Art is important in art history, art criticism and art pedagogy, you have no business assuming sole-owner of a wikipage in just 10 days. Seriously...I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with Xxxartxxx's characterizations of my comments. It doesn't seem like it would be helpful to go point-by-point through the items, but if further comments are helpful, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

2 fact-checking:

• LG Williams has not participated to the 54th Venice Biennial. See the artists lists.
• His retrospective isn't mentioned in the Purple Diary nor anywhere else. --Newnewbi (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am happy to answer any questions even if they (a) are from other single-purpose / one-time vandals and, (b) have already been discussed and documents in the discussion page:

• (From the Talk page): Simply do a Google search for LG Williams + Venice Biennale, what do we find? 1,000 results
• Simply do a Wikipedia search for LG Williams + Venice Biennale, what do we find? LG Williams name in Internet Pavilion in the Venice Biennale.

FYI: The charge here within this talk page is NOT for notability of LG Williams, that is not under dispute. What is under discussion here is COI -- Conflict of Ignorance by sole-purpose users like "Newnewbi" (see Talk page) & otherwise excellent editors for long dead artists like User CaroleHenson, who just don't understand the contemporary material and don't understand rhetoric and composition. Not to mention sentences like this: "He has also exhibited at Turin’s Artissima Fair Supplies Contemporary Art Addicts With New Discoveries.[37]" What exactly does this mean? Anyone can see in the Talk page that I have added nothing to the POV, accept challenge ignorance of the material -- and kindly urge users of complex material to have some understanding of the material they want to immediately assume control over. Seriously...--Xxxartxxx (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

'PS:' (sorry I'm busy the office...) Sole-purpose vandal @Newnewbi -- sorry I didn't address your second question "or anywhere else". "Anthology" was indeed covered in the media across the globe, so I am happy to bring to your attention just 2 excellent references. Here is the catalogue essay and here is a wonder (and I dare say inspiring) brief review that otherwise won't take too much time away from wiki vandalizing. I think the general audience on this Talk page now understands what I am going through. Respectfully --Xxxartxxx (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the continued pattern of throwing out a lot of comments, little of which is accurate. Here, one of the sources is a blog and the other is a link to the lgwilliams website (although there is an ISSU link to the exhibition catalog, which one editor questions the use, since it's not a secondary source), not secondary sources - which, as has been stated often, is an issue in determining notability. Your experience on the web has included: using blogs and letters to the editor as sources, using sources that did not mention Williams / this Williams at all, inundating the article with list of sources that do not necessarily add new content - and then lying about the content of some of the sources. The next step, then, was engaging in sarcastic and uncivil communication.

The concern about conflict of interest comes from this underlying point: "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

I am not sure that it was a valuable step to try to save this article where there were clear connection/conflict/questionable notability issues. We got to the point that there was content was not promotional and just had valid sources and the article and communication has taken steps backwards since then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(Backspace for clarity) Thank you User CaroleHenson for demonstrating (yet again) as "conflict of ignorance". My answer to the one-time user vandal was clear and straightforward, see here:

• To ascertain if LG Williams was or was not in the Venice Bienniale "simply do a Wikipedia search for LG Williams + Venice Biennale, what do we find? LG Williams name in Internet Pavilion in the Venice Biennale.! We find that LG Williams was in the Venice Biennale.
• Next, to ascertain if Anthology was or was not mentioned anywhere on the planet, here is a wonder (and I dare say inspiring) brief review that otherwise won't take too much time away from posting and reposting tags on a wikipedia page? Clearly it was mentioned on the planet. Why doesn't User CaroleHenson READ the article rather than changing tags; and Just how many times has she changed tags on this page? She just did it again today! Seriously ---omg

This is as clear case for COI: Conflict of Ignorance. What POV is the declarative fact indicate? What conflict of interest in pointing out a fact provide? I have said, again and again, Williams' is a scoundrel. Editors deleted the balanced content! And, what is with User CaroleHenson comments about a blog and what not? Its blabber: I have no idea what thread she is referring to -- or what answer she is responding to? Does anybody else know what she is talking about in her reply to two "clear and straightforward" answers to 2 questions from a vandal? Seriously --Xxxartxxx (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I didn't say anything about whether you were right or wrong about the vandals. I wasn't even involved at that point.

Xxxartxxx Reply: Thank you for NOT saying anything about the vandals in this thread even though you are involved and know that my reply was CORRECT. You brought us here, including the vandals. Yet you fail to take responsibility for their / your ignorance. My general knowledge of contemporary art is no reason for COI, period. Seriously... --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2. I didn't say LGW was not at the Venice Bienniale. In fact, I revised content about the Venice Bienniale to be more notable/important with secondary sources, as one of the many examples of the types of information to include in the article.

Xxxartxxx Reply: Thank you for NOT saying anything about the Venice Bienniasle in this thread even though you are involved and know that my reply was CORRECT. You brought us here, including the vandals. Yet you fail to take responsibility for their / your ignorance. My general knowledge of contemporary art is no reason for COI, period. Seriously... --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Regarding Anthology I was responding to your comments with links to sources that are not reliable sources.

Xxxartxxx Reply: The question from the vandal was this: was Anthology mentioned anywhere in the world. The answer is: YES. I gave one link from Glass Magazine. Glass Magazine is a magazine. Why are you raving around about a blog??? What blog? And, besides, many blogs in the 21st century in contemporary art ARE notable -- despite your false and misinformed judgements. You have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever!!! This is a contemporary art article. But even, if in my reply I listed a blog, my reply would have been CORRECT. Anthology was mentioned somewhere. You have demonstrated again to this thread your ignorance to the wiki community, period. Your ignorance of the material is no reason for COI, period. Seriously...

4. I have not only read the article, I have spent a LOT of time cleaning it up.

Xxxartxxx Reply: Your time has NOTHING to do with this thread! The topic is COI -- which you have not listed ONE infraction in this thread, period. Seriously --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Not only has no one disputed the tags, there has been support for the tags. I have removed them when the issues were resolved by me and another editor. Today I moved the two new tags - just to be clearer about where the issues are.

Xxxartxxx Reply: You have no idea what you are typing! The topic is COI -- which you have not listed ONE infraction, period. Seriously. Plus, the other editor NOWA, by his own admission has stated in the Talk Page that he doesn't know the material. He only knows about vandals -- and he kindly protecteds the article. Seriously --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

6. I have opened the issue here because you fail to get any of the points that I or other editors are making, which is disruptive and side-steps the issues instead of dealing with them head-on.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Xxxartxxx Reply: You have already stated that you opened this discussion at the beginning of the thread! Why are you repeating yourself? The topic is COI???? And, let me repeat for the 6th time: you have not listed ONE COI infraction, period, in this thread! Seriously --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

A general knowledge of a few contemporary art facts is not a COI, period. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The appearance of a conflict of interest certainly exists here. Quoting from WP:APPARENTCOI: "apparent conflicts can be as objectionable as potential or actual conflicts, because they cause suspicion, and should therefore be resolved wherever possible". A look at xxxartxxx's edit history shows an essentially single-purpose account; since October 2013 every edit is to LG Williams and articles mentioning him, or to related discussions and files. The LG Williams article was created by xxxartxxx and, before recent intervention by other editors, was almost entirely his work. His edit resembled an inflated resume, and its inline citations were mostly to lgwilliams.com. Note that CaroleHenson is not kidding about the quality of the references, which include "New Yorker, Letter To The Editor Regarding Anthony Lane's Street Justice: Kick Ass, April 26, 2010", and articles like this one that do not mention Williams or relate in any obvious way to our article. As other editors undertook the necessary cleanup, the response from xxxartxxx was petulance, quickly escalating to insults and accusations of vandalism. Some action may be required; editors should not be subjected to this kind of abuse for politely requesting sources. Ewulp (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Response @ User Ewulp and other impartial editors: Please let me address your comments concerning COI.

1. By looking through your recent edits, I can see that you are not familiar with contemporary PostModern artists, or contemporary PostModern artists in Los Angeles. The confusion between appearance and reality, fact and fiction, lies at the heart of this artistic period. This confusion is also apparent in your uninformed and cliche riddled commentary. LG Williams is a postmodern artist. Therefore, truth be told, user/editor confusion should be present in editors mind, otherwise this article would misrepresent the artist and period. There is no basis for COI in your statement.
2. So, I have looked at your edits, and you mine. Yet, you clearly misrepresent me as a sole user. I do have another interest, in fact, with another key postmodern figure -- the soon to be successor to Terry Eagleton. For now, I am happy with this other page and see no need to add anything, period. For a long time, as you can see the Williams page lay fallow, too: after I re-introduced Williams back into Wiki (after the most important art historian in the western world included him in his latest book) -- it became apparent that Williams is bona fide. And, I wrote as much. Personally, I find that editors who write about everything are basically "amusing themselves to death." But clearly that opinion runs askance to the hive mind." There is no basis for COI in your statement.
3. I must strongly object to your characterization of the orig LG Williams edit. Why do I object? As I clearly stated in the Talk Page, I object because "most of the other contemporary Los Angeles artists wiki pages are basically resumes!" See the list I provided in Talk page! Why is this important: because you clearly did not take the time to read my verifiable correspondence in the Talk page before writing your cliche. Forgive me for pointing out the obvious. If you would have read the Talk page you would see that I have addressed this point candidly and in good-faith; instead (a) of trying to inflate Williams by COI, (b) my position is to treat Williams the same as everyone else! There is no basis for COI in your statement.
4. I completely agree with you and User CaroleHenson!!! Yes, indeed, "CaroleHenson not kidding about the quality of the references, which include "New Yorker, Letter To The Editor Regarding Anthony Lane's Street Justice: Kick Ass, April 26, 2010", and articles like this one that do not mention Williams or relate in any obvious way to our article." Let me repeat: I completely agree with this statement. Williams is a con-artist, a scoundrel! Delete this reference, so what??!! In other words, to prove COI against me with this accusation, you must first clearly demonstrate to me and to the other user/editors of this thread that I objected to this deletion -- WHEN I DID NOT OBJECT!!! You will find no instance of my objection anywhere, period!!! What you will find is that I found many citations for many articles most editors were too busy posting tags on the article to quickly find and verify the sources themselves -- take for instance the Venice Biennial. There is no basis for COI in your statement.
5. None of the statements that you list above prove anything -- in any way -- concerning COI. However, it is curious to find that you simply want to punish an innocent -- who has challenged the hive mind. But it is not startling to me, that you must "demand punishment" against me for no wiki crime -- I expect it given your input does not produce any evidence for COI. What you input does further is blatant hypocrisy: you advocate "punishment" for COI when none exists.

Once again, @ User Ewulp let me be clear: you have provided no basis for COI in your statement; but you have provided a wonderful example of demanding punishment when no Wiki violation is present. Punishment without a crime is wrong, it proves you are both unlearned and vindictive -- and why my tone cries foul at continued injustices and hypocrisy. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

PS @ User Ewulp: I am stunned to discover that you just made an edit to the "Stephen Wirtz Gallery" on LG Williams -- the very same edit that I made (see my defense of this blatant ignorance in the Talk Page) which got deleted by User CaroleHenson!!!!!! The day she posted this COI forum!!!!! So let me get this straight: you institute my edits AND then you charge me with COI. This is a clear example of hypocrisy, don't you experienced editors have any sense of shame? --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In response to #1 above: Would it be fair to conclude from your own recent edits that you are "not familiar with" anything in this universe of ours besides LG Williams? Perhaps you infer too much from an edit history. A single purpose account that is used to create a resume-like biography, filled with spurious citations and external links to the subject's own website as described above, invites suspicion of a COI. The editor's incivility toward other editors on the article's talk page, now on display here as well, does not inspire trust. Nor do the frequent misrepresentations; for instance, my edit and yours were not "the very same edit". To #3 above: You are again in error; I have visited the article's talk page daily since Cyphoidbomb posted this notice on the WikiProject Visual arts talk page November 2, and have followed the entire discussion. Your suggestion that LG Williams be compared with certain stub-class/start-class articles about other contemporary LA artists is a WP:OSE argument that does not address the problems in the article. Ewulp (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I was drawn into the article, too, by Cyphoidbomb's posted notice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Response @ User Ewulp and other impartial editors: In your desperate attempt to prove COI you have failed in every attempt: however, everyone can now see you are a hypocrite. No one can enter into good-faith discussions with another who is a fully declared, and verifiable hypocrite. This is not as term used in derision, it is simply fact. Let me repeat: This is not as term used in derision, it is simply fact. A fact that is now in the record. For you to lecture me, then execute my edits, demonstrates to all that you have no authority or integrity, period. Don't worry, Kurt Vonnegut said that the first step to becoming an American is being a hypocrite.

Here is my commentary concerning the edit in full from the LG Williams Talk Page, which you read then edited:Italic text "Question: Just what terrible tone, point of view, properly sources, notable, encyclopedic tone, is Xxxartxxx championing today? Today I tried to correct "the Wirtz" -- as in, "His work exhibited at the Wirtz..." Just what in the heck is a: "the Wirtz"? Certainly none of you editors know what "the Wirtz" is because there is no such thing as "the Wirtz". In the artworld today, there is the Stephen Wirtz Gallery in San Francisco; there is Stephen Wirtz amongst art aficionados; but nowhere on the entire planet is there "the Wirtz"! Omg. This does not exist. This makes no sense to anyone. But you editors don't know this because you don't know what you are writing about. You don't know your subject. And, you are editing something you know nothing about. Sure, I simply happen to know contemporary art here and abroad. Maybe you know about TV, but this article is not about TV. Of course, you read an article that I found and posted and you read, "LG Williams At Wirtz" but you read with no understanding whatsoever. You wouldn't have the foggiest idea why Wirtz was abbreviated in the newspaper article, you just read "Wirtz". User CaroleHenson deleted this edit -- seriously."

This whole COI discussion has been a farce. You have proved nothing about COI whatsoever. But you have proved that you are just another hypocrite, without shame, and without integrity - and even caught red handed you are without conscious, you continue to lie rather than admit your dishonesty. If the other reputable Wiki editors do not punish you or reprimand for this action, this again will prove that the Wiki oversight process is a sham and as joke. --Xxxartxxx (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate! If you would be so good, please provide the diffs that demonstrate (a) my "attempt to prove" COI; (b) when I "fully declared" my hypocrisy; and (c) the multiple instances in which I am alleged to "lie". Ewulp (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - With regard to content at LG Williams at some point early on I thought to keep the article on watch, because SPAs who know a lot about subjects are sometimes closely related to the subject. At the time I thought the article was freshly crafted, not a re-creation of a previously removed article. Anyhow, with the recent AfD nomination (which at the time appeared to have been motivated by malice) my research into the article's past led me to believe based on behavioral evidence that a sockpuppet operator indeffed in 2012 (Art4em) had returned as Xxxartxxx to reinvigorate an article that had previously been deleted for lack of notability and other for other pernicious editing. The sock investigation resulted in an indef of Xxxartxxx based on duck content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How can I get help in removing derogatory information that was posted to my biography page as part of a political attack campaign?

I'll happily remove any unsourced derogatory content from the page if you tell me what page it is. Meatsgains (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's clearly slanderous, you can remove it yourself. Otherwise, let us know which page you're referring to here and we can take a look. If you're not comfortable identifying yourself on this public page, you can contact the volunteer response team who should be able to take care of it discreetly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for responding. This happened a couple of months ago as I was in the middle of running for elected office and this was part of a smear campaign. The info was removed once, but they obviously returned and came with even more this time. Last time I was able to chat live with multiple administrators and the problem was resolved rather quickly. Unfortunately, I don't remember how I contacted the administrators in a live chat. Any ideas? 69.112.220.0 (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

69.112.220.0, I've fixed Lankiveil's accidentally malformed link to the volunteer response team's page above, with e-mail addresses and general info. Please click on it now. I thought there was an IRC channel too, for live chat, but I can't seem to find it on that page — anybody? Bishonen | talk 01:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Resolved

--Mkativerata (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Langan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is atrocious. It reads like the very worst kind of vanity autobiography, and it seems not unlikely that much of it is written by sources close to the subject. I have no view on whether the guy is notable as he seems to be an assiduous self-publicist and my skills at removing the dross thrown up by such people are very rusty these days, but the article itself is an embarrassment. It also cites intelligent design sources as if they were in some way reliable. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Simply dreadful. My first thought was to prod it — not speedy, as there's certainly assertion of notability — but the article was AfD'd in 2007, and kept, which rules out WP:PROD. Incidentally, there also used to be an article about Langan's chef-d'oeuvre, the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which is now, after a deletion discussion in 2006, a redirect to Christopher Langan. I just removed a "See also" pointing to that article from Talk:Christopher Langan. Yes, a "See also" on the talkpage. Unusual, you'll say. User:Christopher Langan made 3 edits in 2011 (which made it pretty obvious that he had edited as an IP before). Anyway, time for another AfD, do you think, Guy? I dunno, I'm getting a little cynical about our deletion procedures. They seem to cost more blood, sweat and tears than they're worth, and to favour the self-promoters (and indeed all sorts of promoters). I may have a go at stubbing it, when I've recovered from the depressive mood it put me in, but my feeling is its supporters (or, ahem, supporter) may surface again if I do. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

He does look notable at-a-glance and genuinely for being really smart. I did some quick rough cleanup, however once a bot rescues some of the citations, it should be easier to hunt down the rest of the primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

See the chapter in Gladwell Outliers (ref'ed way down at the bottom): Langan is certainly notable. An AfD would be a complete waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

How should we (should we?) cover unproven rape allegations against Bill Cosby? Eyes and advice on the talk page would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations have been covered extensively in reliable sources recently, so yes, but only as RS says and with attribution to those RS. See WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLPCRIME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 06:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This New York Times article makes it clear that the allegations are having a negative effect on Cosby's career, which justifies inclusion of a more detailed, neutral BLP compliant description of the accusations, which is being developed on the talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably well sorted out (the current article-text regarding rape allegations looks BLP compliant to me). I do think we need to be careful with cases that fall under speculation, gossip and crystal ball. Regardless of their sources, the media has a different editorial mission than us in that they often focus on such things, whereas we do not. I think it would be further improved with some trimming and more of a focus on the effect it's had on his career, rather than a "did he do it" type debate. And I mentioned on the Talk page another possible BLP issue. CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The BLPPROD tag has twice been removed from John Caputo (hockey). Of the two sources we have at present, one is from the website of the firm Caputo is director of, and the other is a self-published video. It is hard to see how either of these can be regarded as "reliable sources", so the proposed deletion should stand: Noyster (talk), 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROD: prod is one-shot only, the first objection kills it. And yes, even a bare removal of the prod template counts as an "objection" in this sense. The template should never have been restored after having been once removed (User:Reddogsix made a mistake in restoring it), and it certainly mustn't be restored again. The article is dreadful, though. "Granted with four beautiful children"..? Br-r-r (shivers). I'm no good with sports articles, I can't tell whether it can be speedied per "no credible assertion of notability", but it's either speedy or WP:AfD. No prodding. Bishonen | talk 13:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC).

Actually that is not true for WP:BLPPROD. The Objecting section of the policy says that it can be readded if a reliable source that supports something in the article has not been added. His own website can be considered a reliable source about himself. It is not a 3rd party source so it does not help to establish notability but I think it satisfies the reliable source part of BLPPROD. The objection section also says, "however, in borderline cases, such as where a source of questionable reliability (rather than an obvious unreliable source) has been added, the biography should be listed instead at Articles for Deletion." As there is questionable reliability you should take this to WP:AFD. -- GB fan 14:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you might as well just AFD it. I commented on the AFD discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Himezawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Her sources are, in its majority, self-published sources, and the person itself is an unknown person.

I have sent it to Articles for Deletion for discussion. Appears to have a large number of references, but they are mostly forums, blogs, videos, the article-subject's website and brief mentions. CorporateM (Talk) 02:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does this page exist? It was very obviously written by its subject and serves largely as an advertisement for his work.

Well, it has zero references. That's an obvious problem. I added the unreferenced and notability templates.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion. The BLP policy requires that we delete unsourced material about living people, whether positive, negative or neutral, immediately and without discussion. That entire page is un-sourced and therefore all needs to be deleted. I prefer to delete, rather than tag such a page. CorporateM (Talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings: My brother, Jim Wiles, attempted to add content to my daughter, Jacqueline Wiles, page on August 8, 2014. I see the added content in the "view history" section, but it did not post. Any suggestions? Thank you for your assistance. Regards, David.

It was a WP:COPYVIO problem, the content your brother posted infringed the guidance there. It actually did post, but was removed. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The subject is not notable, may be a living person and the article contains no sources.

This article should be deleted. 89.240.168.149 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a BLP minefield, I've proposed the article for deletion, we'll see if that sticks. Note that there were sources in the article history, removed here, but after a quick look I couldn't find much that was simultaneously reliable, independent, and substantial. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

The PROD was removed without comment, so I've raised Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amalia Marquez at AFD to look more closely at this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where this "genuine" argument comes from, as the RFC has nothing to do with that. The question was whether political affiliation is relevant enough to be listed in the infobox of a science fiction/fantasy author. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If a trans person prefers specific non-standard pronouns (e.g., ze/hir), should those pronouns be used throughout their Wikipedia article? I am asking specifically about Leslie Feinberg who died today. Feinberg said in an interview in 2006 that hir preferred pronouns are ze/hir. MOS:IDENTITY and even WP:Gender identity don't address this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If possible, feel free to add information related to the issue to Wikipedia:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Will do when discussion is over/consensus reached. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. I would say that preferred pronouns should be used, even if they are non-standard. WP:Gender identity says special attention should paid to human dignity, and I think this is an example where that would apply. — Strongjam (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Do independent mainstream sources use ze/hir? If not, then no (but avoid using him/her, etc., as much as possible). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The biography Kate Bornstein is written without personal pronouns, and there is a lengthy debate going back to 2011 on the talk page there about this very issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Decent point about using what RS use, but as mentioned below, some RS are not very good at covering trans topics, even "gay" publications. I think Feinberg says ze doesn't mind "she" when not in a trans-aware space, but that ze has a preferred pronoun means it matters to hir enough to express that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Best course would likely be to follow what the reliable sources do. Advocate.com [6] uses "she" and so we would not err in doing so. Collect (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Advocate has a pretty shitty record when it comes to covering trans people so I wouldn't consider them "reliable" in that sence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the interview in 2006, imo, considering wp:blp the subjects preferred pronouns should be used- Govindaharihari (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- what would a strong advocate of BLP say?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Advocate.com source: EDITOR'S NOTE: Though we have often used "he" in reference to Feinberg at The Advocate, we recognize that this obituary was written by Feinberg's wife, Minnie Bruce Pratt, while at the author's bedside. Thus we are using her preferred pronouns here, despite our previous reporting. I.e. "she" was the "preferred pronoun" per spouse. Collect (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I"m against using such things simply for clarity's sake. I understand the desire of transgender or genderqueer folks to own their identity, but when they are inventing pronouns for themselves, it takes us out of using English in a way that will be understood. If he or she is problematic in regard to some individual, we have the option of the singular they, as well as writing to avoid pronouns in general, but people should not need a decoder sheet to read a paragraph of the article (and this becomes even moreso when we are making references to these individuals outside of their own article.) This is not to say that we shouldn't document their preference, if it is of relevant to our general biographical coverage in their article. (Although I will note, Collect, that it is not clear from what you quote whether the her in "her preferred pronouns" is Feinberg or Pratt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When I read the editor's note, I read it as saying that "she" was Feinberg's preferred usage - which they would not have specifically used but for the fact the obit writer was Feinberg's spouse. Saying that you simply are using the term used by the obit writer would seem not to warrant the wording of the note provided. Collect (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I followed Fineberg for many years and was shocked to finally see a recent picture. I agree with much of what NatGertler says. Obviously requires a paragraph explaining this with the quote from The Advocate. The recent picture is worth 1000 words and maybe out of respect to use the preferred pronouns. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things: First, if we are going to adopt unusual pronouns in an article at the dictate of the subject, a hatnote is necessary explaining this. People who are unfamiliar with this sort of thing need to be given some idea of why they're seeing these contrived pronouns.

Second, since Wikipedia is not censored, it is appropriate to reveal the biological sex of the subject if it is known and germane. I gather that in the case of Feinberg the obfuscation of that is rather the idea, but especially for a non-living subject I see any problem with resolving that if the sources are there. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not complicated. If you use "hir", for example, wikilink it. Which redirects toGender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns. Bam! There's the explanation for those who require it. And yes, include a source that explains that the pronoun in question is preferred and why. Rather than just dismissing a pronoun as "contrived".Echoedmyron (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, Wikipedia should be following already established editorial practices rather than being a leader or stand-out. With that in mind, I would tend to be against the use of non-standard pronouns such as "ze" and "hir", unless there is good evidence that a significant number of secondary sources have already adopted such a practice. (I don't see much evidence of that in this thread so far, though perhaps people can offer some?) That said, I think the Bornstein example, given above, of avoiding personal pronouns is reasonable for cases like this. It makes the writing more complicated, but that may be an acceptable tradeoff. At present the article only contains two instances where "ze/hir" is used in Wikipedia's voice in the article, and those pronouns could reasonably by removed with a little judicious rephrasing. The pronouns also occur in a direct quote from the subject, and I don't see any problem keeping the quote or otherwise mentioning this individual's personal pronoun preferences, but I think it is a little bit too far ahead of the curve for Wikipedia to be adopting those pronouns ourselves. Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

There is a malicious person who is tampering with various individuals who support parapsychology. He has been making unauthorized changes to biographies. He has changed the Stanley Krippner page several times and added inaccurate information. Here is what I can discern about the perpetrator:

User:Goblin Face From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hello agn This user is agnostic. BM This user is a rabid fan of Black Metal No Quacks logo.png This user resists the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans. System-users.svg This user edited under a previous user name of Dan skeptic.

♂ This user is male. WikiWed.jpg This user is married. This user is a skeptic. V This user is a vegetarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrippner (talk • contribs)

If you have concerns about the accuracy of information, please raise that specifically. Concerns that the changes are not being made by "Prof Krippner or his agents" (as mentioned in this edit summary )are, however, inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not a resumé service nor a PR service; articles here are not intended to be under the direct control of the subjects. If Krippner or his agents want an official page that represents solely the face that they wish to put forward, there are many fine online services for doing just that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to raise these concerns on the talk page of the article first. Personal attacks are definitely not appropriate. Calling someone malicious, describing their editing as tampering and characterizing them as a perpetrator amounts to a personal attack. You seem to lack an understanding of how Wikipedia (WP) works, changes are not "authorized" content is changed/added/removed by any editor based on policies and guidelines. Content on WP represents reliable (mostly secondary) sources based upon the due weight of the sources. If you feel sources are being misrepresented explain that specifically. If you feel undue weight is given or due weight not given explain that. Based on the user name of the editor who made the post starting this discussion consideration of the conflict of interest policy may be in order. Posts should be signed with four tildes ~~~~ and when mentioning a specific editor or quoting them in a discussion they are not involved that editor should be notified. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit-warring has been going on a long time, I raised concern this user before. It seems to be Krippner wants reliable sources removed from his article. These account/IPs seem to be related:

50.247.107.41 (talk · contribs) Skrippner (talk · contribs)

In his edit summaries, Skrippner claims to be Stanley Krippner himself and 50.247 claims to be "Steve Hart, assistant to Prof. Krippner", however, 50.247 in one of his edits also wrote "I am Professor Krippner". So we have two people possibly using the same account/s. I have looked up Steve Hart, he is indeed associated with Krippner - I don't think this is an impersonation. Would be easier though if SKrippner (when he is unblocked) can confirm he is Krippner. But both of these users seems to be claiming material has been added to "their" article not by one of their "agents" and that the material is "unauthorized". They seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is by claiming edits are "unauthorized" but they have been shown the policies. I think it is possible that they had early edits on the article on other accounts... But I am not interested in trying to go through the entire history of the article and tying to find one of their "agents" lol.

As for the "malicious" charge this is incorrect and misleading. Everything I have added to Wikipedia is sourced to reliable books or scientific papers. Krippner or anyone else can double-check anything I have added, I don't add anything that is not in the sources - If you believe there is please raise this on the talk-page. You need to note though that the criticisms of Krippner's research are not coming from me, they go back over thirty years and are coming from professional psychologists such as James Alcock or C. E. M. Hansel etc. Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not personal opinion. I only cite what the sources say, what the sources say has nothing to do with me personally. If Krippner has a problem with a critical reception to his paranormal work then he needs to take it up off-Wikipedia with those scientists. But yes I do like black metal, and those other things on my userpage. Regards. Goblin Face (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with two people using the same IP address, and it is what we would expct from two different non-logged-in people using the same computer... that they have identified themselves in the edit summaries of the edit is to our benefit in following what's going on. Having said that, what they've been doing is indeed improper for a wide range of reasons, including WP:COI, WP:OWN, edit warring, and deleting sourced material without adequate reason. The Skrippner account has been blocked for a week. Let us hope they choose to take concerns to the talk page after this. For now, all BLP concerns seem to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

at the top of the page, the first two paragraphs seem fine, but then paragraphs 3 and 4 sound like they were written by a random word generator. someone really butchered those. i didn't read further in the article, so perhaps that person has made edits throughout. just wanted to bring this to someone's attention who might want to review it.

75.21.10.194 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)thetammer

More or less resolved. I was going to try to fix them, but the IP editor is right; they were a bit incoherent in spots, and I think it was best to just remove them. Anyone who wants to work on restoring the content can do so from the history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a pleasant, civil discussion in progress on the talk page regarding the unsourced plot summary that was/is in the article. The question is: Should a subjective plot summary of a fictional film - based on actual events - which portrays a living person and uses their name, be permitted? Or is this a case where sources for a plot summary should be required to protect the living subject of the article? Your input here on the discussion page is welcomed. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

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

I have tried to amend the entry for my friend, colleague and supervisor, Professor Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe on the grounds that what is stated is fallacious and that Chandra has been treated shamefully by the university. I know. I was there. However I was prevented from editing the entry since I could not provide a 'source'. There are only three people privy to this travesty of justice, one is the university representative who lied and tricked Chandra and me, one is Chandra, and I am the third person. There were only three people in 49b Park Place, Cardiff when the meeting was held. How could you want a better source?

Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires that sources be verifiable by the reader. Generally, that means published in some form. Our page on reliable sources may also help. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit in question. That's definitely not going to happen without a good source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Phil Davis (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See talk. Specifically on the machida fight.

Issues with neutrality, sourcing, and advisory/opiniated language.

Article is not neutral, but rather has a POV that is loaded and opiniated in many places.

Dana and the ufc affiliated websites are not neutral. ESPN is a major site ignored. UD is a fight outcome, controversial UD is not a fight out come. A fan post from a site like SP Nation, is not neutral or noteworthy. 1 the site is pro ufc and bans ufc critics and criticism. 2 its a fan post.

The whole article is a mess in the machida fight, and needs to be cleaned up and properly sourced and cleansed of personal authorial opinion.

Thank you. 82.32.193.99 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

article seems to be marketing spam about someone who isn't notable. sources are mostly just PR releases.

I think it meets the notability criteria. I removed some WP:PEACOCK words from the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Francis Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are s series of ongoing, dismissed, and settled lawsuits listed in Recent Events. All the information in these articles has either been dismissed or is subject still to challenge in court. The article references deceased and living individuals. When corrected or removed by various editors it has been replaced with more sensational, challengable information.Endcyberbullying (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed these two sentences per WP:BLP. The firing of the transgender teacher may remain, but not sure how relevant it is and how well it needs to be covered, if at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This article appears to have been written, in part at least, by Harlan K. Ullman. It is remarkably sketchy and does not seem to me to be a helpful treatment of the subject, his qualifications, etc. Evidence should be provided for things such as the claim of official service to the U.S.A. government. 24.148.132.226 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that it cites no sources whatsoever, it could probably be deleted in its present state. It should certainly be reduced to a stub until such time as proper third-party sourcing can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I prodded it. There were a couple of sources in a previous version -- both referring to his involvement in the DC Madam thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ron P. Swegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this person notable? Someone else posted here about him; that post was reverted for being a BLP violation, but the question itself is perhaps worth considering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was subject to a malformed AfD last spring, also by a SPA. Most of the references seem to be selfies, and all that. Choor monster (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Would appreciate more eyes on the Gary Hart article. My attention was attracted to it, due to a complaint to WP:COIN which is now resolved, but it turned out that the subject of the complaint was happy to comply with the COI guideline, and the folks who brought him to COIN have some (in my view) overly fierce concern and focus on the journalistic ethics that led to Hart leaving the 1988 primaries and there have been battles raging over stuff that is trivia with regard to Hart per se. I spent about 4 hours last night going through that section and carefully sourcing everything, and now a dynamic IP editor (which may be a sock) is globally reverting the changes. The rest of the article could use a lot of attention as well (a lot of unsourced content, etc). I am treating the global reverts as vandalism so am not worried about 3RR but would appreciate some additional sane voices in the discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

the section where all the battling was going on, and that I worked over, is Gary_Hart#1988_presidential_campaign, by the way. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Other sections were edited as well, like the 1984 campaign as well.80.55.8.138 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The above editor carried out a massive overhaul of the work of many editors of the page without a consensus for anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Hart&diff=634669164&oldid=634647954

The page deals with the biographies of several people, and previous editors made an effort to be fair to them all, as was discussed on the talk page. The above editor claimed vandalism when his work was reverted for lacking any consensus and lacking NPOV in what he drastically edited, including his POV deletions especially regarding Bill Clinton's failed interview to be Hart's V.P., which was properly sourced to Raymond Strothers book, Falling Up. (The author notes on his page that he is a "Clinton democrat".) The page got attention due to the citation of Matt Bai's book All Of The News Is Out. Bai had relied on former Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler as a source, and that proved controversial after two of Fieler's former colleagues disputed his memory, and eventually Fiedler reversed his position. The son of one of those involved, Sean J. Savage then began aggressively editing the page with a POV favoring his father. The above editor then arrived and decided, rather than come here first, to delete what he just didn't like, take ownership of the page, and call anyone with a different opinion a vandal. The page needed some attention due to the COI POV corrections and needed some help with readability, but the above editor actions and comments have been overly dramatic, and perhaps even manic.83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And this is what I meant. The IP editor has some ax to grind, and their contributions to date have been similarly unhelpful and nonspecific. The article is now semi-protected so he/she cannot do any more damage, but more eyes on the article would be useful. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

By having an "ax to grind", the editor refers to making sure that living people have their comments properly quoted, their reactions and denials to 27 year old scandalous accusations noted properly, and very personal issues which have been falsely characterized accurately stated, and making the effort to also detail the lesser known, unsubstantiated stories about Hart's campaigns from the newspaper that made the allegations, etc. It may come as a shock to some, but Wiki has a higher standard for BLB than American news media, which can easily defeat libel claims of public figures. As an international publication Wiki errs on the side of caution, which the above author does not. when relying on old, controversial sources and ignoring new revelations.83.16.13.64 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

everything in that section is sourced; you have no grounds to say anything is "unsubstantiated." Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Some more eyes on the talk page here would be welcome. There is currently a discussion on whether we should remove a minor conviction from the article. I'm not too sure of any implications on BLP retaining or removing has, so I'm raising it here. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing a huge amount of coverage here for this incident, to be honest. A general google search for his name brings up only 53,400 hits for me. I only saw one reference to the child pornography charges in the first 10 pages and a more specific search for "Harry Zolnierczyk child pornography" (without quotation marks) brought up 504 pages, some of which were false positives. From what I can see, most of the media world looked at this and just shrugged their shoulders and moved on. I can't really see where this really merits that large of a section in the article. What we need to consider here is whether or not this charge was ultimately notable in the long run of Zolnierczyk's career and this shouldn't be decided based on whether or not keeping this in the article would further punish or mark him for life. This doesn't mean that I condone what he did or anything, but this seems to be a very brief point in his life that received very little coverage overall. There was a conviction of sorts, but the charges did not go on his permanent record and I'm not entirely sure that they need to be on the article either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• This definitely needs more people giving their input. I don't want to sound unkind, but so far we really only have two predominant voices in this debate: one is from a personal friend of Zolnierczyk who wants the material removed in its entirety or to have things added to soften the blow of his child pornography charges. The other is from someone who wants it included but also seems to want to have it included as punishment for what Zolnierczyk did- a mixture of BLP arguments but also personal convictions. This really, really needs to have more people putting in their two cents as far as this goes because I really don't want it decided by either party, given the circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• It at least seems disproportionate in its current form. As a first step, before deciding to remove in its entirety, I'd support removing the following as unnecessary detail: "While Zolnierczyk's then Alberni Valley Bulldogs teammate Brad Harding engaged in consensual sex with the underage girl at the home of Harding's billet family in November 2006, Harding's computer webcam transmitted the images to Zolnierczyk who saved and distributed the video to teammates. After showing the video to friends of the victim, RCMP was alerted and with Harding already being interviewed by police, Zolnierczyk was arrested." Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The newest version there now seems reasonable to me, and I made a note to that effect on the article's talk page. I hope that that settles the matter! Metamagician3000 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How many individual accusers ought be named in the allegations section? I cut it down to six names, and "others" but others suggest we need to name at least eight individuals. I note that the allegations are not about events of 2014, but are set some years back, and none have been tried in court. Is 8 still within the reasonable weight standards for allegations? Thanks. Collect (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why 8? That seems rather arbitrary. I'd say mention only those that are covered significantly by RS. But we need to seriously consider not naming them at all as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 08:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I second that we should only mention those that have received significant coverage, partially as a BLP issue but also because there have been about 16 women (if I'm remembering correctly) that have come forward with allegations. I don't mean to sound like I'm trivializing the allegations, but at some point listing all of the women would be a list for the sake of being a list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good compromise to individually mention the women about whom we do have articles, such as Janice Dickinson. "NN women, including..." followed by some blue links. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I just heard about this today, from FOX News (Cracked sent me). Earlier, the story started "Nine. That's the number...", but just checked again, and they've already updated. So ten. Until it's eleven. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think a construction along the lines of "women, including (blue link) and (blue link)", is probably best. Only linking those who have articles, but also taking care to make it clear that there are more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Yesterday I read 13 so agree the women with articles that come forward publicly should be name and then something about other women who are remaining anonymous.Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone take a look at this edit to the Ben Wedeman article and determine if it is actually libelous as User:Auroraz7 claims and thus must be removed. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

that comment was funky and the article content it was commenting on, was not appropriate for a BLP. I took a shot at fixing it. Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I took out the whole statement, since the allegations pertain to banner headlines that are written and posted by CNNI producers and/or editors at the broadcast center in Atlanta, GA. That these individuals wrote "bad" banners in no way reflects on a reporter in the field (e.g., Mr. Wedeman, but it could be anyone else). Overall, it appears to me that someone is systematically visiting every page associated with either Mr. Wedeman or the Jerusalem synagogue attack and inserting almost-identical text shedding doubt on his credibility. In short, it is defamatory and without merit. The individual posting the material clearly has some sort of agenda, which is highly inappropriate and antithetical to Wikipedia's mission. I do not have such an agenda: I'm just a news junkie who happened to be up way too late Tuesday night and saw the story break. I was shocked when, a day later, I went to google news to see what was happening with the story and saw the merit-free accusations being reported as fact. That is the only reason I noticed the material on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking the time to set it right. saraw1 (talk)00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I unintentionally exhibited bad manners by taking out the whole section. I apologize.... pretty much of a novice and still learning the ropes. However, I stand by my above comment, and hope you will overlook my faux pas/take it seriously. Thanks! saraw1 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• The text that relates to the synagogue shooting is questionable on a number of grounds, chiefly because Wedeman did not write the headline in question. Does it belong in the article at all? I say no. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple. Auroraz7 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua_Bonehill

This article is being repeatedly edited by the subject, editing as Jooner29, to include information based on feedback loops, and embellishment of the information in the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCauliflower92 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2014‎

The user above has persistently vandalised the article with a biased agenda. I have simply reverted his vandalism and stated my reasons in doing so. The user has a history of vandalising the Joshua Bonehill page Jooner29 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Jooner29, AntiCauliflower's edits are not vandalism, but yours involve a conflict of interest and are biased in your favor. Read WP:COI, and while you're at it, WP:TEND. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The info about his sexuality has been cyclically removed and re-inserted. I wonder if such info abides to BLP and NPOV policies. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side with the inclusion of it, especially if there's a cited source of the matter that was particularly notable which there seems to be here. Current overall Wikipedia consensus in BLPs (found from any quick search) are that mentions of being "openly gay" are generally acceptable. Honestly there's no one policy to point to either way so I'd side with consensus. I'd welcome an admin to look this over if there is continued disagreement. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be some sense that it's relevant to his notability somehow. It's fine that he's openly gay -- but is there a reason anyone should care? We wouldn't write that someone is "openly straight", unless there was good reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can only mention precedent in this matter, which is that substantial numbers of BLPs on the site have specific mentions of "openly gay" and similar. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's a sort of silly debate. At best I can point you over to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines which does seem to imply they prefer it be included. Disclaimer: That's just a style suggestion. It's not an official policy or anything. You can certainly bring this up on their project talk page. They'd have better opinions than here, probably. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For now, the best I can do is preserve. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has twice restored [7] [8] the deletion of an incorrect birth name for the Parliament Hill shooter and commenced a war against me on the talk page.

I reported the matter to the 3RR board for edit warring but it was declined because only 2RR. However I now realize that this is a BLP issue (subject dead only a month) and that leaving in an inaccurate name can harm the real Michael Joseph Hall. It is a clear case of needing to follow RS BLPSOURCES as I laid out most clearly on the talk page here. It seems like I can rely on WP:BDP BLPSOURCES & WP:BLPREMOVE but given the vicious personal attacks launched I'd prefer an Admin step in and deal with the matter. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Kathleen Cook now sufficiently notable to warrant an article?

https://medium.com/@tcarr_airpower/air-force-generals-errant-political-tweet-invites-scrutiny-of-public-affairs-efforts-5f94ba998e5b?source=tw-4a505f3a0f16-1416799015613

Hcobb (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

The article on Julien Blanc is currently up for deletion, but it also has a lot of interest for much the same reason, oh, Gamergate controversy does—Blanc is a controversial pickup artist who has been banned from entering Australia. Some of his fans think he's being very poorly treated by the world's media and want to correct this. It could do with a lot of cleanup, possibly with cutting the whole thing back to a stub and starting from scratch to make sure it is BLP compliant. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed the AFD as keep - this was looking inevitable at the time based on the arguments and the direction of the discussion. But I'm in favour of being ruthless with such articles if they just turn into reporting a litany of conflicting opinions published in the media. There seems to be plenty of straight, reliable news reportage on Julien Blanc, so I doubt that it would be necessary to stubbify the article. But if someone wants to cut back considerably, that might be quite appropriate. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Amjad Ayub Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amjad Ayub Mirza is a living person however what is written about himself is incorrect, there is no references. Google information states the living person is owner of World Wide News LTD registered at companies house and lives in Glasgow Scotland. He is a taxi driver registered with Glasgow City Council and what has been written is completely false. Further he has no primary source of reference and article should be deleted for violations. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable this entry is clearly not.

This article needs some significant editing to bring it in line with BLP policy. Presently, it relies on a single source that links to a page error. The subject is also of indeterminate notability. I'd set about this article straight away normally, but I'm on a tablet, which isn't practicle for heavy editing. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 23:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be grateful if one or more BLP/N regulars would take a look at Treon Harris#Sexual assault allegations. Given the high-profile nature of the University of Florida football program, the allegations got a fair amount of initial coverage, but all charges against Harris were dropped relatively quickly. As a University of Florida alumnus, and someone who regularly works on Florida Gators articles, I want to avoid making any changes to this section lest I be accused of being a "pro-Gator partisan" or some such thing. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations make for bad BLPs as a rule - we are obligated to edit conservatively, so the allegations do not belong unless or until something concrete occurs. Collect (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually say this, but I agree with Collect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There are occasions where it is appropriate for us to report accusations of criminal behaviour that have not been tested in court; we did so while Alastair McAlpine was living. The accusations were demonstrably false in that case (the accuser publicly recanted).

Would commenters here (and everyone else) please look over these?

• Talk:Lena Dunham#Proposed edit and
• Bill Cosby#Rape and sexual assault allegations

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with the way the Talk:Lena Dunham page is going. Editorial consensus there seems to be moving in the direction of putting what I'd consider too much detail about the recent sensationalist debate over supposed molestation of her sister. Some eyes/opinions from other uninvolved admins would be good. I started to write a comment there, but perhaps better to get some other opinions here first. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The co-star in the 1967 theater version of "Enter Laughing" was Alan Arkin. The person listed was only in the film version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.35.191 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)

• The IBDB listing verifies all of stage production cast members listed in the Enter Laughing article, including Pollard, who played the same role in the play and the movie. The lead role of David Kolowitz was played by Alan Arkin in the stage production and by Reni Santoni in the play. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

A runoff election for the office of U.S. Senator from Louisiana is currently ongoing. Early voting began Nov 22, 2014 and Election Day is December 6, 2014.

COI disclosure: I work for an organization associated with the campaign, so I am hoping Wikipedia's community of editors will review these issues and make the necessary revisions.

Overall the selection of topics and headings included in the article seems designed to highlight her opponents' criticisms of her while ignoring many of the accomplishments her supporters praise her for. This violation of Wikipedia's BLP policy on balance is particularly egregious because it is intended to influence voters' views without raising flags with editors and admins for partisanship.

While this may appear accidental, that cannot be an excuse given the revelations several weeks ago that Republican operatives have been deliberately manipulating the Wikipedia pages of Democratic Senators ^[1]. One of the operatives identified in those reports edited Senator Landrieu's article on 14 September 2014.

Today, edits have been made to the article with provocative and false information.

The "Political Positions" section lists abortion, guns, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, but does not include the minimum wage, education, equal pay for women, domestic violence, adoption, or other areas of concern to voters or focus for the Senator. The reference to "Obamacare" itself may be inflammatory, since it is officially called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

An entire section is titled "'Air Mary' Controversy" which may be the way opponents would characterize this, while her supporters might prefer to title the section "Billing Error." This is clearly intended to imply corruption when none was found.

The article references her support for President Obama's positions without including similar statistics from her Senate terms during the Clinton and Bush administrations. There is very little information included about her work on behalf of small businesses or coastal restoration.

We can be sure that supporters and opponents would have strong opinions about the article, so it would be helpful for Wikipedia's editors to review these concerns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pas28 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 November 2014

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

Would be grateful for editors to look at the Issues section of this Wikipedia entry Randi Weingarten. The issue are of Wikipedia entry is extremely biased point of view and relies on a small number of conservative websites and opinion pages to make its argument. There’s no balance in the issues section. The majority of the sourcing is the New York Sun and the New York Post editorial pages, which are by the BOLP standard considered tabloids. The WSJ references are mainly from the opinion side of the Wall Street Journal and presented as unbiased opinions. It seems as thought the entire long section is nothing but a hit job.

It’s hard to know what to do here except strike these sections.

Examples

• The school reform section starts out by arguing that Weingarten has argued that she’s a proponent of reforms in education as long as they don’t shred teachers rights and then goes to quote the Manhattan Institute, the New York Post editorial page and anti-union Fox news reporter John Stossel, then the conservative editors of the NY Post, then the conservative NY Sun then the NY Post editorial page, then Joel Klein – the former chancellor of NY City schools and then a random citation about Weingarten being arrested outside of the Tom Corbett run school reform commission which has nothing to do the previous paragraphs about New York or school reform.

• The salary hike section seems superfluous, noting Weingarten a union-leader is fighting for higher salaries for teachers then quotes the right-wing NY Post editorial by Bob McManus complaining about teachers and test scores.

• The section for Merit pay is the same way. Just recounting from conservative sources that the union has argued against Merit pay. It starts out with a red baiting quote from the anti-union Manhattan Institute, then quotes the conservative NY Sun. At least this section finally ends on quoting the NY Times about a collective bargaining agreement in Newark.

• On Teacher Tenure it’s more of the same. A quick strawman argument about teacher tenure from and relying on the New York post to attack.

• On teacher pension plans the entire section is bizarre. It starts out with an argument that Weingarten has supported tenure in one line and then turns to the Manhattan Institute, the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page. Weingarten gets to support pensions generally and then the author dumps a lot of conservative criticism from right-wing authors.

• On standardized testing again the same MO. One line about opposition to standardized testing which is an oversimplication and then several sentences where right-winger accuse Weingarten of being duplicitous.

• On School choice and charter schools. The article does the same thing. Notes opposition to “school choice,” which the author doesn’t define and notes factually incorrectly that the AFT opposes charter school and seeks to unionize teachers at charter schools as if unionizing teachers means opposition. It then goes nto long quotes from the anti-union Manhattan Institute, conservative education reformer Thomas Carroll, the NY Post, then more NY Post, then deviates to a random story about a powerpoint posted on the unions website about parent trigger debate in Connecticut, then the NY Post. From the AFT’s own website they authorize charter schools (http://www.aft.org/press-release/minnesota-approves-nations-first-union-backed-organization-authorize-charter) and celebrate the unionization of charter schools (http://www.aft.org/news/two-more-new-york-city-charter-schools-now-unionized). The section also falsly quotes that teachers can be unionized against their will when they are allowed to vote on unionization.

• The Teacher Accountability section starts off with criticism of the AFT’s position by Joel Klein, then turns to the conservative NY Sun, then the conservative NY Post, then the NY Post editorial again. At least here there’s a New Yorker article even if the Wikipedia editor sticks to criticism from the article. Then back to an editorial from the NY Post then the state chancellor’s criticism. Again the section is all criticism with no balance.

• On private tax credits and vouchers more of the same. A sentence with the authors view of the union position and then criticism.

• Class size is weird. It actually has a paragraph about what the union has done. Then it relies on a NY Sun editorial without any research backup or a look at the research.

• More of the same with Seniority. A sentence about the position and then relying on the NY Post and Wall Street Journal for criticism.

• School building. Ok this is weird but it seems straightforward.

• Subsidized housing for teachers. A parapgrah with the AFT’s argument on an issue then relying on the New York post to deliver the anti-union talking points.

• Teacher dress codes: Just relies on the Manhattan Institute for a one sentence description.

• Union solidarity: Again, just replies on the New York Post for a made up heading.

• On the plagiarized section. The author brings up a controversy which should be under the criticism section but the author doesn’t quote from an updated article showing that Weingarten immediately apologized personal to the reporter and NY 1 accepted the apology.

• WTU conflict if it needs to be in a wikiedpia entry would probably exist in criticism section and quote what Weingarten’s response would be to the accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbier (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2014‎ (UTC)

He was at least wrestling important matches after the mentioned clash of champions match. He was featured on multiple Pay-Per-Views the last one being at Wrestlewar 1992.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7777:1020:8caf:a179:76e:53c3 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

you have not made clear what is the dispute is. please explain. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Also probably affected:

• MTV Roadies (season 11)
• Bigg Boss
• Bigg Boss 7
• MTV Roadies
• Gautam Gulati
• MasterChef Pakistan (season 1)

A year ago an editor, User:Imtitanium, was indefinitely blocked for (among other things) repeatedly posting defamatory material about reality show contestants (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#Imtitanium (persistent copyright/BLP violations)). These typically involved completely fictitious stories of lewd or violent behaviour on the part of certain celebrities, plus claims that this behaviour had led to the broadcaster receiving hundreds or thousands of complaints. His latest sockpuppet has been continuing this disruption since January of this year, and is unfortunately still active as of today.

Help is needed to check all the above articles (or at least edits by Special:Contributions/TizSweg) for negative material, and to remove claims not supported by the references. Note that it is not sufficient to simply look for the presence of a reference, since the vandal's modus operandi is to tag their negative claims with plausible-looking references to real newspaper and web portal articles; if you actually click through and read the cited material you'll find that they do not support the allegations at all. For reference, this edit by Imtitanium is an example of the libel with falsified references, and these edits by TizSweg show exactly the same thing: [9] [10] [11]. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Gautam Gulati has been checked; the false information has already been removed. I also partially checked Bigg Boss 8 and removed a large amount of hoax material concerning the show itself and various living persons appearing on it. The remainder of the article still needs to be checked. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The sock's contribution to Bigg Boss 7 has been checked and is clean. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Jay Tavare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Lots of missing citations. He is not listed as a "celebrity spokesman" for the Adopt-a-Native-Elder (ANE) on the organization's website. According to the ANE website, the only relationship they seem to have is that he is a long time supporter who suggested to ANE to create a special funds for firewood donations (Warming Hearts Firewood Fund). The bio on his personal website is pretty much all citation we could give him for the content of this article. Also, no citation for his birth place "Navajo Reservation" - not even on his personal website does he claim to be born on a Navajo reservation.All the content on this article is based on the bio on his personal website and his blog on Huffington post.Add: and IMDB is another source. Slaythereddot (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

On the page for The Specials, Roddy Byers is still listed as a current member but he left about a year ago. In the members section it says 'do not change' when I try to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockinkitten (talk • contribs) 11:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says that. (see WP:RS if you don't know what a reliable source is). Open a discussion on the talk page, present the source, and say that you intend to edit according to the source, that Roddy left the band in 2013 or whatever the source says. Then make the change, citing the source. No one should object to that. Jytdog (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What year was Gov Pat Quinn born? In the very first line of the article it states "born December 16, 1943" however under Education and personal life, it states "Quinn was born in 1948". Which is the correct year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoBlue82 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be 1948 according to Chicago Mag. I suspect the 1943 year was caused by someone confusing the politician with the late hockey player with the same name, or just a typo. — Strongjam (talk) 14:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. — Strongjam (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about me. I realize it was written in good faith, but the English is so bad that it is nonsensical in places and misleading in others, especially considering that it deals with technical information. Arvindn (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

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

A small handful of IP editors are repeatedly inserting this line into the biography of Pamela Ribon:

She is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "muffin top." [12] [13] [14]

She is not listed so much as she is quoted from a book to demonstrate ways the term is used in context. I believe that this line is meant to be offensive and intentionally misleading. I have already reverted these edits twice so at this point I would like to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

seems bad to me. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - nothing in the OED like that. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently all the text in the entire article was deleted except for a few lists. Surely that isn't the solution. I propose on the talk page to revert those deletions.PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the BBC News item about "Barbie" as establishing notability. Collect (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The subject has mentioned inaccuracies and slurs on the page. Just doing a quick report. Could you check? (User:SatansFeminist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.157.105 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 November 2014‎ (UTC)

The quotes are all hers and sourced. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

whew that is a bitter dispute. article is full-protected now too. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is not especially helpful for her to say that the article is full of inaccuracies and slurs without saying what they are or how she thinks the article should be changed. I think there are BLP problems with the article, but my view of them may not be the same as hers. Among other things, there is a sentence reading " The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist views as libertarian and socially conservative " that is poorly sourced and needs removing (it is also very confusing and poorly written as it presently stands, which gives you some idea of the low-quality editing that has been going on at that article). There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, and I invite interested editors to review it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "inaccuracies and slurs" in an article, in order to help you out you need to point out which edits are offending (see here for more info). We really can't help you out if we don't know what we're looking for, sorry. As this is Wikipedia the best solution is often to improve an article on your own! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She is, and these are her own words frequently stated, a 'card carrying Democrat.' It should at least say that she says that. The article is being slanted to paint her as solely conservative. If you look at the article from a few weeks ago it was far less of an inaccurate character assassination in that respect, which is important to her as a BLP subject.SatansFeminist (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to compare the version from later July with the version now, and it seems that the version now is much improved - in particular in the removal of unbalanced criticism that was there in July. The July version did have a statement along the lines of "Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a 'libertarian.' Sommers is also a registered Democrat." Is this the line in contention? The article currently describes her views as libertarian, so I assume that the concern is that it doesn't also say that she is registered as a Democrat. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article looked like previous is irrelevant, though it's good it's improved. That's more a content dispute and this is for BLP violation discussion. We need very specific things that are "inadequacies and slurs" as you claimed. For what specific reason did you start a thread here? I'm not just dismissing the issue because I haven't looked into the article in depth, but I don't know what your intentions were without evidence. Multiple instances and diffs, specifically. As the complainant you need to do the research. Is there anything beyond what Bilby and ImprovingWiki have stated above? The goal of this board is to give BLPs proper help, after all. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The part about Barbara Marshall saying that Sommers explicitly identifies as a libertarian was removed by me, and I think I was justified in removing it. It does not seem especially significant how one author claims Sommers self-identifies: WP:UNDUE applies here. ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There are still real problems with POV-pushing attempts to make her seem more right wing and anti feminist than she is, plus inaccuracies. This is a living person and she is really effected by this smearing.SatansFeminist (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Same as before... everything is sourced and she is quoted extensively. I see not BLP violations. If you're concerned about WP:UNDUE, discuss it on the talk page. Frankly, the article seems balanced. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait... you started the same discussion already a few days ago... EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 17:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

SatansFeminist, there may be problems with the article, but it isn't appropriate or helpful to start an entirely new section on Sommers when one section on her already exists. That only confuses matters. I have moved your comments into the old section, which is where they should have been in the first place. ImprovingWiki (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Some attention from experienced BLP editors would be good at the perennially controversial article about the anthropologist Roger Pearson. Pearson has now created a personal website which specifically criticizes the coverage of his person in wikipedia, contradicting and criticizing much of the published literature about him. And he appears to be personally participating in the talkpage discussion, arguing for inclusion of material from his website. I have tried to include his specific responses to some of the claims made in the literature and repeated in the article, but being a main contributor to the article I would like some outside eyes to see if what I am doing is reasonable from a BLP perspective.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

References are not mentioned properly and most of the content could not be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.232.65 (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello. I just noticed someone created a Wikipedia entry about me. I added the sentence about my PhD. I noticed that one of the references for the APA (2007) Sexualization of Girls Task Force Report has an erroneous author on it. Jeanne Blake is listed as the 7th author but she was not one of the authors. I removed her name under the section called "ARTICLES" but was unable to remove it in the section entitled "REFERENCES." Also, one of the co-authors is EILEEN (not Ellen) Zurbriggen, which I corrected under the section called "Articles" but should also be corrected in the references. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.161.4 (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks for drawing our attention to this. Usually the talkpage of the article would be the best place for this kind of minor concerns. Here we mostly deal with problems where biographies of living persons are biased in favor or against the subject and need attention to become objective.Nonetheless, many thanks for correcting these mistakes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Amusedkid [15] is adding defamatory (and poorly sourced) content to this article. The subject is currently undergoing an investigation by the sport's national governing body (the FA), but has not been convicted of anything. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Dara Torres article is currently a Good Article candidate. The fourth paragraph of the last section (see Dara Torres#Personal life) mentions that a doctor with whom she previously worked was investigated for the illegal distribution of human growth hormone. No credible allegations of steroid, HGH or other performance-enhancing drug use were ever made against Torres during her long-lived competition swimming career. This strikes me as a relatively straight-forward attempt to forge an implied link between a BLP and an unproven illegal/unethical activity with no evidence. I propose to remove the paragraph in its entirety, and I would appreciate some extra eyes on this subject for objective, uninvolved opinions regarding the BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is problematic Dirtlawyer1, and should be removed from the article. It is an implication of guilt by association. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cullen. Reactions from any other BLP/N regular participants? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is an inappropriate and undue mention in a brief Wikipedia biography. The appearance of the connection, presented without context and based upon a single media reference (albeit a very high-quality one) suggests that it be left out, and the absence of any follow-up coverage on the matter further suggests that the implied connection does not exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for review, NorthBySouth. Based on BLP/N feedback, I have deleted the questionable paragraph here. If anyone wishes to comment further, and/or believes the questionable content should be restored, this thread will remain open until archived. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Canadian TV personality Jian Ghomeshi has recently been arrested, charged and bailed in relation to the accusations which have previously caused problems. See also the recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal. The main issues are the extent of the section on recent issues; whether coverage should be limited to there or be mentioned in pretty much every other section; and the relevance media-reports rehashing details from what might (or might not) have been a stand-up comedy style event. It doesn't help that the publisher of many of the news reports (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is not independent, having been his employer during some of the time when the alleged actions happened. More eyes wasted please. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a severe case of recentism. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrmoustache14 keeps adding "Category:LGBT Jews" and "Category:LGBT male actors" tags to the Justin Berfield page even though there are no sources presented in the article to identify the subject as gay. As a justification for the tags, Mrmoustache14 offered the following explanation at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags "It's known that Just Berfeild has been in a relationship with his business partner Jason Felts. Although I'm not sure if they're still together, the fact they ever were makes Berfeild LGBT. Even if he's had a girlfriend, he could be bi, but isn't straight". Obviously, that's not anywhere good enough justification, in terms of both WP:V and WP:BLP. The addition of tags was originally reverted by an IP, then Mrmoustache14 re-added the tags, and I have removed them again. I left comments explaining my revert both at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags and at User talk:Mrmoustache14 Since I am basically almost completely retired, it'd be good if somebody else keeps an eye on the page and also comments at Talk:Justin Berfield#Keep the LGBT Tags regarding this issue. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Categorization as such requires self-identification. Been settled a long time. such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Collect (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

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

An entirely unsourced list of "organized crime figures within the underworld of the United Kingdom", including redlinks, and at least one apparent blue link which actually redirects back to the list. Can anyone give me a legitimate reason not to preemptively blank the lot per WP:BLP policy, until such time as it is properly sourced? I can't think of one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks should be removed, but what was the result of the semi-recent similar RFC about lists and sourcing where the individual articles were sufficiently sourced? (I can't remember the specific topic of the list in question, but it was in the past month or two and was a bigish kerfuffle) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If the RfC came to any conclusions (I can't find it either) it doesn't seem to have resulted in any change in policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump It was the porn list issue mentioned below I was thinking of, but I couldn't remember the exact topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd say to remove any link, red or blue, except where there is an article that identifies the subject as a "mobster" with unquestionable sources. Note that "mobster" is arguably not the same thing as "criminal". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Removed the lot. If someone adds even a single name, it must have absolutely reliable strong sourcing. In fact, I would suggest the "List of mobsters"-type articles should all be Hoovered of any names where the sourcing is peccable. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters (2nd nomination). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Rfc, resulting from a discussion as to whether porn star lists needed to be BLP compliant, did result in a slight policy change, makoing it clearer than ever that lists need to be BLP compliant. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that there was a more recent discussion of the subject somewhere or other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a single user is not merely restoring BLP violating material here but threatening to treat those who remove such BLP violations as vandals. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the majority of these people are dead, therefore WP:BLP does not apply. Amongst those that are not dead there appear to be sufficient references to demonstrate involvement in criminal gangs. Therefore I do not consider the mass removal of all items on the list justified by BLP - if anything task should be taken with the linked articles if SqueakBox believes they contain errors. Artw (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are references, the article needs referencing, per policy, regardless of whether the people are alive or not. We do not cite Wikipedia articles as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The references can be copied from the linked articles to the list if required, however that seems like an unnecessary duplication and not something I've seen in other list articles. Artw (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are basing your claim that it is unnecessary on the assumption that we only have articles about British mobsters on wikipedia. Because otherwise I fail to see how an article merely existing can be used as evidence that someone is a British mobster. Hence we need source they are mobsters and that they are British, and in the list article. If you are finding lists that arent compliant you might help fix that but RESTORING BLP violating material is never acceptable. Because the reality is that the list you restored does contain living ppl and does not contain a single reference, therefore you are being dishonest in claiming these references exist. Where are they? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In case it is unclear the linked articles are all about UK gangsters and the references in those articles predominantly discuss gangster activity in the UK. 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Inclusion in a list requires evidence that the material in question meets the criteria for inclusion. That requires citation. Though since the list concerned gave no objective criteria anyway, it was clearly WP:OR, and shouldn't have existed in the first place. And yes, I am well aware that crappy unsourced lists can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is time that those who compiled such material actually took the time to ensure that they complied with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed a Courtesy blanked template on the page, which should remain until the issue is decided both here and at the AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems highly unconventional to block improvement of an article under AfD, especially when there is a claim that including references from the linked articles would allow them to be included. Also you have not addressed the bulk of these people are not living (see here [[16]]) - what is the argument for not putting them in a list? Artw (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion on the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"List of British Mobsters"? Artw (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So, no actual criteria, just anyone a contributor thinks fits the description? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They are all British and described as gangsters in their respective articles. I'm pretty sure you could argue about the usefulness of such a list at AFD, but I see no WP:BLP reasons for not including the likes of the Kray Twins on such a list. Artw (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Artw, that it is very sad the article is currrently blanked as now is the perfect opportunity to improve it. But it is entirely your fault as you kept restoring BLP violations and even went as far as to say that removing these BLP violations is vandalism. They arent actually all described as mobsters in their wikipedia articles, the first three I checked didnt use the word mobster. But how are we supposed to verify your claim that the articles mention that these ppl are British and mobsters? With reliable sources, but that is what you have failed to add, there is not even one reliable source in the article as it was. And you didnt just restore the dead ppl such as the Kray twins so dont please start making claims about them to justify your BLP violations. You have made no attemopt to prove your assertion that the original articles source what you claim they source as if you did you could have copied and pasted the alleged sources. And given that I was getting 0 out of 3 checking for mobsters I am dubious of your unproven claim. That means your BLP additions have been challenged and it was unacceptable of you to revert that challenge without citing, let alone twice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per my edit summary all restored items were either people or people whose articles have references showing them to be British gangsters. The claim that no rationale was given for restoring them to the list is untrue - in fact you'll notice a few that did not meet those criterea were dropped from the list. Artw (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong here. How can you claim this. The article did not even have a reference template. This was the page as of yesterday, as we can al see without a single referenced entry. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As you will note, SqueakBox plays this little game where they refuse to click on any link within the article. Artw (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The refs must be in the article. I have had this argument before and the conclusion was to tighten up the BLP policy to make it 100% clear that lists needs citing in themselves. That is the policy. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

please point me at the relevant text. Artw (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"try searching "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates" on the page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen a ref on a navigation page or a template. Surely this just means that WP:V must be met by the target of the link? Artw (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that some material was being removed over-and-above BLP reasons and in a way that is clearly discouraged in AFD policy. Source-defined career criminals who have been dead for decades were removed, as well as basic navigational categories for the article. If the material is not sourced in the respective articles, they should be removed, but that doesn't translate to effacing all study of past criminal history in a society, as sourced by reliable historical texts. Are people actually suggesting that there have been no proven cases of a British person involved in organized crime? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs,

The entry for Bill Fawcett writer is consistently being changed back to information about me that is incorrect, professional damaging (claiming things I did not do) and potentially might open me to legal action. Virtually every line in he material constantly being posted again and again under career is wrong. I have just attempted again to simply put in a placer holder.

I have attempted several times to remove or revise the information entering both long and short revisions, only to have the fallacious entry reappear a few days, or even hours, later. Your staff member (do not want to post the name, contact me for it if needed) and I have corresponded since early November about this concern. When it was revised accurately, he gave the impression the problem was solved, only to have the incorrect entries appear and reappear several times since replacing the inaccurate and damaging material. He recently no longer is responding to my emails. I spoke to the source referenced for the material and the owner of Crescent City agreed it was incorrect. (I can put you in contact if needed.) In light of the several weeks of being unable to remove the damaging material I ask that you simply remove any entry on me. I formally request this for European access, if that even applies and is needed. I commend your work and its many volunteers, but am being damaged by it and seem unable to get corrections made. Again, please remove the inaccurate and legally questionable material (the entire career sections when changed back) or just delete the entry completely to stop doing me professional and financial harm.

Thank you,

Bill Fawcett

Here is my official bio:

Feel free to source my bio on the Dragoncon.org website or use any or all of the below if you are unwilling to simply delete any entry for me and leave it gone. After writing for Dragon Magazine Bill was one of the founders of Mayfair Games, a board and role play gaming company. As an author Bill has written or co-authored over a dozen books and dozens of articles and short stories. Bill Fawcett & Associates has packaged over 300 books for major publishers. These include a number of bestselling Science Fiction, Mystery, and Action novels. The Fleet series he created with David Drake was the first military science fiction shared world series. Bill has collaborated on several mystery novels including with Quinn Yarbro including the Authorized Mycroft Holmes novels and the Madame Vernet Investigates series. He has also written Oval Office Oddities. His other solo collections include The 100 Mistakes that Changed History and Trust Me, 100 Leadership Mistakes that Changed History. As an anthologist Bill has edited or co-edited around 40 anthologies. Bill is the editor of Hunters and Shooters and The Teams, two oral histories of the SEALs in Vietnam. His historical "Mistakes" series of often amused look at how the mistakes in history changed our lives include It Seemed Like a good Idea, It Looked Good On Paper and You Did What. A military mistakes series include How To Lose A Battle,, How To Lose a War, How To Lose WWII, How To Lose a War at Sea, and How To Lose the American Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouru (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bouru: Well... we can make small tweaks with a WP:PRIMARY source but not huge ones. The main thing I saw was that you were removing a history section, but I don't see anything about it that would be overwhelmingly harmful to you as a professional. Sometimes Wikipedia articles can contain information that someone may not want in their article, but if those things happened and received enough coverage to merit inclusion, they should be added. We can't really edit an article to only include the positive things or to only include things in an official bio if anything negative or embarrassing gained a substantial amount of coverage. (Plus us only including things in an official biography does come across a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, among other things.) That's just not how Wikipedia works. I do see where someone just redirected it to the main article for your pseudonym, which was what my main suggestion was going to be. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• We also cannot just ask someone if this is true or not- we'd still need coverage in reliable sources to back this sort of thing up and not word of mouth. I remember one instance where an author held an interview with a newspaper just to fix things in an article. I can't remember the author, but he was someone fairly well known in the literary world and it kind of just goes to show how difficult it is to disprove something or to fix something without an independent and reliable source. Word of mouth just simply isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

We should just AfD this. Its only references are PW book summaries, one fleeting reference in the LA Times and the author's official bio on the Macmillan website. Doesn't really meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR and, if it's inaccurate, would be better to just recycle the whole article. BlueSalix (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Update - I just AfD'ed this. BlueSalix (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Juan Vicente Torrealba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has very few watchers. A rather green editor who appears to be a big fan is adding a lot of material to the article that is poorly sourced. Initially, he didn't source it at all. Now, most of it is sourced to the subject's own website. I'm not getting anywhere with him (he just left me an angry post on my talk page). Perhaps someone could take a look at it. It probably can be made to into a reasonable article, although secondary sources may be hard to find.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the page to see what I could improve/fix. Someone beat me to it and removed the information supported by poor sources. The page is now on my watch list. Meatsgains (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• LeGarrette Blount (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several of the references are used inappropriately to cite falsely. For ex. under early life and high school career, the link about him having a brother and a sister with whom he smokes blunts connects to a page that only mentions the siblings - nothing about smoking, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macattack415 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was recently added vandalism. I've removed it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Falcon (2nd nomination). In the first AfD, the subject himself commented that he was about to receive major press for a screen play he had written circa 2008. This apparently did not happen as the majority of his acting resume in uncredited roles meaning he was an extra or had other lesser parts. The Afd had a non-admin close when the nominator withdrew. Now we have a second AfD with currently a single Delete (myself) and a single Keep vote with discussion. Additional input would be appreciated. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Emily Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information on Emily Carey for Siblings is incorrect. Emily does not have siblings. I also object to her DOB being shown. She is an 11 year old child. I cannot see how to change this information or where it has sprung from or who has added this. I am Emily's mother. I need some help here please. Urgently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.65.124 (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a birthdate or siblings in that article. Puzzling... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The user is no doubt seeing it on google search which provides both bits of information and a link to wikipeida --_nonsense ferret 15:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki article was professionally edited by marketing person. Complete article sounds like an advertisement for him and his platform. Entire article was created on March 19th and references same articles over and over. Please consider revising to not make it sound like a complete free advertisement on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.25.85 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A user is trying to put some defamatory content in this article. The user has made first edit on 20 November and second edit on 24 November.

Please pay your attention towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskargupta269 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Leoaugust User: The content is not defamatory but factual. The person in question has had over 45 lawsuits filed against him and his company in July & August 2014, and all this is part of the persons profile. These cases area of serious nature, and just a mention has been made without reproduction of the charges. All citations are made and reliable sources provided, and the law is that what is true cannot be defamatory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs some serious cleaning. The lawsuits do need to be mentioned since they are prominent in the media, but the editor is writing about them in a somewhat sensationalistic manner. However at the same time, I do see where someone is trying to write about Raheja in as positive a light as possible. Either way of writing is unacceptable on Wikipedia and the article needs a complete re-write. I do have to warn you that if someone is known in relation to something negative, that must be covered if there is enough coverage of the event- which it does appear that there is, at least at first glance. We cannot remove or block this content from appearing on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would like it if more editors can come in and help clean the article up and ensure that the article is neutral and does not sway in either direction. This looks like it's gearing up to become an edit war and I'd like to avoid taking this to any other boards (ANI, 3rd opinion, etc) if I can possibly help it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this might actually need to get escalated to ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I really, really need someone to keep an eye on the page. I feel like I'm the only person who is actively watching the page and doing anything other than Leoaugust and he's the one that the original editor came on here about. The issue here is that it looks extremely, extremely likely that Bhaskargupta269 is someone who has been paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of the company. His edits have been extremely promotional in tone and he's also been extremely keen on removing any negative material that is on either the article for Navin Raheja or Raheja Developers. I've redirected the article for Raheja himself to the company since once we removed any of the negative information about him (as Bhaskargupta269 has argued that it is all about the company and not Raheja) then I noticed that there really wasn't anything to suggest that Raheja merited his own article. (Plus if we argue that the negative information about his company shouldn't be on there, it can also be argued that the positive stuff pertaining to his company should be removed as well since it is about the company.) This really needs more eyes on it- I've had a few people from WP:INDIA help out, but it can use more people helping out as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Siddddddh (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for the page to be protected, you want Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - though given that there is nothing in the article history to suggest any recent problematic editing at all, I don't think it will be granted. Are you sure you have the right article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you request it?It says to place a level 4 header on the top of the protection list. How do I find this list? Yes it is this article some days back somone tried to put wrong facts.This person is a prominent political personality. Siddddddh (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A single edit is not a 'High level of IP vandalism'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thats why i have asked for temporary protection'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read the Wikipedia:Protection policy - we require strong grounds to protect articles, and isolated problematic edits are unlikely to be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Did go through it, for semi protection the policy says people who have recent high level of media interest. And this person does qualify this.'. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The decision isn't mine to make - but I doubt that your request will be complied with as you haven't demonstrated that there is currently a significant problem, and we don't pre-emptively protect articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

'Thanks its not premptive, but if you go through twitter and facebook this individual has been facing a lot of abuse and vandalism. And hence this request, hope it is accepted '. Siddddddh — Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I declined it, and this topic, which never belonged here in the first place, is closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I can't figure out how to "transclude" (or even what that means exactly) a deletion discussion to the relevant noticeboard (as others have done in the discussion). I believe the article should be deleted (or shrunk and merged with the Mark Sanchez article). [17] Any help? Howunusual (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion is a fancy word for the inclusion of a template on a page. I'm not sure what you mean by transcluding an AFD here, which you shouldn't do. If you are trying to call attention to the discussion, please be aware that we generally frown on that, although notifying a board is less worse [sic] than asking for !votes from individual editors. As for the article, I don't think it's particularly insulting to Sanchez or anyone else, but that's just me. Certainly not a BLP issue, if that's the point of you bringing it up here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with FreeRangeFrog: as silly as this article may be, it does not present any serious BLP issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The point isn't that the article contains insulting language; it is a matter of due weight and calling attention to an incident that has no impact (or interest) other than deriding someone. It is gossip-mongering at its most pathetic. I asked about transcluding because other editors transcluded the article elsewhere, and I couldn't figure out how to do that. Howunusual (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Babu Gogineni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entry is about me and is possibly some 10 years old. It is misleading because it is incomplete or inaccurate. I know \Wikipedia is not to host my CV but it should be remotely connected to me in the least.

For example I have an MA in Human Rights. That is not mentioned. I did politely notify this but nothing has come of it. Not even an acknowledgement.

I have a Show on Telugu TV in my name. 'The Big question with Babu Gogineni' on 10TV in South India. It has had the 'top ratings' of TV in Telugu for its Sunday morning 9.30 am slot since its launch just 2 months ago. Maybe it could be mentioned? It is also shown on Prime Time Staurday at 8.30 pm. Please check Facebook page 'The Big Question with Babu Gogineni'. See also 10TV website but that is in Telugu www.10tv.in in Special Features.

I used to write a Weekly Op-ed Column for the Newspaper POSTNOON and my column was called 'The Human Angle'.

I ran the campaign against the Nobel Laureate Dalai Lama's grooming a child as a reincarnation and obtained Human Rights Commission orders against portrayal of the child as a divine being. This is not mentioned. Any google or Youtube search on 'Sambhavi' will bring out the hundreds of links. Not mentioned.

Participated along with Richard Dawkins as one of the 5 Speakers at a Darwin Conference in Conway Hall in London. No mention. I organised in 2009 in London and in 2014 the WORLD CONFERENCE ON UNTOUCHABILITY. The 2009 event was the first ever World Conference on Untouchability in the World which was Secular and which was covering 13 countries. The BBC carried broadcasts on it. No mention on Wikipedia.

I am Chair of President of Body Organ Donors Association in India. No mention of that.

I am the owner of a training business 'Skillguru' www.skillguru.com. There is no mention of that either.

A recent speech in French in Brussels is on Youtube. As are several other speeches. Could they have been linked?

I did try to alert your editors that the information in my entry could be updated by neutral persons. I even said if they needed references I could provide so accuracy and reliability is improved.

Surely your editors are busy. And it is wrong for me to correct or change entries on me so I have not done that. May I therefore request you to DELETE the entry in my name? That would be a legitimate request after having informed you a few times and not having got even a reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.60.248 (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where there has been any activity at Talk:Babu Gogineni. Where had you requested the edits you mention, if not the article talk page? —C.Fred (talk)

I believe the external link to Don Bivens for Senate campaign site leads to an inappropriate site. The site, for the two seconds I was on it, displayed explicit material. This may be because the domain was taken over by something else, possibly a domain name squatter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.241.2 (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I took down the link to a porn site which has replaced bivensforsenate.com. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Martine Rothblatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reported via OTRS. An IP has apparently insisted on edit warring over the previous/current name of the subject's spouse for months, despite the fact that the sources use her current legal name. The names of their children were also prominently included. I removed those and left the spouse's name as Bina Aspen. Per WP:NPF, details about people related to the subject but without standalone notability should not be even remotely controversial, since the article is not about them. A few eyes would be welcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Given my changes were almost immediately reverted with "but her name is beverlee" and the long-running edit war, I've semi'd the article. If the IPs are so interested in that they can discuss it in the talk page. If any admin believes my protection was inappropriate they're welcome to undo it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

it has been talked about on the talk page a lot. Her name is literally beverlee, as stated in the source. They have 2 children together, and each one has a child from a prior relationship. They then adopted each other's kids. 1 + 1 = 2? 70.208.81.125 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• David Eagleman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 107.135.96.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last edit removed birth name information and birth date information. Edit is fishy because the last edit in that IPs history added an Eagleman reference to another article. Other anonymous editors of this article have that same kind of profile. Isaiah (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are good, we shouldn't care. There is one spam complaint though from January 2013. An IP editor 64.71.21.50 (talk · contribs) seems to have been spamming for fora.tv across a range of presenters. This is not much of a problem so far, and did not continue after September 2013. If you disagree with the latest IP edit you could raise the matter for discussion at Talk:David Eagleman. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sardar Raza Khan should be removed as a more detailed article Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.57.219 (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• It looks like Mdann52 redirected it to the more detailed article, so it looks it's been taken care of. It seems to be a valid search term, which is likely why the article was created, so there's no need to take it to WP:RfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Reginald Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am trying to bring this article up to standards so the "multiple issues" notice can be cleared. I have added more external references, deleted most material that couldn't be verified, and (hopefully) shifted the tone toward a more neutral point of view. That said, I have done very little work on wikipedia, so I'm not totally confident in what I've done; also, I am employed by the subject of this article, so I am not an ideal candidate for bringing this up to snuff, at least not alone.

I would greatly appreciate it if some experienced BLP editors could give it a look. Again, my aim is simply to bring it in line with WP standards, which I deeply respect, and to make it a useful article. I'm not sure if it's quite there yet.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironyoke (talk • contribs) 16:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes on this? It's a list of non-notable, non-articled people completely referenced to primary government documents. Many of the child immigration cases are from the sixties and seventies but some are from 2000s, clearly about children, and who would still be children today. All of the cases involve subjects within the time limits of BLPs.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Horrid. Unless the person is notable, they have no business being listed in a Wikipedia article. Period. Collect (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pruned of all non-notable persons AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone re-added non-notable persons. Re-pruned. Collect (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The same person re-adding the non-notables has created a huge and redundant lede on List of stage names. More eyes would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed more eyes would be appreciated. @Edward321 continues to behave unilaterally, not even replying on the article talk page. The lede is sprawling but not redundant, and exists for a reason. I didn't create the article (list) but have contributed extensively. I could not start a WP:RFC regarding @Edward321 for lack of a third party (i.e. another editor) sharing my concerns, but I am happy to have more eyes on this issue. Quis separabit? 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The vast preponderance of refs given are gpo.gov documents, and not to any secondary source at all. Is [18] (typical example) a valid secondary source per WP:RS and WP:BLP? Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not a secondary source by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

And there has to be a better title for the article, if it has to exist at all.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Melissa Joan Hart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is the accepted handling of Confirmation names, that is, a name taken for a Christian ceremony of initiation? Can it be included in the article? Included in the lede? Included in the infobox? Elizium23 (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Quote from artice: "She chose Catherine as her confirmation name when she was in the eighth grade; however it is not actually part of her name."

What I think should be clarified is that "Catherine" is not part of her legal name. Whether you should include mention of the confirmation name at all is a matter of editorial judgment: Is she a practicing Catholic? Do published interviews exist where she mentions her confirmation name? Does the name (or St. Catherine, presumably her namesake saint) hold some special significance for her? I think it falls somewhere between meaningless trivia and interesting factoid, depending on its significance to her. Given that it is part of neither her legal name, nor her stage name, I don't believe that including it in the bolded text in the lede is appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dirtlawyer1. Unless it's part of the person's WP:COMMONNAME and they are publicly know as that name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

This is self-reported fan site detail. I would omit it entirely unless this name has some external usage. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the "confirmation name" in the Roman Catholic Church is given at "First Communion" Chrismation (the Catholic Church does not have "confirmation" as a rite it uses "confirmation" as the name for what was always "chrismation" allowing my wobble) and is a Saint's name - frequently a Saint corresponding to the child's date of birth. St. Catherine of Siena has a feast day on 29 April, a month with not a lot of female saints. Trivia at best. Collect (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC) .

O RLY? Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Confirmation names are taken at confirmation, not first communion. And it's usually chosen by the person as someone they wish to model their life after, not related to their birth date. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 18:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the order of the sacraments. See articles on the order of the sacraments - Confirmation now may be made years after First Communion. Prior practice was to have Confirmation just before First Communion.[19] (those who were baptized as children may also receive the sacrament of confirmation at an earlier age before they receive the Eucharist) The change was made by Pius X. So much for the consistency of the Catholic Church. Confirmation is still before Communion is all the Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches. Protestant churches generally only consider two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper. When people are confirmed years later in the Catholic Church, they are now likely to just stick with their own names (birth names for Catholics are generally Saint names). Hope this clears up the confusion. Collect (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A poster changed his current coaching position to a job that he has never had and sited the change for reason of defamatory reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.74.130 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like this has been fixed and the article Rex Ryan semi protected. Nil Einne (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Has been added to with BLP violations, fluffed up with speculative coverage, slashed back by an account claiming to be the subject, restored, then drastically pruned back to a sub-stub in an effort to clear out the BLP violations. Could somebody who cares more about fashion and designers than I (i.e., at all) please restore it to some semblance of appropriate length and content? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is written in a clearly biased manner.

Identifying the person as a child prodigy is a sensationalized statement, which has no real backup.

A very consistent portion of the article is dedicated to praise and anecdotes which are irrelevant to his scientific activity and generally useless. Example: "He started programming his first computer applications, and around the time he was 9 years old he stopped going out for play. As his passion deepened, pushing him into such episodes as falling asleep with his head on the keyboard at night, his parents did not disapprove of his work, as they thought he was spending time with a good reason."

Phrases like "Ionuț is a good example of what a computer scientist means." also illustrate the low quality and bias of the writing.

The whole "Hackerville" section is pure anecdote and personal opinion.

The authors' need to dedicate a section to the asteroid named after the subject is also telling of the writing's bias.

Also worth mentioning is that sources [8] and [12] are from a Romanian news channel that is owned by one of the subject's direct sponsors, Dan Voiculescu, who is actually mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabreblue (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Earlier in the year there was a discussion here about some of the editing of Beatrix Campbell. I see that an editor - accused at the time of editing under more than one name - has just done some more edits, and has asked for assistance. Perhaps those who were interested before might have a look at this. For example a notable TV appearance, previously removed for unexplained reasons, has gone again. Testbed (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth creating a category for people notable for their weight (see List of the heaviest people)? Or would it just be a BLP nightmare? I note there is nothing equivalent for tall people, though there is a medical-related category at Category:People with gigantism. GiantSnowman 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What an appalling area of Wikipedia. So many things wrong. Do you really mean "notable for their weight", or should it just say "fat people"? Well known people with anorexia nervosa are known for their weight. When one look at the Comments column, List of the heaviest people actually seems more interested in weight loss than total weight. It also has unacceptable, unprovable claims such as "largest ever documented". It has many of the problems associated with "list" articles, which are discouraged anyway. It has five redlinks! This is freak show stuff. We should avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Removed the redlinks. Seriously, everyone should be forced to memorize WP:BLP before they're allowed to edit articles... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Superhuman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a list of people saying they have near superhuman abilities. Should we be saying this about living people with no sources saying they have near superhuman abilities? Dougweller (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Just more freak show stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quite a bit wrong with that article. I'll try to remember it for later. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"near superhuman" is a nice euphemistic way to say "human" abilities. I have many "nearly better than average" qualities (that is to say, "average" ones.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)