User talk:Grateful41

Welcome, and a reply
Greetings, Grateful41. I have seen your requests concerning the William Agee article and responded here; you may wish to review and reply. Regards,  Skomorokh   21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Libelous References added to William Agee article
This notice is a request for senior editors to review the William Agee article for repeated changes to the Infobox for the inclusion of a former spouse name. I restored the familiar name of the person and changed the spouse and children fields. A former spouse or someone on her behalf continues to edit this article by the inclusion of herself in the Infobox along with the listing of a number of children. Per the privacy of non-notable person's, insistence upon including this dysfunctional relationship of 30 years ago in a summary box as if it were a highlight of someone's life is an infringement. I have seen many other articles that do not include a list of former spouses. Can you lock the Infobox so this editor leaves it alone?

At the same time as changing the Infobox again, this editor added 10 references containing poorly substantiated, libelous material based on gossip and innuendo. I would ask that a senior editor please revert the references to an earlier version when they were absent. The idea is to accurately convey this person's story not try to destroy or demonize him. 13 existing references accomplished this goal accurately and thoroughly. Adding 10 additional 30 year old articles containing libelous statements is wrong, vindictive and in violation of Wikipedia standards.

Thank you for correcting the situation and monitoring this article closely.Grateful41 (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
Senior editors please review talk page submitted on 16 March 2013 and help with a solution. Thank you.Grateful41 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated inclusion of inappropriate lisitng in article on William Agee
Myself and another editor have reached an impasse on the appropriate repeated inclusion (and subsequent removal) of the name of an individual in Mr. Agee's article from whom Mr. Agee received an annulment of their marriage nearly 40 years ago. My view seems to be compatible with Wikipedia definition that an annulment means that the marriage never existed and thus this person is not an ex-wife. Mr. Agee's story and accomplishments are his not hers. As a non ex-wife it would seem that she should not have the authority to feature herself in Mr. Agee's opening Bio section. Would you please explain Wikipedia's position and offer advice on stopping this cycle. Thank you. Grateful41 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Agee Annulment
You seem to be out of your depth, mate. Annulments are part of hundreds of Wikipedia entries and they are not "off limits" as you purport. While a legal/religious definition of annulment might mean that the marriage wasn't valid (depending on locale), it doesn't mean it didn't occur. It did. Check out links to Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, et al. Annulments are included, sometimes in detail. BTW, the Wiki "definition" of annulment is different than the Wiki "guideline" for inclusion. That seems to be what's buggering you up. For example, a former Congressman is no longer a Congressman (definition), but that doesn't mean he/she has the role of Congressman deleted from their entry (inclusion). The annulment was part of Agee's life history, as is the fact his original middle name was "McReynolds." Just because he changed the name doesn't mean he didn't use it. He did. Hope that helps clear it up. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.110.72 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on William Agee article
I want to be sure that I understand the compromise that you are suggesting. I understand the logic that Agee's early marriage occurred in fact and thus your view is that it can be listed. By the same reasoning, the annulment happened,in fact. If you are proposing that the annulled marriage must be listed in Agee's Info box, by the same logic (of fact) the annulment should also be noted there with date. This information is equally factual.

Similarly, it is a fact that Agee used McReynolds in his earlier years. However, he legally (as in on his Passport) has used Joseph as his middle name for 40 years. This is a fact and should justify "Joseph" being used in his Info Box without risk of it being changed again. Surely, it is not necessary for the Editor who is so persistent in the dispute to italicize McReynolds in the body of the text. This method for calling to attention a name that Agee hasn't used for 4 decades, pushes the point too far and gives the impression of wanting to be irritating. It is simply inappropriate.

I am asking you to be reasonable and change Agee's middle name to Joseph in the Info Box and remove the italic on McReynolds in the body. I am also requesting that you add (annulled) after the early marriage listing in the Info Box. I will add the date after I research it. Your making these changes instead of my doing it may deter the editor who is so persistent in this matter.

Thank you for your help.Grateful41 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agee More.
Most of your points are valid, mate. There is no reason for the italics on McReynolds, which I removed. The "born" section in the info box needs to stay the same since it does reference birth certificate name. On the other hand, if you have the annulment dates, then go ahead and change that in the info box--certainly legit. I'll monitor that, and it should be an appropriate fix as per the annul examples I mentioned previously. All in all, these changes should meet Wiki standards. Be aware, though, that I reviewed the history of changes and some verge close to whitewashing--a strict Wiki no-no--and you need to be careful not to remove historical and publicly available facts. If that happens, it's fair game all over again and I don't think anyone wants this entry to go back to that kind of scrum. So, onward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.110.72 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)