Talk:Paul Kitson

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paul Kitson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012035520/http://www.whufc.com/articles/20071018/spurs-lose-in-seven-goal-thriller_2236895_1328692 to http://www.whufc.com/articles/20071018/spurs-lose-in-seven-goal-thriller_2236895_1328692

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

COI tag (June 2023)
Frequent editor claims page as about themselves. Egghead06 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , all those edits I believe you are talking about are from today and have been reverted. Personally I don't think the tag is necessary. --Ferien (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , the main complainant to the content is still not happy, so guess the issue has not gone away.--Egghead06 (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , however, the COI template says A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. The editor who claims to be the subject here has not actually contributed to the article at all, therefore this specific template doesn't seem to apply. --Ferien (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute
As the three-revert rule has now been broken, I would highly recommend discussing this on here. It's worth noting that while the information is sourced, this is not obvious vandalism as reasons are given for content removal in the edit summary. , I would also like to point you towards the conflict of interest guideline. --Ferien (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ferien. I think this is a violation of WP:BLP and privacy rules on Wikipedia. Kitsjade9 has been warned multiple times and gotten their edits reverted, aswell as the information being backed up by reliable sources. Din oz1  (chat?) (he/him) 15:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok i’ll discuss, i want this removing from MY Wikipedia page as its not in the public interest and upsetting my family members, is that a good enough reason Kitsjade9 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP may explain why we've been reverting your edits. Din  oz1  (chat?) (he/him) 15:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do believe this needs more explanation rather than pointing to a policy page. The page WP:BIOSELF goes into detail regarding what to do when there is content in an article that concerns you, . As this has now unfortunately turned into an edit war, the edit should not simply be reverted and this should be moved to the BLP noticeboard.
 * To all other reviewing editors, it's important to note that Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. (bolding not mine, this is directly from WP:BLPEDIT). While there was initially no reason for the content to be removed and therefore reversion was first justified, a few of the later edits appear to have been reverted (and 3RR broken) despite explanation and explained content removal is not obivous vandalism. --Ferien (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll do whatever I can to help this de-escalate. Din  oz1  (chat?) (he/him) 15:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , I think the reverting is over so on that side we are good. We just need to make sure now that this editor has been pointed to the correct venues to solve the problems they have voiced concerns about. --Ferien (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks once again, Ferien. Din  oz1  (chat?) (he/him) 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies but i have just seen this information on my Wikipedia page and want it removing, i am new to this so don’t know how to go about doing it Kitsjade9 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , that's understandable. The area it's on on that massive policy page isn't immediately visible. There are three ways in which you can deal with this:
 * Discussion on the article talk page – what we are doing right now. Hopefully other editors who reverted your edits will add thoughts on why they reverted it to try and resolve the dispute.
 * The biographies of living persons (BLP) noticeboard (WP:BLPN) – you could post here to get advice from editors who are slightly more experienced in these types of issues.
 * Contact the oversight team if the article contains your personal info or potentially libelous statements.
 * I hope this helps and do not hesitate to respond to me if you need any more assistance. --Ferien (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferien i will look into it Kitsjade9 (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)