Talk:Papa Dee

Fair use rationale for Image:Papa Dee - Original Master.jpg

Image:Papa Dee - Original Master.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 87.227.59.31

I would like to remind "Slarre" that Wikipedia is not a fanpage, it has a far more important object than that, wether You wrote the original article or not. It´s a forum for facts. Fact is: Papa Dee was arrested sept 18 2008 charged with assault on his wife with bodily harm. Ref Realtid, DN, PD:s wifes blog a.o.

If You persist deleting this verifiable fact - You will be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk)

You are now reported.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, specifically the following line: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment".

So far no major Swedish newspaper or other major news sources has published any names on this matter, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to be sensationalist and be the first to publish this kind of information. /Slarre (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What You are saying is that no references are enough to publish a fact You don´t like. Andrea Wahlgren (PD:s wife and the alleged victim) recognizes his arrest in her own blog. I remind You that my note in the article does not claim his guilt, only the fact that he has been arrested. A very central fact in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.59.31 (talk)

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that we should wait to publish any names until at least a few major media outlets or other reliable sources (not blogs etc.) have done so as well. /Slarre (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Slarre that is exactly what You are saying. It´s now an undisputed fact that this Papa Dee character got arrested and then "häktad" by Stockholm district court, my note in the article, was with reference even to the case number at the court, complete with contact details. Still You claim it´s a matter of unreliable sources.... If You are such a fan of this character that it hurts You personally to read unfavorable facts of his life - then that´s Your problem - and nothing that should affect Wikipedias readers right to facts. Again Wikipedia is not a forum for fanclubs....When I search on wiki + arrested there is thousands of hits, most of them even without any references. F.ex. "Mickey Rourke" article says "In 1994 Rourke was arrested for spousal abuse." very similar case the only difference is that this claim is without any reference to the case. Now using Perpetius to do Yr deeds, even blocking me from correcting Yr shortcomings. Typical misuse of power in a forum thought to be the defender of facts, not personal taste and private goals. So Slarre Your credibility is well below zero in this matter.[ (UTC)/Nisken

Are You here now "ditt andefattiga jon"? now You are trying to apply Your twisted version of "swedish rules" on the american/english section of wikipedia. Just the other day You where arguing that there was a difference between the "swedish" part of wiki and the rest of wiki, that explained why You had to remove my facts from the Papa Dee article in swedish. Then You changed the rules when Your arguments where dismantled, to only accept references to swedish major newspapers. Arguing that a courts official decision was not reliable enough as first hand source, this being the "swedish rules" You seem to be one sick guy. So what´s Your argument this time for damaging the article? That the article is available in swedish too? hence under Your control. This is internet a global forum where global rules apply and most people couldn´t care less about Your standards. It´s a verifiable and referenced fact that PD got arrested, its´s a verifiable and referenced fact that he was detained and had his trial. If You don´t accept the official courtdocuments as verification - people in the world outside Your privat duckspond sure doNisken (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've been informed above that similar rules applies in this case. Of the sources you've presented, not one is acceptable. From WP:BLP: "Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". That takes away two of the sources. The Aftonbladet article doesn't mention any name, and thus is out. Official records are not acceptable as sources, again as per WP:BLP: "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them". As there are no reliable secondary sources, this is out as well.

Andejons (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And who think You are to "inform" others? I´m not using my primary reference to publish any personal facts about PD, merely to authenticate that it´s a fact that he got detained by the court. Learn to read before You speak. The other references are as You state "weaker" and should not be used alone to establish the fact of PD:s detention. Still they have reference value however weaker.Nisken (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

For someone asking others to practice their reading skills, yours seems woefully lacking. I again quote: "Do not use [...] trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them".

Andejons (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to stand corrected again and again "du andefattiga jon", the recommendation is ment to prevent from revealing facts by publishing otherwise unreferenced courtmaterial, not as in this case referring to the decision itself not its contents. Hopefully You now stop sabotageing the part of the article I wrote and recognize it as a fact. Sooner or later You will have to, the sooner the better for what little is left of Your credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisken (talk • contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The policy is meant to ensure that unnecessary details of persons' private life are not published. The court order is a source which has not been explicitly referenced, which clearly marks it as an unacceptable source, no matter for what purpose. Since Papa Dee now himself has talked to Expressen about the trial, I've replaced the more lacking sources with that article. I hope this will be the end of this matter.

Andejons (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, the court order is referenced, no detailed material is made available that is not available elsewhere. Your reference to PD:s article is deleted following the BLP directive You Yourself so often reference to and therefore should know the meaning of. Wiki articles is not the forum for discussions (this page is), merely reporting facts. What PD claims is of no importance when the court decision is made, from a wiki perspective. When/if there is an appeal, that should be noted in the article, the innocence debate however is not a wiki article matter.Nisken (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How would "ringa misshandel" be translated into English? "Minor assault"? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Have no idea? But it doesn´t feel all that important, maybe on the same level as that the courts decision was 2/5 (including the chairman) for "the "major assault" conviction - doesn´t feel important enough to write abt does it? More interesting is to see if there is an appeal or not?Nisken (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ehausler" is now totally without references or arguing just plain vandalising this page. I have got warned by administrators not to revert his "work" under the "3R" rule - probably correct, ehausler have been warned too, however he continues with his reverts now of one of the administrators work. I wonder how this will end? Anyone who knows this "ehausler" character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisken (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for vandalizing by me. As he agreed to discuss the changes on this page, I unblocked him now. If he resumes instead of discussing, please report him. But I hope that stopped now and we can focus on content building. I am willing to assume that he acted in good faith after he explained his point of view to me. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the section about him got fined?

There has been an edit war on Papa Dee´s page where I have deleted information. I´m not familiar with Wikipedia´s ways of communicating. It´s all about the content to me. Here is the story: Daniel W has been fined for pushing his wife. Is Wikipedia to write about what people have been fined for? You ought to have better things to do. But then if you still think it is of importance then Wikipedia should, in the name of consequence write about what everybody´s been fined for. Is this truly a piece of vital information? Furthermore Wikipedia by means of Nisken implies that he was accused of much more serious crimes. By mentioning the preliminary allegations taken back by the prosecution Wikipedia violates its proper rules of impartiality. It appears as though Wikipedia has an agenda. At least so far it seems like Nisken does. I sincerely hope I´m wrong. Right now the page about Papa Dee serves as desinformation. Leave that up to the tabloids. Wikipedia should do better. Now to the real punishment: Due solely to this incident all of Daniel´s work in Sweden has been cancelled. His work as a performing artist, as a DJ, as a leader for 10 years in radio shows and his TV series as well. He and his wife Andrea can no longer stay in their apartment, let alone in Stockholm. He can´t even take a cab anymore. Abroad at the moment they are now preparing to leave Sweden permanently and move out of the country. The matter has, in every conceivable way been blown completely out of proportion. I appeal to your sense of equity, justice and fairness to not further impede his chances of working abroad. He has been punished enough already. Daniel´s wife Andrea categorically denies that any bodily harm or domestic violence has taken place at any time. Beginning to get the picture? I do not take lightly to domestic abuse. I have personally convinced women to report people whom they´ve been mistreated by. I physically took one of my friends to the police to help her report her ex while he was hanging all around us. I know what control people are like. Daniel has been pretty victimised. And it may even be that some of us have pushed someone at some point.

I urge you to please take out the irrelevant information.

This is a flagrant lie ehausler, the prosecution did never drop their charges on the more serious violence, charges that probably would have earned him jail instead of fines. If they where dropped it, the court could not have based it decision on it. Now two of five members of the court wanted him sentenced for the more grave accusation, three of them decided to only warrant the lesser charge and sentenced him to fines.

Wiki´s article page is NOT the place to discuss guilt, that is done in the courts. Now the court have made the decision.

The only part of your thread I do agree with is that all this comotion is VERY important to his life as an artist and person. That is why it should be noted in his bio to get a better understanding on whats going on. To sabotage an article with the argument of saving the objects career, when he already is convicted does not better wiki at all, on the contrary. It helps PD but lessen the reliability of wiki. I will therefore fight Your edits all the way to the top of wikis admin if necessary. Wiki´s reliability and future is much more important than a convicteds interests of not letting his bio reflect what has passed. I strongly feel I´m protecting wiki in this case - and I can see You are placing PD before wiki. What is irrelevant or not is a matter of discussion, the article is filled with material that seems irrelevant to me and others that don´t have a fan´s view on the article. Nisken (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

ehausler (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about him denying the accusations and charges. As Expressen reports he has himself gone public with this story [1], it's even made public by the main newspaper in Norway [2] and in Norway there's really strict rules naming even convicted felons in the daily press. (on grounds that it should be possible to start over again after the sentence has been served). (no:Vær Varsom-plakaten, still no translation to English in wikipedia unhappily, but it's published here: CODE OF ETHICS OF THE NORWEGIAN PRESS by PFU) Nsaa (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request on WP:BLPN#Papa_Dee, so more editors will be aware of this dispute. Nsaa (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I´ve taken away info indicating that he was detained on more serious charges. The charges were quickly dropped by the prosecution. I have added that his wife categorically denies that she´s ever been subject to any abuse.

ehausler (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In response the BLP noticeboard posting of this, I think the whole matter is exactly the classic case where a negativebut well-sourced minor matter unrelated to notability has been added. I think the whole topic should be removed. It has no real relevance to anything important about him. DGG (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)