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.

Manny Pacquiao

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

A WP:BLP issue at this article has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit_warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice are now removed, and should remain removed unless and until a clear consensus in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines approves of their return. Collect (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note the valiant edit warriors are still at it. Can anyone defend such gems as "The recovery process was quoted as miraculous.[109] Freddie Roach explained that Pacquiao is just joking around probably having a sense of humor while being interviewed and he's actually seeing a doctor and going through rehab on daily basis.[110]" (emphasis added) Collect (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Will someone please check out this BLP? And its prior versions. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There was nothing THREE ENTIRE SECTIONS that Collect removed that was in violation of BLP. I personally removed the initial line in the Steroid allegations section that stated "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use." as while it is probably correct, it was unsourced, seemed like OR and putting an opinion in the voice of Wikipedia. Apart from that line, everything else is correctly sourced. Everything else is correctly attributed. Everything else is available elsewhere in mainstream media.

Oh and, I bow down to Collect's opinion about "valiant edit warriors" - based on his EIGHT BLOCKS FOR EDIT WARRING, he's obviously far more experienced in that activity than anyone else contributing to that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used PEDs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. The allegations are based purely on unsubstantiated rumors and do not belong in the article. The inclusion of these allegations in the article is a clear BLP violation. Songisjust (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Just.WOW. For an account that is less than one week old and with a total of TEN EDITS, you certainly have a wonderful insight into the intricacies of BLP policy. More skeptical people might suggest that you're merely a sock account, considering that the last sock plaguing the article was indef blocked PM August 31st and this account was created AM September 1st, also that you have TEN EDITS, which coincidentally is the exact amount required to edit a semi-protected article (the Manny Pacquiao article was semi-protected) - but I'm just impressed. (so impressed I will write your name on an SPI report) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to charge anyone with being a "sock", this is absolutely the worst place on all of Wikipedia to make such charges. Go to WP:SPI as your charge here seems to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Collect (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, I guess it would be wise of me to respect your knowledge on what does and does not "violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines." considering that you've been blocked from editing ten times. And actually, I filed an SPI report, however I thought that anyone reading the socks's comments here, should be aware that it is a sock. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I have not had "eight blocks" for edits, and two blocks on me were basically reversed at AN/I. I have been here for over a decade, with well over 45,000 edits. Your record in a mere 18 months is noticeable indeed, with abut 10% of the number of edits. And the SPI page informs you of those rules. Collect (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There are a variety of problems with the section but the opinions generally seem to be attributed. Can you please be specific about the material presented in Wikipedia's voice that you are concerned with?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

After the entire controversy section was removed, I restored it but removed the following line "Because of his ability to move weight classes, Pacquiao has been under suspicion of illegal steroid/PED use" which was unattributed and seemed to be OR and a BLP issue. I think this version of the article : [1] has no OR, is clearly attributed, highly notable and has no BLP issues.

I'm really curious what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, because I saw ONE LINE ONLY. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that I asked one week ago for Collect to provide information of what the "sheaf of allegations clearly presented in Wikipedia's voice" were, and they have provided nothing, I will assume that they were mistaken (for want of another word) about this and that consensus clearly shows there is no BLP issue. I will proceed with the article accordingly. Thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The above in inaccurate, and those who wish details can follow the spoor rather than allow personal attacks to be extended here. If a half dozen valid editors appears to see a BLP issue, and one does not, there is a reasonable likelihood of a BLP issue being involved, for which the complainant surely can start an RfC. My position is that where a BLP issue has been raised, that an RfC is the course required by Wikipedia. I daresay this is not an extreme position at all. Collect (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Gregg Easterbrook

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

Hi Wikipedia,

This is a minor request. I wonder if you might add to my entry, in any manner that seems fitting to you, my latest book - from 2015, noted below -- and the fact that in 2017, I was elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences https://www.amacad.org/content/members/newFellows.aspx?s=a

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book/the-games-not-over/9781610396486

Many thanks, Gregg Easterbrook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg Easterbrook (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gregg Easterbrook: No problem, done. Don't really want to encourage posting here though; this probably should've gone on the article talk page. This is a noticeboard for issues with articles. "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the BLP a bit more. Just because some primary source calls him a "dipshit" is no reason for us to include that.[2] Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Lucian Niemeyer

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

There is some discussion over the images in use in this article. An IP posted at the Helpdesk that the commons image was not his official photo. This prompted some scouring, and it appears that the commons image is a photoshop of at least three others, but it's hard to tell which is the original. Most of this is outlined on the talk page, but to summarise:

1. EXIF data identifies (including the Oiginal Doc ID) commons image as being a completely different image for a different person
2. There are now two images on commons claiming to be the "official" image - one is obviously a photoshop, if not both File:Lucian Niemeyer official photo.jpg and File:Lucian Niemeyer official portrait.jpg
3. Looking at the image photoshop artifacts can be seen - his right shoulder is particularly obvious where his suit meets the flag with the line being overly sharp - until it meets the near edge of the photo and the crop marks can be seen.

What is Wkipedia policy for images when obvious photoshoppery is evident - in this case the entire top of his head has been changed.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

"Photoshopped copyrighted images" are still copyright violations. Collect (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are photoshopped. My concern would be whether all the elements of these composite images comply with the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. If we can't be satisfied that they do, we can't use the images. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Stella Nyanzi

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Nyanzi. Perhaps I handled it wrong and should have used a BLP speedy instead, but I don't want to propose one myself at this point. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you did it right, I just removed some of the BLP issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The massive "Ten Million Shilling" fine ends up at the $2600 level. And I fear the name-calling ("a pair of buttocks") seems a tad mild in this world. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly something missing in the translation.--Auric talk 20:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Fancy Bear

Regarding this [3] and this [4], would someone like to explain to Jimmyb10 that BLP does apply to that page, and that they shouldn't sow conspiracy theories about living people if the best they have is CounterPunch? Geogene (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hill Harper

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

[[5]] Someone or many someone's continue to chage Hill's birth name to Francis BUT it is Frank. I worked for him for close to 4 years and I have seen his birth certificate many times and it says Frank Eugene Harper. Hill has asked me personally to find a way to stop this from happening. If this is not the proper forumn, can someone please direct me to where I can report this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HillHarpersFormerAsst (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Have him contact the Volunteer Response Team by going here. This is the proper place to have these concerns expressed and handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

University of Rochester and Joel Seligman

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

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

Can someone more experienced with BLP please take a look at recent edits to University of Rochester and Joel Seligman? There are allegations being made against a professor at that university (Seligman is the university's president) and the allegations have reached (and been fueled by) the national media e.g., Inside Higher Ed, Mother Jones. The national attention may mean that the issue warrants some coverage in the relevant Wikipedia articles but I'm very nervous that so far there are only allegations. ElKevbo (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the issue. The Joel Seligman page is resolved, not on basis of BLP. In the case of University of Rochester the offender is not identified in the added section while the allegation nature of the added information is clearly outlined in the section title. The allegations are well referenced to multiple credible media outlets as well as a 113 page EEOC complaint wiled against the University. [6] GGthefactchecker 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GGfactchecker (talk • contribs)

There's sufficient reliable sourcing addressing the issue that I feel something should be included, but I completely agree with ElKevbo's removals on the grounds of BLP; GGfactchecker, you need to understand Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria. Petitions and letters hosted on Google Drive are not in any way, shape or form acceptable as sources for claims about a living person, full stop, the end. You need to read the Biographies of Living Persons policy before editing these related articles further. We are to write about living people sensitively and with great care to avoid sensationalism, reject gossip and treat unsubstantiated claims with the measure of skepticism that reliable sources apply. This issue should be discussed further on the related talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be added. The coverage by RS - newspapers, television and radio, national magazines - is not only extensive, it features a substantial number of direct quotes from Seligman himself. There is no need to include non-RS letters, petitions, and the like. Although the issue is ongoing and likely to remain so for an indeterminate time, ignoring it seems to me un-encyclopedic. I will attempt to revise the material accordingly. And yes, let's move the discussion to the article's talk page. I will start a section presently... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

John_Merritt_(public_servant)

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

Why do I care where this guy honeymooned?

Why is his birth year unclear and yet listed? Is he some ancient sage that we want to revere in that we don't know when he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.133.63 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2017‎

I don't know, why do you care where he honeymooned? If you have an issue with the content of a biography that is not a violation, the place to take this is the article's talkpage. Dates of birth where the subject's age is known at the time of printing can obviously (depending on the time of year and absent a definitive DOB) mean that the subject was born in one of two years by working backwards, which is what I assumed happened here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Drew Hutton, born 1947, requires basic biographic information to differentiate the wiki article as factual from purely listed for political purposes

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

With no reference to "Drew Hutton" as associated from any part of Australia in particular, nor any reference to his ancestry or early history, the article appears to be nothing more than a legitimising internet reference for political purposes. Apart from promoting only the positive and exaggerated achievements of the man, without citation, the article appears to be nothing more than the abuse of wikipedia for propaganda rather than a legitimate source of balanced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyAU (talk • contribs) 13:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh... Can anyone translate this? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TimmyAU: I didn't understand the problem either, you need to be much more specific. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TimmyAU: - reping, you can't fix a saved ping. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Zakir Rashid Bhat

Zakir Rashid Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) continual BLP issues as new editors edit from opposing positions. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrea Wallace

The picture attached to the Wikipedia entry for Andrea Wallace is not the Andrea Wallace Runner referred to. I am struggling to see where the existing image comes from and how I can show you a correct picture. You do not make it easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.254.74 (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Andrea Wallace article has never contained a picture. Are you thinking of some other article? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This complaint comes up a lot when a name is googled. Google will put up the Wikipedia article and nearby they place a photo of the person. Sometimes the two don't match, but that is something controlled by Google not us. However, 82.17..., if you have a photo, and you either own the copyright or have written permission from the owner, you can easily upload the picture and place it in the article yourself. Just click the "upload file" link on the left and follow the bouncing ball. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Public figures under mind control?

An editor has been writing in the talk page of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that various American public officials are under mind control by the Russian government, or somehow controlled by a "psy-ops" campaign. For example: [7] [8] [9] [10]. This seems to me to be a BLP violation, even on a talk page. I also don't see how any of these comments are related to improving the article. I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could take a look and give their opinion on whether such comments are admissible on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, except that's not what this editor is saying at all. I don't see anything in there about mind control. You're making that part up. Way to misrepresent somebody's words. Psy-ops: Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.  Volunteer Marek  04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked for input from uninvolved editors. Anyone can read the diffs and make up their own minds. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No, Marek is right, you are totally misinterpreting things. Psy-ops is short for "psychological warfare", not "psychic warfare". Understandable mistake, but time to move on. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Psy-ops" is short for "psychological operations." The comments specifically say the psy-ops campaign has gotten inside the minds of US officials and is causing them to act in certain ways. Especially without any reliable sourcing, that sort of claim is not one I think should be made anywhere on Wikipedia - even in the talk pages. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Distill that scary sounding statement down to it's meaning: agents of the Russian government attempted to influence the opinions of Trump campaign officials by talking and writing at them. That's such a vague and harmless statement it's essentially impossible for it to violate BLP, even if it's a pretty dramatic way to say it. Really, this is nothing to get upset about, especially since there are no specifics in the diffs given. At worst it's just an unhelpful contribution to the overall discussion. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor -- there is no violation of BLP here. This is normal discussion on an article talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Psy Ops is largely the dissemination of propaganda, not Men Who Stare at Goats. It is always good to err on the side of caution with BLP policy, so no harm in filing the report IMO, but I think this is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not the way that SPECIFICO is talking about it. They're specifically talking about Russia having "messed with the minds of the Trump circle," causing them to behave in certain ways. At best, the posts I linked above (which I encourage people commenting here to read, rather than simply commenting on the meaning of "psy-ops") are disruptive nonsense. I think they're more than just disruptive, and I don't think we should be tolerating source-free accusations that people are under manipulation by foreign powers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the post immediately below this is an example of the type of nonsense we have to put up with on talk pages where this user is involved. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Then there's this ...

Many scientists believe that another world is watching us this moment.

SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thucydides, give it up. Listen to what people here (uninvolved people) are telling you: There was no BLP violation here. "Messed with the minds of the Trump circle" was not an allegation directed at any named individual, and "messed with the minds" is a vague comment that could mean anything. If you are now saying you believe SPECIFICO's comments were actually disruptive, rather than BLP violations, ANI is --> thataway, but beware of boomerangs. --involved editor MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

pardeep narwal

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

he is born in Haryana please update in the box . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakravarthy0612 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chakravarthy0612: Since the article is about a living person, we require a reliable source to support the change. Since you have not provided one, the article has correctly not been changed. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of court filing as source in article on gang

Comment invited at Talk:Lunada Bay Boys. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I wrote on that page - but Wikipedia has long frowned on any court documents, and "filings" are self-published under Wikipedia definition as they are not vetted before the filing. Useful as Angel Soft. Collect (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sanatan Sanstha

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

There seem to be some BLP/edit war issues at this article. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Allie X's Scandinavian accent

Hello. I've read the Wikipedia article on the Allie X, and it claims that she was born and raised in Oakville, Ontario, which is at 43.4675° north latitude and 79.6877° west longitude. At this location, people who are native to this area do not have a Scandinavian accent. Take the song "catch" for example. the J in "just wait until I catch my breath" soudns like a mix between a J and a Y sound (like the y in you). This is typical of some Scandinavian accents, in particular those closer to the arctic circle. Other elements of the Scandinavian accent are present both in Catch, as well as her other songs and her speaking voice. I'd like to know, if she's Canadian, what's with the Scandinavian accent? there may be some errors either in Wikipedia or else the source that claims she was born in Oakville ONtario, Canada. Now this is not ot say she is not a Canadian citizen, she likely moved to Oakville after a time, but I'm saying to keep it on the table that she may be Norwegian, Swedish or Greenlandic, not Canadian.

Thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You would need a WP:RS to support this, your interperataion of her accent alone is WP:OR. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding a source that says she was born in Canada. I found one that says she lives in Oakville, but not born in Oakville. Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources challenging the subject's own statements and reliable sources all saying she is from Oakville, OT?

Oakville, OT is sourced in the article. Every reliable source I can find has her "born in", "hailing from" or a "native of" Oakville, OT. She is quoted as saying she was born and raised there. Without reliable sources, we cannot say that several young women have lied repeatedly about their birth places being in Canada and the UK rather than Norway, Sweden and/or Greenland. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

CBC News. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a biography investigator who believes in total acuracy. The way you're wording it yuo make it sound like I am going after speciffically women. No. I go after anyone who seems to have a descrepency in terms of birthplace or accent. Partially bassed on my life story, i have decided to investgate biographies.

Funny you mention CBC, my wife Hekla is currently being called by a woman named (Redacted) who clais to be from CBC regarding my long time investigations of various celebrities in terms of their birth dates, places of birth or birth names. She brough up Thair Cruse and Tara McDonald. Anyway I'm bringing it up because I heard a Scandinavian accent in Allie X's voice, and it caught my ear both as an investigator and as a curious person. Forgive me for questing the status quo of various self-made statements. Would you believe I was bornin Ankara? not if you heard my voice you wouldn't. You'd have good reaso for saying I am from Aberdeen. In the same way, Allie X can say she is Canadian at birth, but i have good reason for believing she is Scandinavian bassed upon her accent.

True, I do not yet have a reliable source for this, hence why I did not edit the article at all, and won't until I get a good suorce. As an investigator and as someone who believs in total acuracy regardless of personl views, I will do my best to find a reliable source. But if I do find a reliable source that says she was born in let's say Stockholm, Sweden, then you have to consider it. Otherwise Summer's whole thing on RS will be useless at best. thanks

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I will bring up another example. yes it's a woman, shut up feminists. Mariah Carey and her mother have both said she was born on March 27, 1970, yet yuo guys keep 1969 because of other sources. By this logic, why then should I consider the subject's own statements in regards to her birthplace?

Andre Nicholsw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you find an RS yes in needs to be considered, all I said was not to edit the article without an RS, and I don't think anyone accused you or anyone else of sexism. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not at you Tornado Chaser, atSummerPHDV2.0

the wording Summer used made it appear like a feminist, because I've seen how these discussionson th einternet end up.

I'm not saying summer is or is not a feminist, but I am saying her tone reminds me of feminism. (summer, i'm just guessing your gender, no need to cry about it).

Anyway I am going to be taking a bit of a break from this discussion until I can get some concreet proof that SummerPHDV2.0 is not (Redacted).

Hekla and I are somewhat scared, and I just got grilled because of this call.

I left a notice about this on her talk page.

thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hekla? Anyway, you should read WP:PRIVACY before you speculate about real-life identities of users. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm concirned because I got this call from a CBC reporter who mentioned my Wikipedia edits to Tara McDonald. SOrry, but Hekla and I are scared. that's all I'm saying. also don't redact a public figure's name.

Andrew

I have resolved the Mesley madness, it isn't Summer.

Anyway, if I were you all, I wouldn't entire throw it off the table that Allie X is Scandinavian. th einvestigation is under way. Hekla has advised me not to go forward with editing the article at all until the investigation has been published. thanks.

Andrew Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Without published independent reliable sources discussing it, there is nothing to edit. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh my source will be reliable, and it won't be me editing it. someone's going to see it, cite my source, and then you will be blown to find out that it's possible (maybe it's true or maybe not) that Allie X is from Norway, not Canada originally. or maybe I might find out she's really Canadian. look forward to NOvember of 2020.

Andrwe Nichols — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

That's great, please feel free to let us know at Talk:Allie X once the independent reliable source is published. You could let your newly found journalist contact know as well.

I think this is

Resolved

now unless anyone can explain why not. MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a very strange point to try to make, especially considering that accents vary considerably across countries, regions, social groups, and even individual people. Take the Alaskan accent, for example. It's really a mix of American standard, Canadian, Russian, Alaska Native, and Texan, but I've been told many times it sounds very much like Minnesotan. Even so, amongst Alaskans Sarah Palin's individual accent is almost unique to her. In English, most of the common words we speak every day are actually Scandinavian words, followed by French, German, Pictish, Gaelic, and Latin. A person's individual accent is dependent more on family and friends that it does on any region or location of birth. Unless a source is found that clearly shows she was born in Scandinavia, this sort of "adding two and two to get five" will be simply pure speculation, and thus will likely not be found in any source that is reliable on the subject. Zaereth (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Victor Romero

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

Recent recreation of a BLP that was deleted through AfD last year. —PaleoNeonate – 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a CSD G4 candidate but I note that it is substantially identical to the CSD G11 speedy deleted page at Victor Hugo Romero Melendez. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for speedy deletion per CSD G11 as unambiguous promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Book

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

My interest in the article is that I created it, because she was newly elected to her state's legislature, and has an interesting backstory. UltimaHolyFlare, who I will hereafter refer to as "UHF", is a single-purpose account editing articles relating to sexual predators with a "pro-predator" (for lack of a better way of expressing it) bias. Lauren Book was sexually abused as a child and has made the issue her life's work. UHF has been adding POV information from unreliable sources into the article to defame her and cast doubts about the effectiveness of her work, and appropriateness. Check out this most recent edit, where UHF is edit warring to reinsert a WP:CSECTION with said unreliable sources, and saying the victim was "allegedly" a victim even though there was a criminal conviction. Rather than accept that I have WP:BLP concerns about the sources, UHF simply says the sources are fine, even though one of them, "Sunshine State News", claimed to be affiliated with CNN though they are not, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks against me. Rather, UHF would rather report me to WP:AIV for "vandalizing" the article. I believe that report should WP:BOOMERANG on UHF because UHF is WP:NOTHERE to edit neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Mubogshu has deleted relevant news outlets because they do not cast his beloved Lauren BBook in a favorable light. Lauren Book is embroiled in numerous controversies, as many politicians tend to be, and by deleting relevant news articles questioning the ethics of using her political office for personal gain, such as failing to recuse herself from voting on issues related to her private charity, her personal involvement with spreading false studies about people convicted of sex offenses, AND her personal involvement in forcing registered persons into homelessness. In addition, her charity took money from organizations of questionable ethics, such as a private prison that has been associated with abusing children (GEO Group). It is obvious even by this writing that Mubogshu has a personal bias in favor of Lauren Book and has been active in suppressing any reports that question this State Senator's ethics, yet there are numerous reports Mubogshu deleted he didn't even claim was "questiomable," including reports from ABC 27, the Gainesville Sun, and the Broward/ Palm Beach New Times. He had been warned repeatedly and continued to vandalize the page, and going by the history, it seems he had removed other legitimate news sources even before I added revisions to the Lauren Book page. It is obvious he is engaging in sockpuppetry at this point. Anyone who looks at his history on the Lauren Book page would see that.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now reported UHF to WP:3RRNB, here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

ron coleman (legal scholar)

Article about me Ron_Coleman_(legal_scholar) was slashed by about 80% about a year ago with no explanation. Unsurprisingly, there has been a subsequent "notability" flag since then -- unsurprising because the current version only mentions one case. I understand there were Wiki style issues in the previous version but why was this article turned back into a stub?

Hello, an thank you for asking here. The major removal seems to have been here and was given a false edit summary, which is obviously not helpful. It appears that the editor @Dovid: removed all the text cited to possible non-reliable sources. Much of the prior text was also obviously promotional and should have been removed, but not all had these difficulties. Granted, a lot was sourced to blogs, which are usually problematic, but not always. Restoring this text will take some time and finding better sources to comply witht he policy on biographies. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the WP:DRIVEBY template. MPS1992 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore

User:Jaydogg1994 has reverted several times to reinstate material which is highly questionable from a BLP standpoint [11] - some contentious views attributed to the subject are being included with references to YouTube, an opinion piece and a source which doesn't support the statement in the article. The page has already been subjected to pending changes protection at least in part because of the addition of this material. I'm posting here to get further input rather than starting an edit war. Hut 8.5 20:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Faena

This fellow was born in 1980, said the article on him until this very recent edit. I get the impression that this cited source (in Spanish) said in 2007 that he was 27, and this other cited source (also in Spanish) said in 2012 that he was 31. The new edit adds this third and (to me) dodgy-looking source, which flatly says (in English) that he was born in 1990. The editor who added it changed the article to say he was born in 1990.

Could some fresh eyes take a look at this matter? I plead sleepiness, incompetence in Spanish, vulnerability (thanks to an AfD that ended with no consensus) to a charge of irreverence, laziness, and (yawn) did I mention sleepiness? -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

parimal trivedi

this is not a famous person and they made this fake page with help in a computer lab