Talk:David Levy (psychologist)

Autobiography
This entry was marked with an autobiography template, and as an editor that is not the subject of the entry, I am wondering what caused this entry to be marked as an autobiography and how to remove the template.

Thank you, Kmh1011 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I've removed some of the promotional-sounding language. It still includes some ("garnered widespread acclaim") so it would be good to get verification for some of these statements in sources not related to the subject. Will wait to see if another helper feels the conflict-of-interest template should be removed. – Þjarkur (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have replaced "Autobiography" by "COI" without prejudice to removal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging per Special:Diff/897051145. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes sorry for the hassle. The photograph on the article (File:Cropped Photo for Wikipedia Profile David Levy.jpg) was uploaded to Commons by User:Kmh1011 who also claimed to be "David Levy" according to the redlink. Mostly I deal with photos at Commons, as it is important to check licensing statuses due to the rather large problem of copyright violations. As per routine, was checking if the uploader is the person who created the image or had permission to license it. Due to the redlink there, assumed that "David Levy" is both the person in the photo and the person who created it, which is fine, but it raised another problem; is the person in the biographical article actually editing it, raising conflict of interest concerns. I have done this with literally hundreds of articles with similar problems, it is nothing personal. As long as the statements in the article are sourced and fluffery is kept to a minimum, I have no problem with the COI tag being removed. Thanks and sorry again for the headache! Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:ToBeFree/Archive 6, Special:Diff/898833141. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC))

Help me!

 * Pinging per Special:Diff/897051145.

Thank you to Ruff tuff cream puff for the clarification.

I tried to correct the information for the pictures. Since it was my first time uploading photos to Wikipedia, I did not quite understand which information went where. I put "David Levy" as author because he is the subject in the picture. I didn't realize that I was supposed to put my own name as the author since I am the one that obtained the photo. I did not mean to claim myself as David Levy. I did add the information that permission was granted. I hope that clears up confusion and misunderstanding regarding licensing.

I also made improvements to article to increase citations and neutrality.

Would it be possible to remove the COI tag, or is there more I can do?

Thank you!

Kmh1011 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by saying that you "obtained" the photograph? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I understand it you have two questions, what needs to be done about the image, and what needs to be done for the COI tag to be removed? My answers:
 * for the image, the photographer should create a release statement (easiest here) and send it to OTRS; that's more likely to be accepted if he/she uploads (here) an original version of the image complete with its full EXIF data
 * the COI demonstrably goes back to the first revision of the page; for the tag to be removed, the page needs to be completely rewritten in encyclopaedic style by a non-connected editor who will remove all unsourced and/or promotional material.
 * Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of BLP and Third Party templates
I removed a lot of content from the page that was only sourced with primary sources, and I added secondary sources in the Acting and Stage Director sections. I removed the Third Party template because the article no longer relies primarily on sources associated with the subject. The only remaining source that is associated with the subject is the first citation, about education history, which comes from the source's university website profile. I believe this source meets the criteria for 'Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves' on WP:RS. There are still issues with some of the sources, but in these cases the issue is not that they are associated with the subject but that they are primary sources, or that they constitute original research.