Talk:Jace Alexander

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

New York City

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Awkward sentence

"in which police downloaded child pornography from an IP address". So, the police downloaded the child pornography? The sentence sounds odd. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The intro should have a mention of the fact that Alexander is a convicted child pornography distributor. This NYT piece shows the relevance [1]. My edit was reverted as vandalism. 98.14.96.85 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who rollbacked your changes, just for a short clarification – your edits were reverted as potentially libelous. It was later confirmed that information you added to the lead is well-resourced, however nothing in your changes could let a reviewer consider this contribution an good-faith edit. Protecting one's reputation is more important than "risking" starting potential discussions on rationals of edits. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The child pornography conviction should be in the intro, it's a major part of the subject's current notability, as the NYT story indicates. 98.14.96.85 (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]