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.

Premakeerthi de Alwis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premakeerthi_de_Alwis Assassination section

Please note that there has been a dispute going on about the assassination of the person mentioned in the article, Premakeerthi de Alwis. De Alwis's murder has been officially investigated and murderer has been sentenced in the High Court of Colombo, Sri Lanka and the verdict has also been upheld by the Appeals Court of Sri Lanka.

However, nearly a quarter century later, his wife, Nirmal de Alwis has written a book accusing Hudson Samarasinghe, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and self published it. Recently at the 25th death anniversary of the deceased, Nirmala has shouted out at the president of Sri Lanka "why he was protecting, her husband's killer, Samarasinghe". This shouting at the president received a huge amount of publicity from mainstream media. However, those media reports are merely quoting what Nirmala de Alwis was saying. Not a single person in the world has made this accusation except for Nirmala de Alwis. Her claims are knowingly false and unsubstantiated. Mr. Samarasinghe has never been questioned or investigated for the murder of de Alwis.

A user named Wipeouting(other names -Academiava, Academiava2, Academiava3) has been trying to get this information included in the article. This information has been repeatedly refused by Wikipedia administrators as it violates the biographies of the living persons. However, wipeoutings plea was heard by an administrator (Bill w) and has been requested another administrator Obi2canibe to rewrite the article to include this unsubstantiated claim by his wife. Although Samarasinghe's name was not mentioned, all the references are indirectly pointing to Hudson Samarasinghe which ultimately injures Samarasinghe. You can find an analysis of her false accusation at http://ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi-de-alwis-official-court-ruling/

I am kindly requesting that unsubstantiated accusations starting with the line "In 2009 de Alwis' widow Nirmala" be removed from this article. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ramya20: Two RS document that she made the claim you mention above. And the way the information is written it clearly states that this is nothing more and nothing less than a claim she made in a book she wrote. On first look, to me, it seems both notable and unbiased, since it's stated as her opinion and not as fact. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a properly sourced and relevant counter claim made in response to her allegations you may want to add it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section clearly violates the WP:BLPCRIME which is a part of the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. It states that cases like these accusations of criminal activity should not be added unless a conviction has been secured --Ramya20 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: It is disappointing you have unilaterally removed the content based on the canvassing of User:Ramya20. WP:BLPCRIME states [in full] "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I have highlighted the first part because User:Ramya20 has deliberately left this out in his canvassing.

If the accused is well known, we can include the accusations if they are reported in reliable sources, even if the accusations haven't resulted in a criminal charge (e.g. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck) or even if the accused has been acquitted (e.g. Nigel Evans, William Roche). The individual accused by Nirmala de Alwis is well known in Sri Lanka, he is the chairman of a national broadcaster, politician, former MP and a twice presidential candidate. Even if the accused was "relatively unknown" we only have to have serious consideration on the merits of including the accusation, there is no automatic presumption that the accusation must be excluded.

Needless to say that the accusation must be written in a neutral manner and must attribute the source of the accusation, not make the accusation in Wikipedia's voice. This was what the content you removed did.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no more acting unilaterally than any other editor would do; it's not an administrative action. I don't believe including the material is the right thing to do, as including these unproven accusations could do real-world harm to the person. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obi2canibe has definitely improved the article and I thank him for that. However, unlike the sample biographies he has provided above, Hudson Samarasinghe has never been questioned or criminally investigated in this case. He has never been associated with this murder in any way for last 25 years. If Nirmala de Alwis has filed a lawsuit or if she has filed a police complaint on her own accord, it is fair to include that information. However, a for-profit book written nearly 25 years post his death is a questionable motive. Further, it is unfair to include accusations when this murder has been officially investigated and closed. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa:These accusations have been widely reported in Sri Lankan media and I don't believe mentioning it on Wikipedia will do the accused any appreciable harm, particularly as it didn't mention the accused. The accused has given interviews to the media about the accusations - he is not trying to suppress the accusations. @Ramya20: I have to correct you again, a complaint has been made - the police have taken a statement from Nirmala de Alwis - this was mentioned in the removed content. As for your last point, WP:NPOV requires articles to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. By suppressing the views of the victim's widow we are not fairly representing all significant views. As it stands the article only represents one view - that of the highly politicised, corrupt justice system of Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint has NOT been made by his wife. The police summoned her to get a statement. She appeared with her lawyer. If it does not violate the Wikipedia policy, I am okay with a neutral controversy section included but this cannot be a part of the assassination section. If this accusation is included in the controversy section, her newest accusation of TV Company Owner should also be included as that was also in one of the references.^[1]

Obi2canibe, please note that Sri Lankan news media is not impartial either. As you may already know that most of the media that carried out her interviews (mirror, Times) are associated with relatives of UNP leader whom Samarasinghe criticizes regularly on his daily program. Samarasinghe has also sued Sunday Leader several years ago for defamation. While papers like Daily News and Sunday Observer are associated with the Government and carries government propaganda, private media is also owned and run by people who have special party potical interests. I do not seek in any way to suppress viable content. However, hypothetically if someone else self publishes a book saying that Santa Clause killed Premakeerthi and gets media coverage, should that be included as well.

--Ramya20 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/172-opinion/51200-premakeerthis-killers-still-alive-.html

this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner.[[1]] user Ramya20 trying avoid the truth of this assassination . please change this article to reasonable vision and protect this article (Academiava3 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

It is surprising that users like Academiava3 (a sock puppet of blocked user wipeouting, Academiava, Academiava2) are able to delete their page history and harass other users on their talk pages^[1]. A controversy section can be included to cover the recent events without violating the Wikipedia policy.--Ramya20 (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking why This lady Ramya20 is trying to Avoid this multiple issues of this assignation. please stop factual vandalism. this page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner by User:Xymmax and Wtwilson3. please protect this Article from Violate editors . The User-Ramya20 is doing edit to Wikipedia since four year just only for this article. anyone can see her work history. (Academiava3 (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramya20

Academiava3, surprised that you refereed to me as a "lady" although you referred to me on my talk page a derogatory term "ho" and then cleaned up the history to cover the tracks.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

page has been re-written in a pretty balanced and factual manner on 19:42, 21 August 2014‎ by user:Xymmax and contribution of user:Wtwilson3. but user:ramya20 made a huge propaganda avoid this version with multiple issues . we really appreciate if somebody can involve fix this mater and revert to previous version. and please banned user:ramya20 and against to factual vandalism and high protect this article. please do real justification to assassinated we known journalist in sri lanka. (Academiava4 (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

Nirmala’s argument is not a fiction or hypothesis like Santa Clause. She came with facts. Hudson s is the number one corrupted media person in sri lanka. Please search on internet his whereabouts. I am putting some suitable links. in situation of highly politicized , ceylonreport.com/premakeerthi- article by user Ramya20 crated avoiding the truth recently. Please do real justification for this assassination. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

Academi100 (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard is about discussing a previous inclusion of an accusations of a crime, and the above comment by Academi100 alias wipeouting further proves his resort to injure Samarasinghe using Wikipedia with further personal attacks. As I indicated before, the removed content violates that policy. --Ramya20 (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya is making a operation protecting her relative. we don't need to injure Hudson personally. he has explore his corrupted behaviors well. please keep up this article in a pretty balanced and factual manner in highly politicized context in sri lanka. And please do real justification to this assassinated journalist.--Academi100 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call me a relative of Samarasinghe. Do not try to make assumptions about my identity. All you have tried to do for last 4 years was to injure Samarasinghe with accusations, starting with blog posts and facebook inclusions in Wikipedia until I requested Wikipedia to remove those to meet the policies and standards. Now you are bringing back the same accusations with media coverage. I have no doubt that your intention is malicious and violates WP:BLPCRIME policy. Nothing has changed except for recent media coverage.--Ramya20 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Caesar

Hey! I did edits. Remove the notice, please (sophiedookh) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a Russian "conceptual artist" is seeing some energetic back-and-forth editing, and, I think, would benefit from some scrutiny by BLP-experienced editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have restored the foregoing notice which was improperly removed [9] by one of the editors making changes on the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JTG

Thisnothing123, who already has a history of issues in this and other articles, has been engaging in disruptive editing on JTG, a pro wrestler. Issues:

The user is insisting on a height of 5'9" that is unreferenced vs. a height of 6'2" that is referenced (references seem to say either 6'1" or 6'2"). It has been explained by me to this user that the height concerned is billed height rather than actual height to no avail. This user has also substantially increased the wrestler's weight and didn't supply a reference. In both cases, the user is insisting on using data from their own personal experience. At first, this user seemed to accept that a citation was needed for his changes, then just a while ago, the user removed the {{citation needed}} template along with other removals.
The user has removed JTG's image several times, with explanations of replacing the image, but the user only deletes it.
The user has been removing article content without any explanation.

This is difficult to narrow to specific diffs, but this user has been seeming to be going back and forth with these edits since early July. The user doesn't seem to care that his stats have no backup and doesn't seem to want to understand any other wiki protocols. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the time-being, this is resolved. Thisnothing123 restored the referenced height and weight. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice on Giuseppe Macario

This article about an Italian entrepreneur seems to be vandalized by a person that claims it to be self-published and doesn't like the sources (maybe because of some sort of veiled personal vendetta?) such as the ACM ICPC official website and a well-known Italian newspaper. Is there a way to avoid the sources being removed? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.149.178 (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and could not find any issues with these sources. Self published sources are OK within some limits as per WP:SELFPUB. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clarification! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.124.149.178 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that outside the self published sources, there is very little. Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and claim notability. For that reason, self-published media, such as personal websites or advertising sites are largely not acceptable as sources. For example: [10] reads: Registra la tua azienda su ReteImprese gratis (translation: Register your company on ReteImprese free) where you fill in the details. The heading "Rome Chamber of Commerce" is a write by the registrant, not ReteImprese. My attention on Mr.Macario article was a causal connection on it.wikipedia, and now a don't remember anymore why. Anyway I simply edited a notability tag ad opened a discussion on the talk page about it: [11]. The reaction was heavy, as you see; and with my surprise after a couple of days the page was deleted. But it was interesting what I found when I accidentally clicked on the creation of the page:

Accertati che sia davvero opportuno ricreare questa pagina; potrebbe essere cancellata di nuovo senza preavviso. Puoi chiedere consiglio allo sportello informazioni. Elenco delle precedenti cancellazioni e spostamenti:

   * 20:25, 12 set 2014 User:Vituzzu (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario (cfr. WP:E)
   * 19:58, 15 mar 2014 User:LukeWiller (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C4) Contenuto palesemente non enciclopedico o promozionale, CV:)
   * 10:09, 7 ott 2013 User:Aplasia (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C9) Redirect non funzionante, con titolo errato o non conforme e reso orfano:)
   * 16:41, 24 apr 2012 User:Triquetra (Discussione | contributi) ha cancellato la pagina Giuseppe Macario ((C4) Contenuto palesemente non enciclopedico o promozionale, CV)

The page has been deleted four times. I understand that what is not notable in one wiki, may be notable in other wikis, so I did not automatically ask the deletion, but following WP:SPIP I asked the most contributing editor to add third party sources [12]. Waiting I wanted to prune out the "weak" sources, to make evident the lack of good sources, but I have only angered some IP editor's without they trying to talk with me. And I suspect one IP editor of putting yesterday an obscene writing in my italian talk page, but may be it is only a timing coincidence. --Robertiki (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a simple litmus test to see if a person is notable <if the person does not want his bio page, may it object (legaly or not)?>. If he is not allowed to refuse a bio page, the person is notable. --Robertiki (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help at Danièle Watts requested

The article Danièle Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was just created after an unpleasant incident she had with the LAPD which has attracted a lot of attention online (her account naturally differs from that of the police), and users have been adding potentially defamatory information about it, in particular giving 'eyewitness' accounts as fact. Last I checked, the information wasn't extremely biased, but I think the amount of information for this single incident is undue for a biography. Some more editors' help is needed. I am also concerned about the subject's notability, so I have brought the article to AfD, and it'd great if people could help establish whether or not she is notable. —innotata 06:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you say her account should "naturally" differ from others. We don't know, actually, as the tape that was allegedly released has not been identified as such by LAPD. An unidentified IP address has tried to say she was a liar, by misunderstanding an article from Buzzfeed they used as a reference. I am concerned that this stub may get deleted when it should really be expanded. I created it because she has appeared in several films, including an international success, and she is currently a main cast member of a major TV series alongside Kelsey Grammer. Please see the discussion here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, please. I'm saying her account differs from the police because police are inclined to dispute allegations like hers, rightly or not… While anons and other editors have been adding possible violations, and these need to be removed, don't jump straight to questioning their motivations, especially if they're at least sometimes acting with good intentions. Misunderstanding ≠ malice. —innotata 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This involves no charges, the BLP-offending stuff must be taken out while it's discussed, not after.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Can anybody provide any guidance on what the article should eventually include as far as the LAPD incident, though? —innotata 00:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed all inlined sources from the article twice. I have reverted it. I won't do it a third time because I don't have all day and I don't want to "edit-war," but this is clearly an attempt to make the article look weaker and try to get it deleted. I would add that more sources probably exist in magazines, newspapers, etc., but that this is a stub and it could get expanded later. There are no lies on this page and all can be double-checked. Now, if we only allowed actors who have won Academy Awards, I would understand...but we don't.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unlockingthetruth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlocking_the_Truth i have no idea what i'm doing, except being bold. link to fb is incorrect: needs reference to: band. in addition, i'm too bold to have a signature, but not malacious & pretty sincere. refer to me as mausbug (if possible) if you can sign me in. (edited after intro from fellow wiki'er & creating an account)Mausbug (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guurl and WP:BLPs

After reverting Guurl (talk · contribs) for a second time at the Scarlett Johansson article (first time here, with a followup-fix edit here), I saw (by looking at his contributions) that he has been adding WP:Unreliable sources to WP:BLPs regarding ethnicity; this needs to be remedied. Instead of simply reverting him on all of that, and likely getting reverted by him in turn, I have brought this matter here first. Flyer22 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he has reverted me here at the Scarlett Johansson article; I reverted him in turn, as that link shows. Flyer22 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett's Swedish ancestry is correct. Flyer22 (talk · contribs) keeps removing it plus reported me for re-posting it. Ejner Bainkamp Johansson is the son of Axel Robert Johansson and Margrethe Hansine Hansen. Axel Robert Johansson was Swedish and born in Sweden. The Johansson family tree: http://family.nose.dk/getperson.php?personID=I10&tree=Johansson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guurl (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Name ONE edit i did which is unreliable. As far as my edit's go i'm positive it's all accurate. I want to report Flyer22 for removing my edit on Scarlett Johannson.[reply]

Change my heading again, as you did here, and I will likely report you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). As the above heading implies, I created this section to primarily focus on your edits to WP:BLPs, not only the Scarlett Johansson article. I'm already thinking of reporting you at WP:ANI, for a quicker and wider response to your inappropriate editing of WP:BLPs. Clearly, you have yet to read and comprehend the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:BLP policy. Flyer22 (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2over0, I'm not sure that blocking him for his three edits to the Scarlett Johannson was needed, but something was indeed needed to stop him from adding poorly sourced material to other WP:BLPs; so the block helps in that regard. Look at the other WP:BLPs he has edited. He needs the importance of the WP:Reliable sources guideline and the WP:BLP policy explained well to him. And then if he still fails to follow those rules, blocking him indefinitely might be in order. Flyer22 (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking through the contribution history before blocking for edit warring and BLP violations - it is full of links to non BLP-compliant sources. I am trying to sort through it now. I would of course not object if someone wants to unblock purely for discussion here or if Guurl agrees to abide by the relevant policies. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 2over0. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indictment of Rick Perry

There may be a potential BLP violation in regards to Rick Perry and his booking at the Travis County jail. Rick Perry was not arrested for his indictment; he was summonsed. This is sourced and in the article and not disputed. The potential BLP violation occurs in regards to the write up on Perry's booking.

Even if a defendant is summonsed in Texas, for any crime that is punishable by jail time, a defendant must still get fingerprinted and take a picture or mugshot for TCIC, which is Texas's criminal history database. This is also the only way the FBI will know there is a charge. That being said, this was a custodial arrest. If I got a marijuana ticket in Texas, I would also still have to appear to the county jail to get booked.

So there is a BLP issue that has occurred now in how you refer Rick Perry coming to the Travis County Jail. Perry just had to get booked and did not have to pay any bond. If he did not appear at a certain hour, no police officer could arrest him legally without a warrant that was never issued.

Thus, there is a major BLP issue with the verbiage of how you refer to Perry's booking. A couple of editors, in violation of WP:BLP, are clinging to one article that uses the words "Perry surrendered", even though other sourced articles say "Perry arrived" (to the Travis County Jail for booking). One editor, perhaps out of a unfamiliarity of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, wondered how a defendant could just arrive for a booking. Just to put some context on this, one article speculated that Perry's CHL was revoked, when a Texas indictment would only lead to suspension, Commenters on that article tore the author apart for his mistake of Texas law. Point is, just because a journalist makes a factual error, that does not give editors cover to violate BLP, especially if other sources get the facts correct. In this case, to surrender implies that a warrant was out for Perry's arrest, a warrant that never existed. According to the fifth amendment, warrants can only be issued on a finding of probable cause by the judge. Afronig (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the Fourth amendment, not the Fifth. (Oops). :P MastCell ^Talk 15:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Afronig: I couldn't find the specific section or the edit history of the BLP violation, could you link directly and provide diffs of the relevant edits? SPACKlick (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this has been brought up now. The current wording is "On August 19, 2014, Perry arrived at the Travis County jail where he was processed", an edit that has been unchallenged for quite a while. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since September 8 to be exact [13] - Cwobeel (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pedram Khosronejad

I nominated this page for deletion using Twinkle but took a while to do so because I was at the same time rereading the relevant policy pages to make sure I understood them. In the time between my opening the page and creating the AfD entry, someone else put the page up for speedy deletion, with the result that there is now a redundant page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedram Khosronejad and a redundant notice on the author's talk page. Is this an issue that must be resolved? --Richard Yin (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved the speedy was declined. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Ham

Good evening Since a while I saw articles about a man called Ken Ham (in fact Alfred Kenneth) The references seen on web are always pointing the one of Wikipedia and repeat that this guy has a scientific diploma from a Australian university (see talk behind article). I've asked to this school what was the status of this so called Ken Ham and discovered that he was not listed in the databank of the school. everybody has the right to have his proper view on life, biology and universe but I think a encyclopedia may not repeat evident lies. I would assume that this article should be corrected accordingly by deleting the § about career of the pretended scientist (or bachelor in applied science) and the reference n°7 which is obviously coming from a non independent book writer.

have a nice night Laurent Quadflieg (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:684:F66:CD99:B7A5:DF8E:201A (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia summarizes what a reliable, published source reports about Ken Ham. Do you know of a reliable, published source that disputes the claims about his education? Huon (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Langone

I strongly suspect either COI editing or a complete ignorance of our BLP policies in this article. I had cleaned it up some, and along comes editor Zambelo who re-instates, in this edit, 5k worth of external links (including a section called "Media/press mentions"), and a bunch of links basically containing the subject's resume, with journal articles and presentations. We don't list journal articles (unless they are proven to have been important) and we certainly don't list conference presentations. And on top of that they removed the "like resume" tag, even while reverting the article to a previous state--of a complete resume. Their edit summary: "Please don't delete content before issues can be addressed", showing a pretty blatant disregard for NPOV and BLP. Your help is appreciated; perhaps one of you can help turn this article into something acceptable. (Note: basically, the article lacks secondary sourcing completely.) Drmies (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added to watchlist. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced to organizations close to this person, and there are no secondary sources that I could find that speak to his notability. I'd think that stubifying may be the way to go. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, Cwobeel--I couldn't find anything either, but I'll go through that enormous amount of linkspam and see if there's wheat among that chaff. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thorough cleanup, but notability may still be a concern. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sources: one sort of confirms his winning the Leo J. Ryan Award, in a bio blurb above an interview he did; the other, while self-published, definitely confirms one of his views that needed citation. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is remove most of the article, without prior discussion, justifying this by placing a template on the page. You had been doing this to other articles before you got to this one, which is why I reverted. Sources close to the person are valid in this context - they are his peers, after all in the circle of sociology/psychology and psychiatry. Removing content without discussion isn't productive, and makes any eventual re-additions difficult. I'm not saying the article doesn't have issues, but gutting it isn't the way to go. ˜˜˜˜

Akin Ambode

Can somebody please take a look at the Akin Ambode article which is a replication of a previously deleted article at Akinwunmi Ambode Afd.

Subject appears to have repeatedly put up Wikipedia edits despite several warning and sock puppet deletions.
Subject appears to have vandalised a previously existing wikipedia article Ambode (vandalism edit can be found here) to subvert article deletion process
The page (as previous edits) seems to be used as an advertorial tool as seen on subject's campaign website at every stage of edits; indicating article is being supervised by and used as an advertising tool the politician himself
Reports indicate tv ad spots in Lagos carry the Wikipedia page link

Oyekunlesumbo (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been speedily deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtam4 (mafia boss)

Should not be deleted and article doesn't fit to be in deletion policy it should be there without any red notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.197.36 (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The place for discussing whether this article should be deleted is at the articles for deletion discussion currently going on for this particular page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven G. Kaplan

Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prior problems from Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = cropping up again from socks

Please help keep an eye on Steven G. Kaplan.

We're getting fragrant BLP violations from sockpuppets of same sockmaster that was previously Confirmed and blocked in the recent past, I've reported them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babybirdhouse.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the sweet smell of BLP violations!--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? I dind't see any major issues. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPs keep adding an unsourced allegation that the article subject is a lawyer and the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Since the bad edits are coming only from IPs, and there are no good IP edits, I've semi'd for 6 months. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marilou McPhedran

Could experienced contributors take a look at this article - much of it seems to have been written with a clear intent to disparage the subject. A person claiming to be McPhedran has posted at the Help desk [14] and the article clearly needs substantial work to ensure NPOV and accurate representation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most problematic material has been removed. Could someone please check out the copying issue (per the tag on the page)? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Carl Hewitt insinuated to be "Bozo the Clown"

On his talk page, Professor Carl Hewitt is compared to "Bozo the Clown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.224.152 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing that, or as vandalism in recent history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look again. There is clearly some background to this, so I'll avoid commenting further at this point, beyond suggesting that more eyes on the talk page might be helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I managed to completely miss the fact that the IP was referring to the talk page... §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: [15]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is mistaken—there is no problem at the article talk apart from the fact that IPs are arguing about irrelevancies. It is much better to put energy into discussing text in the article—is any text ini the article wrong or inappropriate? Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fine Young Capitalists

The Fine Young Capitalists (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I just semi-protected The Fine Young Capitalists because of ongoing BLP problems. However, it appears to me that it might still contain some BLP violating material. Of course I could well be 100% wrong so if somebody could take a look and remove anything they see. I don't really want to state what I think the problem is in case it is just my imagination. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article exist in the first place? It does next to nothing to demonstrate the notability of the group, and seems almost entirely concerned with the ongoing GamerGate controversy. In short, the article is a coatrack, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the whole thing so I have no opinion on the suitability of the article. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing dispute about the inclusion of material regarding a quote alleged to be by George Bush that Tyson has referred to in speeches. Issues of RS and UNDUE apply, and the dispute has spilled offsite with a partisan website attacking individual editors. Neutral editors should have a look. Gamaliel (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that patheos.com is a reliable source. It looks like a blog to me. Aside from that, I don't think that it's necessary to include both of these sentences:

Hemant Mehta called the incident "the most serious example of Tyson’s alleged quotation negligence."

Tom Jackson of the Tampa Tribune called it "... a vicious, gratuitous slander."

Both quotes are essentially saying the same thing (more or less). I would recommend removing one. BTW, this content is in the section on Politics, which seems wrong. IIRC, Tyson's point was about scientific literacy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty much indisputable it happened, there is multiple videos of it. While the larger point is about science literacy, he chose to make it political, by making up a quote and attributing it to a political person. However, I do agree on the WP:UNDUE part, until/unless this starts getting picked up by more mainstream sources, its just some non-notable opinions talking about it. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are any admins reading this? They've been edit-warring over this for the past three days. We made need to lock it down. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The slander is not that of Tyson but by Tyson (of Bush). It does not diminish Tyson who as a scientist can make mistakes. Many do. I don't see the huge deal in this. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After spending more time thinking about this, I think I've changed my mind and now believe that it's undue weight to have this in the article. There are literally thousands of articles written on this topic, we can't put every little detail in an article. If this was truly important, more sources would have picked up on this. They haven't. If that happens, we can always reevaluate. I'm also a bit concerned that even the couple sources that do cover this don't appear to be straight news stories but are basically opinion columns. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: (or any other admin reading this) Given that this content is potentially disparaging to both George W Bush and Neil deGrasse Tyson (depending on how you want to look at it), I think that the safest thing to do is to have the disputed content temporarily removed until consensus can be achieved. The article is locked, so I cannot do this myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC ongoing at the article's talk page on this issue. It seems civil. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge:, do you mean these two paragraphs that were re-added by User:Sphilbrick, themselves an admin? CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamaliel, A Quest For Knowledge, Gaijin42, Limit-theorem, and Capitalismojo: I see that this thread was started on the 19th. I just became aware of it because someone pinged me. The instructions say that {{BLP noticeboard}} should be placed on the artilce talk page, so that editors will know about this discussion. Why was that not done in this case? I am not a regular here, so perhaps I am misunderstanding the directions?--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Baldwin

Not really sure where to post this, but here goes - I want to create an article on Neil Baldwin, who has a variety of 'claims to fame' - see here and here. I cannot think of a suitable disambiguator - any ideas? Giant Snowman 17:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting subject. Perhaps "British personality"? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's he famous for? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an eccentric personality, but not famous for any one particular thing, as I said. There's a film about his life about to be released called Marvellous. Giant Snowman 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest "British personality" or "British celebrity" or just plain "personality" or "celebrity". I wouldn't let this hold you up creating the article. If someone thinks of a better disambiguator, you can always change the article later. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use 'eccentric' Stuartyeates (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

João Magueijo

The noted theoretical physicist João Magueijo has recently published an imprudent (Portuguese-language) book complaining about or despairing of the British. (Note that he considers himself partly British, and at at least one point in the book provides a sample of his own behavior as an example of British disgustingness.) Below a rather clickbaity headline, an article about this in The Guardian (which is where I first heard of the book) fails to get very upset about it. Ditto for an article in The Daily Telegraph, which if anything fails more completely to get worked up about the (non) matter. But of course some people are most upset, and some of these are keen to edit the article here on Magueijo. Most seem to mean well, but there's a fair amount of original synthesis and of attachment of such syntheses, etc, to existing references. The article doesn't (yet) need s-protection, but it soon might; in the meantime (while I sleep) I think one or two experienced and unflappable editors should keep an eye on it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Paquette

Renee Paquette (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

We keep having an issue in the personal life section of Renee Paquette with unsubstantiated gossip. People keep reversing it but it's changed back almost immediately. Also, her birthdate is verified through IMDB, regardless of what is said on Twitter. Can we please get a protection template to put a stop to this? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactChecker2172013 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not sufficiently reliable to verify dates of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion at Talk:Renee Paquette#Date of birth to get more input from editors of the article about what DOB, if any, should be listed in the article. Right now it doesn't look like there's any reliable source cited. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gene Arno

Richard Gene Arno (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Article does not have NPOV. Sources cited are from Arno's own organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tres1162 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change Venu Ravichandran to V. Ravichandran

The name of the producer Oscar Ravichandran is redirected to a page which is named "Venu Ravichandran" which is a wrong name, his name is just V. Ravichandran. Please make the change as soon as possible. Our producer is mistaken for another associate producer "Venu Ravichandran" of Tamil Movie "Majaa". Naveenvaradarajan (talk) 06:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The problem is that the other person is actually known as "Oscar" or "Aascar" and runs a company called "Aascar Films" (previously "Oscar Films"). They are both producers. You need to clarify which it is you are talking about and why we should redirect to one over the other. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davido

Greetings Administrators. I need some clarification with the nationality parameter on Wikipedia. Davido was born in America but lives in Nigeria. Since he has both an American and Nigerian passport, should his Biography read: Davido is a Nigerian American recording artist .... or Davido is an American born Nigeria recording artist...? Which is correct. I need some clarification because I believe the former is right. Thanks. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isidro A. T. Savillo terrible edit by User:Madambaster

User:Madambaster edited the isidro A. T. savillo article shamefully. All the inline citations were removed and I could not find a way of undoing her stupid work. Important facts about his life like his editorial membership, etc. are no longer seen. I hope that there will be a better edit and also to include his awards. I would request this mad Madambaster to not participate in editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towering peaks (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. Madambaster only acted to remove excess details and trivia. Remember to Assume good faith.--Auric talk 12:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity baby names

Since the arguments are likely going to largely hinge on BLP issues, thought I should give a notice that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity baby names, if anyone is interested in participating.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

I updated the biography of Gonzala Lira to reflect a chronology of accomplishments to include a timely reference from 2014 reiterating his opinions of 2010.

Revisions are "creeping back" which are marketing related. Left user talk back.

173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)173.68.144.130173.68.144.130 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits—they're terrible.

From your edits in the first paragraphs of the entry, it's not clear who the subject is, or their relevance. That's just bad editing.

You also keep referring to single episode appearances of the subject, whereas—from a cursory search on YouTube—he has about a dozen punditry appearances (probably more, but I didn't bother checking). So one opinion of his on one show is irrelevant.

Finally, the subject, in fact, is/was a prominent blogger. He might not be now, but he was at one point in time. That fact is undisputed—and relevant to the subject's article.

MILH (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.dailymirror.lk/opinion/172-opinion/51200-premakeerthis-killers-still-alive-.html

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramya20

[1]

[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