Talk:Sarah Hasted

Controversy
Per BLP policy I have removed a comment from this section that made some negative accusations, not backed up by evidence. I left the word "controversy" as that does seem justified.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest edit warring
You really need to stop editing your own article. See WP:OWN - you don't own it, and you cannot exercise editorial control over it. You are clearly Sarah Hasted herself or at least editing in her behalf, which means you have a WP:Conflict of interest, which in turn means that you should not be making attempts to whitewash the article of negative information that may come up. In this edit you claimed the articles are "dishonest, slanderous, harassing and abusive". Looking them over, they don't seem to be that at all, they seem to be published by a reliable source simply reporting some facts. Please explain specifically what in those articles justifies your removal of those links. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

EL Edits, and the need for references
This article is a bit of a mess as of this writing a bit of a mess as of this writing. Many of the recent edits are by dueling editors alternately adding and removing URLs in the external links section. This is not the proper way to improve an article. All editors should take a look at our guideline regarding external links: External_links

We don't use an external links section to include things that might be references for material in the main text (those should be properly formed as references) or to include links to articles that either simply puff up or disparage the subject. Read the external links section to get a sense of how it can be properly used.

In accordance with this guideline I am removing all of the external links except the link to the subject's website. That would normally be best included in INFOBOX but this article does not yet have an INFOBOX (hint, hint). This is possibly throwing out the baby with the bath; perhaps there is an entry in the external links section that is a proper external link but I looked at several and did not see any that qualified so I thought it would be best to start from scratch.

It is plausible that one or more of those links could qualify as a proper reference. Please note that this article currently has no references and per our BLP policy, all articles about living people are required to have at least one reference. Rather than simply propose it for deletion, I will give it some time for interested editors to add some references in a proper way.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)