Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Hi Wikipedia, looking for help here. I am indeed Benjamin K. Sovacool and there are a number of small errors in my bio. What is the best way to fix them? Happy to work with an editor on this. I didn't think I was permitted to edit my own bio anyways ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.164.28 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your best course of action:

Do not edit the actual article, because that would be a conflict of interest
Do post on the talk page of the article (when you're looking at the article, there is a tab at the very top of the page that says 'talk') outlining your concerns
Do be aware that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable to external reliable sources, especially when it concerns the biographical information of a living person.

— The Potato Hose 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just stumbled across this thread, and am pleased to see the Sovacool BLP issue raised here, as it affects many articles and needs to be resolved. A single WP editor (we shall call him BL) seems to have taken exception to Sovacool and his work, and has made derogatory remarks about him on many WP pages, (see Talk:Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources, Talk:Climate change mitigation, and Talk:Nuclear safety). Other examples which illustrate the BLP problem are [1] and [2]. BL calls Sovacool an “anti-nuclear activist/advocate/lawyer” when in fact Sovacool is neither biased against nuclear power, nor is he an activist, advocate, or lawyer. He is a well-published senior academic. Several editors have tried to set BL straight, on various Talk pages (eg., Talk:Nuclear safety#Lead tags), without success. I have found his work to be scholarly and high quality, and have sometimes used his writings as a source on WP.

I’ve noticed also that BL is doing the same thing with Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor, see for example, [3].

-- Johnfos (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos, I appreciate and support what you're doing. Wikipedia must strive to be accurate, fair, and balanced, since so many people rely on it for information. Editors shouldn't be able to make derogatory, or biased, comments against living persons (or dead ones, for that matter!). Bksovacool (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that I do believe it is a mischaracterization for BL and others to call me "anti-nuclear." I do not receive money nor do I work for any "anti-nuclear" groups. I produce independent research and scholarship, not tilted advocacy, and have no vested interest or stake in the energy sector. Basically, I call things as I see them. Moreover, while I am balanced and critical of nuclear power, some of my work has argued that nuclear power makes sense as an alternative to coal and fossil fuels, and that it has its own political economy of sorts. These arguments are neither "for" nor "against" nuclear power. See, for a start, these two peer-reviewed books, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/climate-change-and-global-energy-security, and http://www.anthemenviroexperts.com/?p=423 and http://routledge-ny.com/books/details/9780415688703/ for more. Bksovacool (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Yes, I am a senior academic, writing to this noticeboard because it appears that User: Boundarylayer has consistently misrepresented me and my research. He has misquoted my affiliations, shown only one side of key data from my studies, and excluded research questioning his views. Of particular concern has been his insertion of derogatory material at Benjamin K. Sovacool and Talk:Nuclear safety. Bksovacool (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill

Could someone take a look at Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, and Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill and check them for neutrality and proper weight? (Stonehill is the living person.)

I ran into this one at The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries and Larry Norman#Relationship with Randy Stonehill caught my eye. This looks like we have enshrined one side of a years-old business dispute that nobody cares about.

Compare this with Mick Jagger, Keith Richards and Relationship of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Oh, wait, that last one doesn't exist. I guess Jagger and Richards aren't as notable as Norman and Stonehill... --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell - How in heaven's name does that article even exist??? There is no way any of that can be made "neutral" to begin with! Why is all that important? It belongs in a book or a website, not here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to do a major bloatectomy on the two bios and to AfD the relationship page. Of course the same editors who made it number one on the list of The Six Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries will no doubt object, so is anyone willing to lend a hand before I get buried under a steaming pile of POV? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, we are all counting on you...--ukexpat (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Why folks think BLPs of that length and detail are good for an encyclopedia is quite beyond me. Collect (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a page for Lennon–McCartney, so there is some precedent. Of course Lennon–McCartney isn't as long as Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill, just as John Lennon isn't as long as Larry Norman. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just cut Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill way back. I discovered that this is an entire constellation of fancruft, including:

Template:Larry Norman

Category:Larry Norman

Category:Larry Norman albums

Larry Norman discography

List of songs recorded by Larry Norman

Category:Albums produced by Larry Norman

Early life and career of Larry Norman

Later life and career of Larry Norman

Musicals of Larry Norman

Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill

Upon This Rock (Larry Norman album)

Tourniquet (album)

Street Level (album)

Stranded in Babylon

Something New Under the Son

So Long Ago the Garden

Only Visiting This Planet

In Another Land (album)

Home at Last (Larry Norman album)

Bootleg (Larry Norman album)

And, last but not least, I found a Scientology connection --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added a bit back in the Stonehill article, but otherwise agree that the material needed to be edited hard and I might be accused of bias. I would definitely add the Scientology link to the Norman article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, nobody objected to the 90% reduction in size. It may be that the editor or editors who made it so large had a personal or commercial connection that became moot. If it was real fans who built this monster I would expect more of it after Norman passed away.

I just debloatified People! and made the Scientology connection more clear, then I proposed for deletion the other auxiliary bloat/fancruft pages except for the record albums. Not sure whether to cut them down or propose deletion.

I will keep you posted about the prods. If they are contested I will file AfDs. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process Larry Norman has long been one of the longest and most-citation-ed articles on this site and someone has clearly put a lot of time into writing about him here. I don't have any strong feelings on his music or person (I'm totally ignorant of them honestly) but it's inappropriate to empty categories without discussion. I've reverted your PRODs too—at least one of them already has an AfD and it's not clear why they would be deleted rather than (e.g.) redirected. You clearly haven't thought this through and although I'm sure there's a lot of dross to be removed, wholesale deletion by a single editor is not the solution here. The fact that Cracked made fun of it does not justify it being removed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit hard and Merge I'm not sure why the articles are all pointing back to this discussion rather than an AfD, but there's some information that will be lost if the articles are simply deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Just to clarify the above, I have removed no articles. I have trimmed down a couple of badly bloated articles (Larry Norman and People!) and proded others that don't have a snowball's chance of surviving an AfD (Early life and career of Larry Norman, Later life and career of Larry Norman, the vanity record labels). I also made some ham-handed newbie cat changes, after which Koavf went through all of the pages with HotCat and made the cats right (thanks!) and of course I am fine with that, being a big fan of WP:BRD. I did look at the pages before prodding them and moved anything useful to the Larry Norman page. While there is indeed a lot of detail there, do we really need to have fifty times more information on Norman than we have on most musicians?

It occurred to me that it might be better to replace the pages with redirects to the Larry Norman page. That would preserve the histories. I didn't do that because I suspect that someone would object, but if the page gets to AfD I am going to suggest it as an alternative. Also, the Cracked page is just how I noticed this. It was my own evaluation that led me to the conclusion that it was badly bloated. It turns out that nobody needs to know that Gary Burris played bass guitar for People! for four hours in 1974. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to propose a merge from his early and later life articles, since the main article has been considerably cut down. Beerest355 Talk 23:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following are up for merging or deleting. Please comment. Thanks!

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke them, bury the remains, salt the Earth. There is simply not enough notable information to spread across 10 articles. De-puffing isn't enough. The "Especially the Later life and career" article, especially. From which a special disposal process should be invented for the sentence; "He never expected to be healed and thought he would have to continue chemical therapy until the day after John Barr came into his life and laid hands on him." EBY (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored a very limited amount of the content that had been removed. (I didn't respond/act sooner because I was on vacation last week.) It's currently sitting at ~50k, but that includes 178 citations. While there obviously may still be disputes about what content should be included, I hope no one would find the current text to be remarkably excessive, as it was in older versions. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Rouhani

This BLP article on Iran's President-elect contains some controversial claims. One of them is a statement about suicide of his son which is not supported by reliable sources. Sources are Radio Farda, Alireza Nourizadeh and Ynetnews which I don't think that could be considered as RS in this case. I tried to remove it but my edit has been reverted. Other issue is this part of the article which is totally original research or poorly sourced (see related discussion) on the talk page. I think that both these allegations should be removed.Farhikht (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor & I have made edits based on your request, the sources, and the relative impact of the plagiarism claim. The suicide of the son is widely reported; details are not currently in the article but that may change based on RS reports going forward. EBY (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your constructive edits. About the suicide of son, the problem was some sources provided for its reason which is now removed. Yes, I think that in some weeks we will have more information about this incident.Farhikht (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Cunningham

This article is wrong. Eric Cunningham was a provincial politician and Geoff Scott was a federal politician. They never ran against each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.17.21 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done According to the Winnipeg Free Press, Wednesday, September 5, 1984 (page 15) seen here - Eric Cunningham did run in a federal election against Geoff Scott (and lost). In the future, you can leave a message on an article's talk page or you can always ask a question at Wikipedia's reference desk. EBY (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chinchilla

Could editors please take a look at some very negative material being added to this article? The latest variant on the same theme is this edit. It's even worse than some of the earlier ones. In my view it's not a blatant BLP violation that permits me to keep reverting. My suspicion is some balanced material regarding the polls belongs in the article, but not the way it's being presented.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded and moved to the Presidency section. Mitofsky surveys are considered notable, and the report is being quoted by El Pais, which is one of the main news outlets in Costa Rica. I used that source instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it is a poll in Mexico about the Costa Rican leader. Is that the same as a Canadian poll on American leaders or a USA poll on Iranian leaders?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much yes, Mitofsky is a Mexican company. But they are notable in Mexico and South America. I would compare it with a Canadian or French company doing a survey on American politicians, but probably not Iranian (either way). Mexico doesn't have a lot of historical belligerence towards Costa Rica :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if they are like Pew Research Center. 120 employees but we have their polls all through WP and the media. I read the criteria at their site and sometimes it is just 100 phone calls for all of the USA. Their site doesn't contain the sampling sets anymore though. I know major Canadian Opinion polls have higher standards and publish sampling numbers with each poll.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I would place them at the level of Pew, but they are basically a division of Mitofsky International, which is relatively respected. That and the article from El Pais (which includes a quote from one of the pollsters) gives it legitimacy I think. Of course if there's consensus that it shouldn't stay then that's fine. It was the initial wording that was problematic, which is why Bbb32 probably reported it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if these polls should be included at all in our Wikipedia. If you look at Kim Campbell and Rita Johnston who many may consider as 'sacrificial' leaders. Their huge defeat margins as provincial and federal government leaders were mostly not their fault. Depending on who sponsors a poll the numbers can vary greatly. A low one like this subject's may have another poll published somewhere with much higher numbers. A sponsor funds a poll to smear a leader. a paper prints the lowest results, we repeat the results. Doesn't that make us gullible editors helping the spin doctors by smearing subjects in their articles?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Canoe here. Polls are a battleship-grey area as solid ref material I feel. Irondome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Madsen

Every so often (2009, 2010 and now 2013) an editor adds the pejorative description of "Conspiracy theorist" to the lead, usually with the same sources.
I keep asking for mainstream sources but he has only provided sources which I believe are not RS for the claim to be in the lead. The main argument by the two supporters of the term is that the blogs are mainstream reliable sources because most are hosted by mainstream newspapers. The references used, Talking Points Memo,[4] The Telegraph,[5] The Commentator[6] and the Atlantic Monthly [7] are blogs. One of the two Salon references says only that Madsen has "controversial views on espionage issues" while the other calls him a "conspiracy-minded blogger"[8] which is an appropriate term for his blog reporting and was originally in the lead. The Forbes source[9] for the claim is interesting as the conspiracy theory claim is not made by Forbes but is in a paragraph Forbes took from a blog called Harry's Place that it included in the article. The most Forbes itself states is that Madsen "has some fairly out there views" which Forbes states is probably the only reason The Observer pulled the story, as the article goes on to say: however left field the source is what he’s actually said seems to be largely true and indeed a matter of public knowledge for some years now…So the basic information is indeed true yet still they have taken the piece down.[10] So we have the bizarre case of a journalist being called a conspiracy theorist in the lead based on him reporting a true story.
The Daily Beast [11] is a news source that has reported that Madsen is a conspiracy theorist but that article has an accuracy problem such as claiming Madsen has a zero batting average with previous "reporting". For example, Madsen was the first journalist to call the Obama birther scandal a hoax, he was the first to report on the existence of ECHELON and PRISM and he reported on the FIRSTFRUIT program a full year before the ABC "discovered" it’s existence and reported it as a scoop.
The editor has also included in the article claims that Madsen is "batshit crazy, to use the technical term" sourced from a blog[12] reporting on what someone had told them. And that Madsen is a "fruitloop who thinks Obama is gay" which is also sourced to a blog.[13] Both of these seem to be personal opinions not relevant for the article. He is primarily an investigative journalist and many of his "conspiracy theories" have been proven correct. Most of his reporting, especially that outside of his blog, has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Just because some of his more ridiculous claims have not been proven correct does not make him a conspiracy theorist or there would be no such thing as an investigative journalist. This argument over whether or not Madsen is a conspiracy theorist has been going on for four years and it needs to be resolved.

As well as reverting[14] the removal of the descriptive the editor has also removed the subjects memberships of several press organisations, a paragraph on his reporting on blood diamonds and a mention of who he was working for when investigating another story. All these mentions were positive, leaving the section with only negative claims regarding Madsens reporting. Wayne (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Daily Beast, Forbes, ABC News, Talking Points Memo; these are not blogs. Andrew Sullivan's Atlantic Monthly might be considered a blog but it is ref'd as his opinion. The Commentator site is a hard news site, with good editorial practices. Each of these RS news organizations have described the subject as a "conspiracy theorist" or similar. We have academic experts condemning this BLP subject for unreliablility. (It is an academic who describes Madsen as "batsh*t crazy".) The subject is so controversial that the Guardian newspapers just had to pull a front page article because it was sourced to the subject. A quick google search will find even more RS than those listed. If these multitudes of refs are not sufficient to describe an article's subject I'm not entirely certain what would. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Beast may have believe that Madsen had a zero batting average because Madsen has "discovered" that Obama is gay and has "reported" that Obama killed his gay lover in a bathhouse, that Obama was installed in the White House by the CIA, and that the Boston bombing was a US government operation. He has stated that the Mossad was involved in 9/11, the London bombings, the Bali bombings, and the Cole attack, and that former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is a Mossad agent. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Google brings up a RS poynter.org "conspiracy theorist Wayne Madsen". I added the ref to the lead. As Conspiracy theorist appears to be his notability (along with journalist etc), I previously linked to broader notability topic per WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK. Damian Thompson at blogs.telegraph.co.uk is a RS WP:NEWSBLOG - "a fruitloop", "an unusual gentleman". There seems to be adequate sourcing.

Now, as for the credibility of Madsen's blogging, it is not up to us to judge but the reliable sources.

WP:BOOMERANG seems to be pertinent here - if "two supporters" are in agreement (and I'm not sure if that includes me or that makes three?) then that might indicate that there is consensus, and I'm not even sure why it has been taken here when the talk page seems to adequately reply to User:WLRoss. This seems WP:DEADHORSE. If this issue keeps surfacing, and there's allegations of whitewashing / POV pushing on the article, then maybe this is the right place to be discussing after all? Widefox; talk 11:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The sources are fine and its the same one editor that is whitewashing-wikilawyering that article for years trying to paint Madsen as some mainstream investigative reporter or what not. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed that Madsen was a mainstream investigative reporter and I'm not the one making false claims about sources. I don't even read the stuff the guy writes, I'm trying to keep the article neutral after noticing that some editors appear to add only negative material and delete anything positive they can. Don't you find it strange that in the reporting and opinions section it's all negative? Why don't you include the notable reporting he has done to balance it? Wayne (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE applies. It is undue WP:WEIGHT. Also, please retract the narrative that you are the only balancing editor, when I've edited the article the first time today, so it seems a bit AGF bordering on OWN. Widefox; talk 17:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madsen may be unreliable and batshit crazy but that doesn't require him to be described as a conspiracy theorist in the lead. Firstly, I suggest that editors read the sources before accepting User:Capitalismojo's word that they support the claim. For example, User:Widefox has accepted the Telegraph as adequate sourcing per WP:NEWSBLOG yet the Telegraph never mentions the word "conspiracy" anywhere in the article so is unreliable for the claim. As for the sources Capitalismojo claims are hard news not blogs, The Telegraph URL says it's a blog and it does not call Madsen a conspiracy theorist anyway, it calls him "a fruitloop", the Seattle Post Intelligencer does not call him a conspiracy theorist, it reports that someone they spoke to said he was batshit crazy, I've discussed why the Daily Beast is not reliable, Forbes does not call him a conspiracy theorist either, Talking Points Memo is a blog and The Commentator may be a hard news site but the page says it's a blog (comment). Only a single source from the list Capitalismojo gave above supports the claim made and that is only borderline reliable at best because it is not mainstream media, appears to be written in blog style and for the factual errors it contains. Why he uses so many sources that do not even make the claim as refs for the claim is beyond me and calling blogs hard news simply because they are newspaper blogs is also a worry. This has been an ongoing dispute for four years which has included the deletion of anything positive about the guy and until The Observer debacle only blogs made the conspiracy theorist claim. Capitalismojo wont even allow much of his career to be detailed because he says the third party sources use Madsen as their source. Even self published should be acceptable because if he had lied about his career in the Navy and NSA his critics would have mentioned it to discredit him. The Observer article being pulled has prompted some sources to claim he is a conspiracy theorist but is this a reliable claim or a kneejerk reaction considering the actual story is largely true? Madsen never gave them the article to print, in fact Madsen never even wrote the original, it was sourced by the Observer from an interview Madsen gave to a blog. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not care what your opinions of him are, RS say that. I think wikilawyering non-sequiturs about Telegraph sources is quite transparent. WP:BOOMERANG applies here. WP:LEAD > WP:CONTEXTLINK as notability. Quite a deadhorse really. Widefox; talk 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it wikilawyering to point out that the Telegraph does not make the claim so shouldn't be used to support the claim? Anyway, I just had a look at the Madsen lead...it's now written pretty much how I argued it should read four years ago, mention that he's described as such not that he is. We'll see how long it lasts. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is obviously not a blog and, more importantly, it not used in relation to or referencing "conspiracy" in the article.. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that we have a lead that everyone can agree on. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is tempting to be cautious per BLPs and not spell-out a conspiracy theorist as such, but this directly flies in the face of WP:FRINGE " Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear.". Widefox; talk 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "conspiracy theorist" needs to be in the lead; but it needs to be noted as the majority view. It may not be the most notable thing about him, but it's accurate and sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with mention in the lead that he has been called one but how is a majority view when it is so difficult to find a reference in support? Of the five refs used to support the claim in the lead, four are newsblogs and the only hard news ref is reporting on what the blogs say about it. Then we have the problem of inaccuracies in the refs with several claiming the story itself is a conspiracy theory despite it being proven to be true. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mutalib Mohamed Daud

Could someone more experienced than I am with BLP issues take a look at this? I wonder about WP:BDP with regards to the rape allegations, and the sourcing for notability looks pretty poor at the moment - there is this, which is linked in the article, and some Google hits like this, which isn't in the article but indicate he may be notable as a witness in a political 'scandal', and as an activist, but I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 03:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. I'm honestly not sure if this was something the subject wrote or reported on, since it was under "Selected publications" but it was talking about someone else? I suspect there's an issue with English proficiency here. In any case, it's a serious allegation and unless we have a reliable English source or a trusted editor that could verify the information, it stays off. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks - and sorry I missed your reply. English proficiency is an issue, amongst others, but I didn't want to prejudge based on my previous interactions with the editor. Assistance appreciated - cheers. Begoon ^talk 12:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor UnknownBat/166.147.88.26/other IPs adding "big forehead" comments

UnknownBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
166.147.88.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user keeps adding text to the Megan Fox article that asserts that Fox "has a very large, shiny forehead and likes to chew gum." He has also been adding text to other articles about female celebrities "having a big forehead." See this discussion on my talk page; that IP (the one discussed) is very clearly the same person that I am now reporting here, and I will be leaving a note about this in that section. I've reverted the editor here and here at the Megan Fox article, and here, here and here at the Chewing gum article. Like I stated in that first edit summary of the revert I made to the Chewing gum article, the image he keeps adding to these articles is a fake image; it's fake because the gum is quite obviously photoshopped into Fox's mouth. Also see this edit and this edit at the Forehead article. He has also been reverted by others at the Forehead article.

No, I have not left a warning on UnknownBat's talk page; I have not because the editor has been warned as different IPs and thus warning the editor on the talk page of his registered account will obviously be wasting my time. This editor, I dub "the forehead vandal." And he is clearly only here to joke around. Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one's definitely a vandal or clown... but also mixed in is the occasional oh-so-slightly helpful edit, so maybe a troll. Whatever, the remedy is usually the same. It might be better to drop this off at AIV or ANI instead of here. This might get "resolved" without a warning, or one might be required, 50/50 odds on that. Zad68 03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zad. Looking at the editor's contributions as UnknownBat, I don't see any helpful edits, though a few of them at least are not vandalism. Any helpful edit made by the IPs this person used may have been made by someone else. I thought about reporting the editor at WP:AIV, but I realized that I had more to state about this matter than the "keep it very short" commentary that is expected there, and, if I were to keep the commentary very short, I know that they would very likely turn me away with a "User not sufficiently warned" statement because I didn't leave warnings on UnknownBat's talk page. Taking it to WP:ANI would help, but I somehow didn't think of that; I likely didn't because I know that this is a BLP issue and that administrators who watch this board will help. Flyer22 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that the image has been deleted. And since no administrator at this noticeboard has weighed in on this yet, I suppose it's not a dire matter. A few moments ago, I considered posting this matter at WP:ANI, but then I decided not to...especially since my first post to UnknownBat's talk page would be a notification that I reported him at WP:ANI (instead of a Welcome template or a warning). That is, if I wouldn't be required to leave him a notification about the report...considering that the new notifications system will let him know of the report if his username is Wikilinked while posted there. Flyer22 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the image deleted at commons. It was a copyvio image that was photoshopped to put an ugly piece of gum in her mouth. I think the same image was uploaded and deleted before judging by his talk page over there. If there is a report to ANI here, someone may wish to mention that he uploads 'doctored immoral' images for BLP article inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help of a German-speaker in Daryush Shokof

This article was full of original research, and had multiple other issues. I edited some parts of the article and also related articles like this one. Could someone please take a look specially at this controversial section of the article which is an allegation of apparently a "fake kidnapping"? I note that some IPs are active on the article and its talk page.Farhikht (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the German sources, and the article at de-Wikipedia, and have rmv the parts not really sourced there. Lectonar (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response.Farhikht (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lectonar (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessye Norman

The section titled "The Jessye Norman School of the Arts" reads more as an advertisement for the school without stating any facts about the organization, merely their mission, etc. It's Augusta, GA location is not even listed, nor is there background information regarding its founding or relation to Norman herself. Seems misleading and unrelated in a biography page.

Done - Made edits. Next time, please feel free to Be Bold! EBY (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheh Hallegua

Is Yaheh Hallegua an article that falls under WP:BLP1E? The article currently has a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaheh Hallegua (2nd nomination). Comments from editors familiar with the WP:BLP policy would be helpful, as there was little participation on the first AFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when I found Martha (Passenger Pigeon). Shanawdithit also has an article. Yaheh Hallegua may not be as notable but when that group of people is gone she may be very notable. A BLP courtesy delete may be warranted as well and undelete in the future if more notability arises. I am not saying wp:otherstuffexists but the notability of these articles could be used in arguments at the AfD. I wish to avoid the AfD (because I actually don't care either way), but someone else may wish to link these other articles there. I see no problem with a redirect and keeping the history. Full deletion of the material would make re-creation in the future that much harder. I haven't looked yet but how many other languages have an article on her?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Laszlo Haines

A new article about a British man who has been detained as a psychiatric patient since 1986. I'd appreciate regulars familiar with WP:BLP policy having a look. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've PRODded and will no doubt have to take to AFD in due course. Giant Snowman 14:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Laszlo Haines. Giant Snowman 15:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blog source

Some editors are using a list of notable people at http://www.happycow.net/ to add "...is a vegetarian." to articles. A 'one edit IP' just removed it from Tom Morello so it could be the subject. Should we seek consensus on whether or not to use this a source and whether or not to even use it from good sources unless the subjects identify as being vegetarians? We don't include "...is an omnivore." in other articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a better source than that and I agree that it's a pretty trivial identifier in any event, unless it is part of the subject's notability.--ukexpat (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best a "commercial site" and not a reliable source as such for any contentious claims. Collect (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have 100s on their list: http://www.happycow.net/famous_vegetarians.html . Will the search function work best to find all the articles or editor histories?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search on the "happycow.com" bit - it should find the uses of that site. Appears to be on 22 pages per Wikipedia search. Collect (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tobias

Smarmy advert or near-advert, which I am inclined to suspect of being written and maintained by the subject himself, or else some hireling(s) of his, using throwaway s.p.a. identities. Name-dropping, notability by association, peacock words and unsourced assertions abound. Every time a new book in which he appears is supposed to come out (it's unclear whether some or all of them are self-published nowadays) or he produces a new TV program, however obscure, it is guaranteed to be advertised in this article first. (The article is also full of Manual of Style violations.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more pruning, but I was trying to be nice here for this massive puff pastry. Collect (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Radziwill‎

There is a long standing edit war about whether this BLP should be addressed with a title of nobility. Editors can add their opinion at Talk:Carole_Radziwill#Princess_or_not_princess. Gamaliel (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kundig

Tom Kundig, an American architect, maintains through several caretaking accounts what appears to be a vanity biographical page. As he is currently embroiled in a dispute over a controversial structure of his in Washington State's Methow Valley, I have added a Controversy section to his page summarizing the dispute.

While I am desperately trying to maintain NPOV, I am not a disinterested party, as I can see the property in question from my office window. Kundig's publicists seem to use drive-by one-off editorial accounts, alternately sanitizing his page and adding uncited enumerations of their in-courtroom legal victories. I would very much welcome outside review and correction before this devolves into an edit war. Goetter (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While your POV might be considered neutral at first glance, you are violating if not the letter at least the spirit of WP:NOR. Where you say ...violates not only good environmental design[16] but also the protective covenants[17]... you are linking to the documents that would be used to technically enforce the removal of the structure, which makes them primary sources. Whatever you are claiming in that paragraph needs to originate from secondary sources, and preferably not that website that organizes and documents opposition since it's impossible for them to have a neutral POV. Which leads me to the next issue - if there is no significant coverage of the issue by secondary sources (media, news, etc) then I'd have to question whether or not the entire section merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, I did not completely understand WP:NOR. I'll prioritize secondary sources, and redact primary sources not backed by secondaries. Thank you for your speedy feedback. Goetter (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation of "good environmental design" is entirely subjective and not subject to factual claims. The claim that the building violates covenants is a matter of legal dispute. I've also renamed the section to be more descriptive. "Controversy" is deprecated as a section title because it's entirely uninformative. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" is a pretty common section title in biographies of living persons, but I agree, it is not informative. Thank you for the NPOV lesson. I was incapable of the objectivity required to summarize and cite The Other Side's position. Goetter (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be common and it's increasingly being removed because it's a meaningless word. Anything and everything could be a "controversy". Perhaps a more accurate phrase would be "legal dispute." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: http://www.movethehut.org/ is a 'soapbox' link used in the article as a ref, http://www.methownet.com/grist/ seems to be a biased blog and shouldn't be used as a source for contentious material as well as http://www.mnn.com/about-us . http://www.seattleweekly.com/ and http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/ I would say are RS without looking into whether they are 'huffpostish' which I don't think we use for contentious tabloid trivia. Do we need 6 sources for 3 sentences? If any want to see truly ugly then there is http://www.flickr.com/photos/7663586@N02/5131774896/ on a ridgeline in a national park that is privately owned restaurant at the top of the Jasper Tramway. If there are editors that are connected to the subject they may wish to source images of the cabin with the siding on. Links to soapbox sites with intentionally ugly images of it just creates a bias in the article. "...the cabin can be seen from the valley. But he contends that the photos publicized by Move the Hut, like the one above, use a telephoto lens that make the structure seem bigger than it is. “We’ve had people call us and say: ‘We can’t find it. Where is it?’” I think it is a trivial and local issue that doesn't belong in a BLP article. The subject may be notable but the issue isn't. If a non-notable subject were to be involved would we include the issue in an article on building codes and legal disputes in Washington state? Local coverage by two sources shouldn't cut it for 'widely covered' and 'notable'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.movethehut.org/ is only cited to identify the opposition. http://www.methownet.com/grist/ describes only the fact that there were broad-participation meetings preceding the coalition of said local opposition. The hut has no siding, unfortunately, hence no images of the hut with siding exist. Per the other sources cited, the hut is quite easy to see from the valley floor: said quote was sourced from the builder. Without this single dissenting item, this BLP article is otherwise a puff piece by the subject's publicists, per its edit history. Goetter (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be far too much detail for a BLP article. A shorter version would be: "Kundig built a cabin at x and x filed a pending lawsuit claiming it violates x. Kundig claims that x was not violated and once completed it will blend in." As it stands now it has more detail than some murder trials we have here. The more trivial an issue the less material we should use in smaller articles. This one could be considered a coatrack for the local soapbox. We shouldn't be giving them a larger forum here than they deserve. Especially if there are SPA accounts on both sides.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Reigns

I keep correcting this, and it's beginning to get out of control. Roman Reigns is engaged to the mother of his child, and there is no verifiable proof to prove otherwise. Can we please have his page locked from non registered users, so as to stop the vandalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=561748042&oldid=561747840 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Reigns&diff=562797722&oldid=562784191

Unsourced material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Ambani

Some help here please. There's a tag team of new editors/IPs doing this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I'm at 3RR and don't feel comfortable invoking WP:BLP so I'm not reverting any more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday has blocked the main editor for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. The editor finally started to discuss after the block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being we might consider this

Done. Lectonar (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati: No action/Reply on most of the Suggestions on Talk page/New Section. Please Guide

Subject identified to OTRS and discussion should be kept in the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Respected Authorities: I and few others went for lot of suggestions on the Talk page of the article. Most of the suggestions on the Talk page of the article were not replied by any one. Yes there are few people who took very good initiative to take care of few of the concerns but unfortunately maximum of them were not even replied. I have no guts nor competence to edit the article of the subject. As an edit might not be liked by others. Moreover I strongly believe that the article has lot of scope for improvement and the subject is highly notable. I have already mentioned the scope for improvement on Talk page New Sections. Please Guide: Respected Regards Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because no one is inclined to puff up the article any more. As I advised you on the talk page, stop talking up your own achievements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're forum shopping [15]. Wonderful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ben Bernanke at Bilderberg Group

File:BernankeLeavingBilderberg2008.jpg

This picture (used in the article Bilderberg Group) is said to be of "Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke leaving the 2008 Bilderberg Conference." How in the heck do we know that? BayShrimp (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it sure does look like it's Bernanke, but of course there's no telling where he was going at that moment. Why is it important? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To most of us it isn't. But to conspiracy fans it shows that the Federal Reserve and the Bilderberg Group are, well, conspiring. And that Bernanke is part of the conspiracy, so it could be potentally negative and poorly cited material on a living person. BayShrimp (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture off the article. Oddly enough it is also being used on quite a few European WP's, especially considering it is just a picture of a guy falling asleep in the back seat of a limo. :-) -BayShrimp (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, he isn't falling asleep. This image taken at the same time shows him looking down using a cell phone or similar: http://cryptome.org/info/bilderberg08/pict7.jpg --Canoe1967 (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess I feel better about the state of the economy. :-) BayShrimp (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering what message the picture was sending: "Bernanke, exausted from conspiring world domination, falls asleep as he leaves Bilderberg conference." Or: "Bernanke finds conference so boring he falls asleep." :-) BayShrimp (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP argument here doesn't hold water. He's a high-ranking public official and it doesn't serve WP's purpose to protect the public from knowing about his engagements just because it might get commented on by someone on the David Icke forum. Formerip (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that (there is no BLP issue) but I also agree to the removal of the photo from that article because we cannot possibly verify the context. We don't know if the photograph truly depicts what the uploader says it depicts, and its inclusion (in that context) might be controversial or inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can verify the context if we have Google. It comes from a series of photos which is here. I think there may be reason to wonder about the licencing, since the photo comes from a defunct flickr account, but I don't think there can be any reasonable doubt as to the context. Formerip (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Deen and Category:Hate speech

An IP editor has proposed adding Paula Deen to Category:Hate speech. That didn't seem to smart to me. I took a look at the category, and notice that there are only three people listed, all BLPs. Though I find all three somewhat unsavory characters personally, are these really the three worst examples of people's hate speech in history? I don't think so. I have my doubt that any living person belongs in this category. Articles about hate speech laws and cases are fine for this category. Are we going to add Paula Deen to this category but leave out Julius Streicher? Fortunately, he's dead, so I can use him as a negative example here without fear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say take it off. There is no proof that she hated anyone, although she might have. Besides that I don't think anyone would say she is important in the history of hate speech. BayShrimp (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Category:Hate speech should be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Besides being a magnet for BLP violations, it simply isn't all that useful as a category. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one BLP in the category currently -which seems germane to me, but feel free to remove the cat from it or to question the BLP existence- so it is hardly a "magnet for BLP violations", and I see lots of entries which make perfect sense like "Hate speech in Country X" articles, or notable court cases. It seems useful to me, and with little BLP issues. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how many were added then removed because they were BLP violations. Does anyone know how to get a list of pages removed from a cat? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they have been removed, then everything is working correctly and there is nothing to report. --c y c l o p i a ^talk 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they were placed inappropriately, then WP:BLP policy may well have been violated, and we can't just pretend everything is well. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But such violations have been since fixed. This means that everything works. The thing goes like this: There is a sensible category, which is for listing articles related to the topic of hate speech. Sometimes, someone makes a nasty mistake and puts a BLP in the category. This happens, just like BLPs get vandalized and whatnot. That is bad. But as violations can be put in, so we can remove them. If they're removed quickly and unequivocally, that's exactly what should happen. We can't make BLP violations magically stop, unless we remove all BLPs from WP (I know there is people sympathetic to this solution). And we cannot 100% prevent category misuse in BLPs unless we remove all possibly negative categories. So what we do? We keep eyes open and fix problems as they come up. That's what's happening now, apparently, and while not ideal, it is the best we can do without tearing the 'pedia to pieces. --c y c l o p i a ^talk 17:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A clear misuse of categorization if ever there were one. Collect (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lapo Elkann

For quite some time, IPs have been adding increasingly sensationalist claims (as evidenced by the "appetite" subject heading I've removed several times, that's unfortunately preserved in at least one edit summary) about the subject's private life, unrelated to whatever notability the subject has. The IPs, likely all for a single user, have lately posted an odd message on the article talk page about "true facts" and keeping the subject "responsible for acts and behavior". Somebody's got an agenda here, and not a very healthy one. Request at RFPP hasn't been acted on. I suspect some RevDel is called for, as well as eyes on the article -- this has been going on at least since April. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the context: As an Italian, I think I can explain some of this.

Yes, the way the IP edited is quite BLP-uncompliant, in wording and sources. But the issue is a bit beyond usual tabloid garbage. The overdose, that put him in life danger, has been covered by all major Italian media (cfr. [16], [17], [18]) as the subsequent circumstances (cfr. [19], [20]). Maybe outside can look like standard gossip, but it has been huge, in Italy. While it shouldn't be given undue weight, it is bizarre for every Italian reader that the bio doesn't cover the episode. I understand thus the IP frustration. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Monsour Scurfield

Most of this article was written by Professor Scurfield. In a few instances the article comes across as promotional, e.g., including information about his private practice.

At the same time, Professor Scurfield is one of the pioneers in the psychological trauma field, both in terms of understanding the long-term psychosocial impact of trauma, particularly with combat veterans, and in developing treatment interventions to help such individuals suffering from what we now know as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, not only is Professor Scurfield a Vietnam veteran himself, he was one of the driving forces behind the development of Vet Centers^[1] within the Department of Veterans Affairs. As a psychologist working for the VA, I can attest to the tremendous value of Vet Centers, based largely on scores veterans who have told me how much a Vet Center helped them and their families.

I wanted to offer Professor Scurfield some friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article so that it adopts an undisputed neutral point of view and, relatedly, so that it does not come across as promotional. However, I am still a relatively new editor, which brings me here to ask if you might offer Professor Scurfield suggestions.

Thank you very much - Mark / Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

friendly suggestions regarding how he can edit the article he shouldn't edit his own bio, that never ends well. He should use the article talk page for suggestions on how to "improve" the article. --Malerooster (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer him to read WP:COI. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Malerooster. I posted some suggestions for the professor, including reference to WP:COI, on the article talk page. Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini family

Anons are used (now several times daily) since 24 Januiary 2013 to restore an unsourced and at least partially inaccurate claim that an alleged illegitimate son, "Dr. Emmanuel Bertounesque", is the rightful heir to the Orsini family's hereditary titles, in the article on the historical noble Italian Orsini family, several members of which are living. The allegations directly refer to and concern living persons mentioned by name in the offending edits. The inaccuracies have been pointed out and explained on the talk page. Diffs are here, here, here, here and here. It is obvious that the editor understands the nature of the BLP objection because the last-mentioned dif ends with a cite to an Italian Yahoo groups article about a lawsuit for public recognition by an alleged illegitimate daughter of soon-to-abdicate Albert II of Belgium: That cite, however, does not mention the Orsini family or its members in any way. Since most of the inserted violations and reverts of corrections are done by new anons, protecting this article from this 7 month pattern of BLP violations necessitates that the page be semi-protected. FactStraight (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Viking

Techno Viking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) In the article and on its talk page, there are various (poorly or not sourced) speculations about name and identity posted about a person, who has never agreed to be published but explicitly expressed dissent and per court decisions is granted his name and images are not published anymore by a fine of €250,000 [21]. Several edits on the article and talk page should be hidden, for ex. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]!!, [28], [29], [30], ... and the whole article between [31] and [32]. --Trofobi (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoneThe picture is down, pending a decision from a copyright editor. In the meantime, please remember that legal threats are never the way to go. Redacting article histories is pretty extreme, let's first see if the picture is fair use. Thanks. EBY (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal threat"? Ouch, sorry if my words should sound like this, that has never been my intention. I'm not a native english-speaker and have only tried to translate the most important parts from the court paper for helping the experts here who perhaps are not native german-speakers. And if anything here should sounds like I could be the "unknown man" this story is about, sorry to disappoint you, I'm not (wouldn't object to have a body like his! ;) --Trofobi (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Breslin

I am making a complaint on behalf of Darren Breslin. The information on his Wikipedia page is inaccurate, upsetting and has caused considerable distress to Darren. He did not go to Lourdes to 'try and get cured of cancer' as the article suggests. Considering it is an orphan article and does not have any reliable resources regarding Darren's personal life I am requesting that this information is removed immediately. Hopefully this can be done as quickly as possible and I will not have to undertake further action. Regards, C. Lagan

I've removed it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objection petition for the proposed deletion of the Page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH

..............................................................................................

{{Objection to Proposed deletion of FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH Page, dated}}

Greetings to you!

I saw a page of deletion request concerning FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH This Person is a Public Figure and we noticed his profile is proposed for deletion. I personally work with the African Union, department of Science and technology and the Executive director of regional outreach programs. Can you help improving or giving an objection to the deletion of this page on our behalf, since we are absolutely novice and new to Wikipedia?. or is there any way you can teach us on how to give an official objection? or for someone to help us buil the page FAUSTER ATTA MENSAH?

Fauster (25 Dec, 1986)was born in Cape Coast in the central region of Ghana, he attended the ADISADEL COLLEGE which was a High School in the year 1999 and later graduated from the UCC with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics 3005 and a Master of Science degree in Computer science from the CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY2011. You may equally request his academic referees telephone contacts, Lest you prefer them instead. Thanks.

With Kind regards!

Cindy Lawson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cindy Lawson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This biography of a living person is unreferenced. The topic of a Wikipedia article must have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that show notability. Please read the general notability guideline for more information. Unless you can show this type of coverage, the article will be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also some of the text does not match with sources. I've removed it.--Auric talk 22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...................................................................................................

Tami Erin

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

Reported via OTRS regarding the addition of a minor arrest that I removed as being undue and irrelevant at best. I also culled all the unsourced information from the bio, but now an IP (possibly the subject or someone associated with them) has decided that while sourced negative information is intolerable, it's perfectly OK for positive information to be unsourced and have restored it a few times. I'm going offline for the rest of the day, so a few eyes would be appreciated. Maybe protection if they keep it up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That IP has already been blocked this week for those kinds of edits to that article. I stuck a warning on the talk page. EBY (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have two editors repeatedly adding information about a trivial citizens arrest for a fight about pizza, or hidden video taping, or something. This got a couple of day's gossipy attention by tabloid style media outlets and was then forgotten. The two editors in question think removal of the content by an IP is "vandalism". How's that for a new definition of vandalism? One complains that the IP didn't discuss the matter. But neither of these editors said a word on the article's talk page, despite a spate of reversions.

Yes, the newbie IP shouldn't edit war to keep in puffery. But experienced editors also shouldn't edit war without discussion to add trivial crap about a pizza fight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It was a citizen's arrest no less, and it's unclear whether or not Erin was even charged. Whoever is adding this in should be forced to copy out WP:BLP in longhand a hundred times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher/Inflammatory Sentence Added

The LAST SENTENCE in the first paragraph of the Personal Life (or Bio) section of the page for Bill Maher appears to be recently added without a reference. More importantly, the sentence seems overtly inflammatory. I would 'edit' it out personally on the 'no reference' basis alone, but I do not want whomever inserted that sentence to turn his or her hatred toward me. I'm requesting that a moderator please review that section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.18.161 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Reverted by bot within a minute of being made, over 9 hours before you posted here. If you saw this anywhere, it must have been cached by an outside server, over which we have no control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Scott

The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this page is intended for issues which require immediate attention - unsourced negative and defamatory material etc. General comments regarding the merits of articles are best left to the article talk page - or if you wish, you may propose articles for deletion yourself: see Wikipedia:Deletion policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawren Pope

The page seems dubious at best. Most of the links are from old open post sites. Very little relevancy to the world of fashion. Does not seem to warrant a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.103.164 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments in the section above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)‎[reply]

in records section USopen final 2012 and Australian open final 2012 are both written as of longest duration which is not possible so should be ammended

^ "Vet Center Home". U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved 6 July 2013.

[1] "Vet Center Home". U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Retrieved 6 July 2013.

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards