Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive173

Kamala Lopez
On this article, a birth year is given that has been alleged as inaccurate (see 2012032510008622 for those with OTRS access). Basically, the story goes as so: A lousy biographer wrote about Lopez in a book that would not be considered a reliable source, and made up several things, including the birth year. This book is now out of print. However, other sources copied that birth year, and have republished it in what might be reliable sources (one is currently used to reference the birth year). However, there is nothing anywhere to indicate the source of this birth year. As far as I can find from searching for records myself, no public records give Lopez's birth year, and Lopez has never herself given her year of birth. Given that there is concern over the accuracy of the birth year, the subject wants it removed, and there is no evidence any source has done more than ask Google when Lopez was born, I think the right thing by WP:BLP is to omit it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's it? You bring us easy thingies It's accepted that we do omit personally identifiable information (such as birth dates) off BLPs when the subject requests it, and it is of no encyclopedic consequence. Already done. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a straightforward question to me. I can appreciate that this is a BLP and we might remove the birth date if it is contentiously sourced. Various RS books state the birth date but Jeanmariesimpson, close to Lopez, now says all the books got it wrong. However, as you will see, on the article talk page she wrote "Is the birthdate really all that relevant and important? Actors, especially female ones, are often very sensitive about their ages being revealed. Hollywood is a mean place for women of all ages, but especially women over 25. Careers start to decline much earlier for women than for men." There seem to be at least two editors who have regularly worked on the article that are close to or related to the subject. Conflict of interest questions have been raised on the talk page since the article's inception. The birthdate issue has been going on for years. Authentic birth dates are of the highest encyclopaedic value, the starting point of any biography, of Mozart, George Washington or anyone else. I think you'd have a time arguing with Britannia that their birth dates were "of no encyclopaedic value". You seem to be stating that the subjects of any (all) BLPs can request their birth date be removed from their articles and Wikipedia wouldn't have a problem with that, deleting the relevant infomation. Bill Gates, Margaret Thatcher, Obama, Madonna. Somehow I can't quite see it. If there is a genuine mistake then, yes, we should remove or change the birthdate. So far I have seen no evidence for that. Span (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons why we remove personally identifiable information from biographies, like birth dates. 1) It was obtained from a primary source (such as government records). See WP:BLPPRIMARY. 2) The subject is a minor. 3) The information is wrong, and they (or their representatives) contacted us via OTRS, properly identified themselves, and showed us evidence of this. It's not uncommon to get a cell picture of a driver's license or a birth certificate, for example. 4) Courtesy, or a mix of the previous ones. Also, sometimes we'll remove the month/day and leave the year. That also happens. I've not seen the ticket referenced above, nor do I have to, but if the editor that handled it considers that the subject identified themselves correctly, then I assume #3 and #4 apply here. I am not now nor was I before I edited the article aware of any controversies surrounding the birth date, but if there is indeed one, I assume it is limited to Wikipedia. It certainly does not seem to me that this is an issue of any importance outside of here. That is, the issue of her birth date is irrelevant to her notability. And so, we have no problem removing it. If someone has some COI issues, or some IPs or sockpuppets or whatever were involved in this controversy, that's irrelevant to me. And yes, if Madonna contacted us and asked us to remove her birth date, we would do so, assuming she showed proof that the information we have was indeed wrong. But because we know the correct date from a primary source, we can't include it. So we remove it. Hope that makes sense. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain the process. Span (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Christopher J. Dumler Rape Scandal
This is a newly created article and I cannot understand why it was allow to be created in the first place. It is not a neutral point of view and because CJ Dumler is still going through the legal system is sub judice. The whole article reads like an attack page created to hound him out of office. Kiltpin (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. This needs to go to AFD, probably. Thanks for bringing it over. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - how has it survived so long?--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We are good to go: Articles for deletion/Christopher J. Dumler Rape Scandal. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Brooke Medicine Eagle
. An editor is unhappy about this article and wants to add what I think is inappropriate material (eg "Brooke lives a quiet life and creates a chalice of love and light at her FlowerSong orchard/garden sanctuary"). He's using the talk page appropriately and now asking for an Admin's help which is a misunderstanding but he clearly is acting in good faith. Can someone please help this new editor? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I have changed the last paragraph language. Rickgmt (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Heymann
More input would be appreciated with respect to recent changes to the article. There is already a talk page discussion, but with the latest edit, which I just reverted, I don't think I'm going to get anywhere. For those of you who are Swartz supporters - and we know who you are - please leave your personal feelings at the talk page door.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks much like Carmen Ortiz at this point. It's clearly WP:UNDUE, since it's half of the biography. The article was clearly created in response to the Swartz case, but since the subject is by all rights notable, the AFD failed. Exactly the same thing. I argued during the Ortiz back and forth that all this information belongs somewhere else, but no consensus was reached. In any case, we need to keep the Swartz stuff to a bare minimum, if nothing else. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. But I didn't notice that this BLP/N item had been started, so I put my reasoning on the article's talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree also, and largely concur with talk. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to add that although there is a discussion going on about the complaint. There is NO discussion going on about one of Mark's other edits that practically accuses Heymann of causing Swartz's suicide. I reverted it once, but Mark restored it. Ironically, that edit is worse than the other, which, for the moment, is not in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Harvey Silvergate’s essay for Mass. Lawyer’s Weekly is not inappropriate for a biography of a living person. If there were any question of the material contained there being defamatory, it would have been raised by now. It is simply a conspicuous journalistic account of the affair, written by a distinguished attorney in a newspaper intended for and read by many members of the Massachusetts Bar. Bbb23's insinuation that it is anything else is unjust. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care if it was written by a supreme court justice. It's an opinion piece that attacks Heymann. It's completely inappropriate. As I said on the article talk page, I will abide by a consensus on these issues, but that doesn't mean I will necessarily agree with it. And in response to your claim at the article talk page that I personally attacked you, what do you think I said that constitutes a personal attack?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to comment on Mark's claim on the article's talk page that Bbb23 personally attacked him here. I see nothing that can be described as a personal attack. Perhaps you were referring to the comment "There is NO discussion going on about one of Mark's other edits that practically accuses Heymann of causing Swartz's suicide" and meant to use a more applicable term? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

David Berlinski
The article is clearly biased. Especially the selection of quotes toward the end. This is an encylopedia, not a forum for who thinks who is an idiot. If there were quotes from people who agreed with him as well, perhaps this article would be neutral. But it isn't. A certain tone enters a few times (in perentheses) that is biased as well. For example "(in his view)". Uneccessary. Of course it is his view, what other view could he possibly express? Either remove the article entirely or rid it of obviously biased edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.246.150 (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've pared down the criticism and worked it into the rest of the article. I'd agree that section was leaning against WP:UNDUE. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hristijan Spirovski
I am not sure if this is the correct place to talk about this, however, I just wanted to point out that there are many points of this page which are quite dubious. If not dubious, there are many things talked about which are quite common for any person studying music at a university level.

It is not my place to say that the page should be deleted or not, however I am pointing out that there is nothing really significant about many of the things which have been mentioned on this page. This biography tends to model the average "biography" of most students who study undergraduate music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.250.156 (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Obviously talented, but IMHO not yet article-worthy.--ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another user contested speedy deletion so it's now at Afd: Articles for deletion/Hristijan Spirovski.--ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Atran
In the lede to my bio, please remove any reference to Gitmo Bay and hostage negotiations. This is inaccurate. Also it'ts Mead, not Mead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.188.170 (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Assuming you are in fact Scott Atran, you made the requested edits to the article about you just a couple minutes after you posted here. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul Frampton
I would be grateful for some more opinions on the BLP article for the physicist Paul Frampton and in particular the section dealing with his conviction for drug smuggling. There is little doubt about the facts of the case, and clearly this should appear in its own section and in the lede. However I have some questions about how this should be done. In particular
 * 1) Is it reasonable to illustrate this section with images of coca leaf, cocaine, and sniffer dogs?
 * 2) Is it reasonable to include "see also" links to topics such as Illegal drug trade, Illegal drug trade in Latin America, Illegal drug trade in Bolivia, Illegal drug trade in Peru, Crime in Belgium, Drug mule, Drug possession, Crime and violence in Latin America, and Schedule 1, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
 * 3) Is it reasonable to add "Known for cocaine smuggling" either to the main infobox or in a separate infobox (both forms have been used recently).
 * 4) Is it reasonable to link to the Crime Portal?

It seems to me that all of these are unduly sensationalist additions, but perhaps I am being over sensitive? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This BLP is being turned into an attack page by an editor. The irrelevant photos should be removed and the drug section condensed to 25% of its present size. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Jonathan, you are not being over-sensitive in the least. All of that content is complete nonsense for a BLP and should be removed immediately. Apparently, someone is trying to do a hatchet job on this guy. I think they forgot that this is an encylopedia. All of the images in that section are outrageously inappropriate. And I totally agree with Xxanthippe that about 75% of the content in the conviction section should be removed. The encylopedic portions of that section would require only a few sentences, at most. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have done some major cuts along the lines suggested (essentially back to an earlier version of the article), but I would be grateful if somebody else could keep an eye on the article, as I am about to disappear for a few days. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What you have done is entirely suppressed and cut out knowledge of the applauded NYT coverage of the cocaine conviction subject matter. It lacks balanced presentation of the prosecuted case and the biosubj's response to it, which we must be fair about doing in considering the reputation of the involved law enforcement & judicial organs in Argentina alongside that of the found perpetrator.Tramadul (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

See the article talkpage for some of the ongoing discussion on this. The starting point for the narrative of the crime section has been the recent New York Times profiling of the case, which goes into detail about inculpatory text message evidence and his movements with the drugs. Take some time to read up on that and the very careful sourcing of everything related about crimes which contrasts, for example, with the bereftness of sourcing (except for identifying some of his publications) in the remainder of the article.Tramadul (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no way in heck that those images "illustrating his hobbies" are going to be allowed. This is a BLP. I removed the mention in the lede, and the crime portal. Some of the categories seem borderline to me as well, but I guess he was convicted after all. Beyond that, please remember this is a living person. There is no need to turn his bio into an essay about drug trafficking, the cons or pros thereof, or his temporary notoriety in the press. We document notability here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No attempt will be made to argue for reform in matters of criminal justice or drug trade policy. Let's examine that the most relevant see also link is Illegal drug trade in Bolivia, which is because his involvement was to pick up cocaine in that country and transport it (via Argentina & Peru) to other syndicate members in Belgium.Tramadul (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That article does supply the background of the drug trade economy there which is explanatory of the biosubj's motivations for involvement in the Latin American drug mule hobby.Tramadul (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the categories; I have trimmed them down to the most directly appropriate cases. Thanks. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the NYT coverage I allude to. Do you see the problem we have when it's suppressed out by the biosubj's Brasenose/Oxford/Institute of Physics colleague, in favour of keeping 'helppaulframpton.org - Paul is out of prison!' in. It's the problem we've been addressing.Tramadul (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a venue for crusading journalism. There is ample material in the references, particularly the NYT article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC).


 * FreeRangeFrog inexplicably removed the lead sentence about the conviction. I have reinserted it. As my comments above will verify, I was totally opposed to all of that nonsense content that Jonathan wrote about, but leaving the mention of the subject's conviction out of the lead is a highly inappropriate sanitizing tactic. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not "sanitizing" anything, I am removing a piece of unsourced text in the intro. Pick a source, then add it back. I don't understand how I'm supposed to be sanitizing an article when I remove one line of text and leave an entire section's worth of the information I'm sanitizing. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know damn well that the content is fully sourced in the body, but chose to object to the content anyway. So instead of just taking a couple seconds to add the source, you chose instead to remove the content, thus santizing the lead. I have readded the content (again), with a cite. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you fixed it, that was awesome wicked fast. Thanks. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors should keep a close eye on Tramadul. S/he added back all the original text content, disregarding this discussion. I reverted it but agreed to remove the one sentence s/he objected to. I also rewrote the last sentence about Frampton's current status at UNC; Tramadul's version was way too long, poorly written (grammar), and included content not in the source. I cut to the chase and included only the important content verified by the attached source, and made sure the context is clear and accurate. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick time-out for a little humor: Does anyone else keep thinking Peter Frampton instead of Paul Frampton? Or is it just me? Haha. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tramadul, I would suggest that you stop adding contentious content to the article, particularly while this BLPN discussion is ongoing. What you are doing is very provocative. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the edit history of the article, I have a concern that there may possibly be a substantial sockpuppet issue related to all of this conviction content we're discussing here. Hopefully, some experienced editors can look at it and puruse any necessary action. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the thread titled "Images illustrative of his hobby" at the article's talk page will give editors a very good idea of Tramadul's intentions and how misinformed he is about Wikipedia's purpose. This article needs watched very closely. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a wealth of references & coverage on the biosubj's drug muling hobby, to which those on his physics modelling lack. It can develop through separation out of a sister article on the trial, such as we've had with Trial of Saddam Hussein. Also, there can be supply of illustrations etc on the physics subject matter. The challenge with the primary suggestion is that the best sources (trial coverage, court's judgment, arrest records, records of appeals and motions, &c) will be Spanish-language. With the secondary suggestion, the challenge is that requires a person with a passion & understanding for the biosubj's physics speciality, but I believe there is existing editorship on the article able to meet that.Tramadul (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors should also keep an eye on Tramadul's addition of gratuitous links to Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate to the See also section of multiple pages, such as Organized crime and Illegal drug trade in Latin America. First Light (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's other members of the syndicate at the Bolivian and Belgian ends. At the moment, above, I've proposed the amenity of 'see also' linking to "Illegal drug trade in Bolivia" to which I haven't found refutation. It's something I proposed much earlier on the article talk page with same nil outcome. Can there be a better outcome than having to consider this place and that one at the same time?Tramadul (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If by "nil outcome" you mean that the only editor who responded on that page opposed any see also links as "undue," then you are right. I've now added my opposition there also. It's entirely undue. First Light (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It sounds like some noticeboard(s) need to be notified about Tramadul's actions. I think it's becoming clear what's going on here. And I'm sensing a strong sock odor. I hope an experienced editor will pursue sanctions. And can someone look at all the categories at the bottom of the article and remove all of the inappropriate ones? --76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Tramadul is apparently not going to stop his nonsense editng (and possible socking). Who's going to take him to AN/I? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to engage you with invitation to go on the article talk and give your reasons for blanking out mention of the NYT coverage. Stop throwing such insults about me trying to do the right thing. I've looked that NYT piece through and compared it against other stuff out there so that I find it honest and incisive as well as also a little unique about getting to the bottom of the cocaine operation. It should at least be noted as a source, and it isn't now. That's because of you.Tramadul (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just nominated this for deletion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
On 23 January 2012, Frampton was arrested with two kilograms of cocaine hidden in his luggage while trying to fly from Ezeiza International Airport in Argentina to Peru. He was held in Villa Devoto Jail in Buenos Aires awaiting trial. On 30 October 2012, he was transferred out of Devoto prison to house arrest. On 20 November 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to four years and eight months in prison. He will serve at least two years four months, but will be permitted to serve the sentence under house arrest in Buenos Aires. Frampton sued UNC after they stopped paying his salary, but the lawsuit was dismissed by a North Carolina Superior Court judge who said it was premature because he is in the midst of a grievance proceeding with the university.

OK, so let's get this over with. One, we do not want to suppress or hide information that is obviously in the news, reliable sources and whatnot. On the other hand, this is still a BLP, and particularly WP:UNDUE applies quite nicely here. has so far shown a curious lack of NPOV while editing this article, and that needs to stop. We don't need to document the case exhaustively, we do not need contentious redirects, and we do not need to drift into making this into a commentary on drug trafficking in Latin America. Above is the current version of the paragraph in question, with appropriate references. I think it's a bit long, but OK. Can we agree that this is acceptable to all parties? § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that content. It justifies seealso linkage to Illegal drug trade in Latin America, Drug possession etc & the crime/drug trafficking categories, Portal:Criminal justice, and the crim infobox. If there is backstory inserted in regard to 'Denise Milani' or excuses (or denials) floated by the biosubj for his drug muling, then that will be require to be balanced with the NYT investigations and other trial reportage going into the evidence of collaboration with the other members of his syndicate in the Americas & Europe.Tramadul (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proposed text looks fine to me. I'm afraid I'm about to disappear for 36 hours.  Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's abundantly clear what Tramadul's agenda is with regard to this subject. Look carefully at his edit history. And don't forget the reason the OP came here in the first place. All of Tramadul's rubbish images, categories, see-also links, and out-of-context minutia content, etc. Does it get any more outrageous than this? And note how he changed the section heading overnight; they're both his. He's been throwing as much junk against the wall as possible just to see how much of it will stick. He's testing all of us and thinks this is an edurance battle. Although Tramadul been asked several times, he has yet to answer how many accounts he's used to edit this article? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Others need to seriously look into how Tramadul is using Wikipedia for vengeance agains a living person. The subject is a renowned physicist who was caught smuggling cocaine into Argentina (unkowingly, as he thought he was delivering a package to a supposed lover). Tramadul is adding multiple criminal categories and adding "See also" links to multiple article, such as this one at Mule (smuggling) "Paul Frampton, US-based English cocaine trafficking mule for a syndicate believed to have operations from Bolivia to Belgium through Argentina and Peru." First Light (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First Light, you're doing a great job of monitoring the article and removing BLP violations. I see that Tramadul was busy for a few hours overnight adding more crap to the article while we were all gone. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So who's going to take Tramadul to AN/I for his single-purpose mission to destroy Frampton, including this latest outrageous assault at Mule (smuggling), which First Light fortunately noticed?? Btw First Light, when you find huge violations like that, you should issue a warning to the offender so that it's on record. ;) A registered user should begin the AN/I process ASAP. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Issue resolved
Tramadul has been blocked at AN/I. The blocking admin said, "Blocked for three days. If they return to this article or any article related to this person, or if they commit similar BLP violations elsewhere, it's an indefinite block." Hopefully, this resolves the matter and Tramadul will not attempt to use other accounts to bypass the sanctions. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to everyone for their swift actions in this matter. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And thanks to you Jonathan for all your help in keeping a close eye on the article and removing any junk content. You and First Flight have done an excellent job in that regard. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done, everyone. I followed this backwards from ANI to the article to here. A more disgusting case of POV editing would be hard to find. I've watch listed the article and will watch for any socks of this SPA. Jus  da  fax   23:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

juan carlos I


There are remaining bits of vandalism in this article, specifically around the issue of his brother's death. There may be other issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.133.29 (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have it on watch. If it gets too bad I'll request protection. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Callum McManaman
An edit war is breaking out, so I'm coming here for some support or to get a reality check, whichever the case may be. I've asked the warrior not to revert me a second time on his talk page, but rather to talk it out on the article's talk page. Apparantly, that request was not persuasive. Here are the relevant diffs:, , , , , , , ,. David in DC (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * With a good night's sleep, I looked at this with fresh eyes. The single sentence about the game is ridiculous. The score and the fact that they won is clearly not the most notable thing about that game. The most notable thing is covered in every reliable source that covered the game. Even the sole remaining source for the game in this bio emphasizes the "horror tackle" rather than the score. Keeping it out is daft. David in DC (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this incident has been covered in-depth in the UK. GiantSnowman 11:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please join the conversation on the article's talk page. Note to all: If you disagree, please also join our conversation. Thanks.David in DC (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji
Hi: every once in a while someone comes by and tries to add references to another controversial figure in this article (toward guilt by association? The beginning of coatracking?) and I don't want to get into an undo back-and-forth. I'm hoping for a critical eye for tightening the article and cleaning up the references. Help appreciated! Torren (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that's a bunch of original research, so unless better sourcing is provided, then it should stay off the bio. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pitching in! Much appreciated. Torren (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Michael Appleton
The final comment on Appleton, hidden at the end of the article concerning his knee surgery and the subsequent legal action, states that 'he is crap at his job'. This is wholly gratuitous and unfair. Additionally the final comment at the end of the mangerial section concerning Blackburn rovers will already have been addressed I'm sure, but the comment about the club's owners is also gratuitous, though probably true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.3.224 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know about these problems; I have removed the problematic material. Remember you can remove such material yourself by editing the page if you want to. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Peter Ruckman


John Foxe and myself thought it would be a good idea to get outside opinions on some material in the Ruckman BLP. It appears at the end of this section in the article on Ruckman's confrontational style:


 * Cite 1: "Peter Ruckman, Satan's Masterpiece: the New ASV (Pensacola: Pensacola Baptist Bookstore, 1972), 67."
 * Cite 2: http://boldestapologies.wordpress.com/ruckman/ Quotation from the Bible Believer’s Bulletin, November 1994.
 * Cite 3: The Separatist (December 1984), 11.

Our discussion of the material is located here: Ruckman's "Confrontational style". Does anyone have an opinion on this they'd like to share? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion on the talk page. In this instance we may wish to think on what the subject intended. If Rev. Ruckman's intention was to be caustic to some people and institutions then we may wish to reflect that here. If they were off the cuff remarks that he may have regretted then we may not wish to include them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest that this link is a neutral commentary, but it does give a feel for the fellow's rhetorical style.--John Foxe (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

larry gagosian
I think its out of line to characterize Larry Gagosian as being someone who has been known to push the prices of work up... while it may be true, it shouldn't be in the first sentence of the article. Its in poor taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a bit much, yeah. Criticism is fine, as long as it's well-sourced, it comes with references to reliable sources and it does not represent undue weight in relation to the rest of the biography. I removed it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for removal
has posted a request on Talk:Larry Clapp, that the article on Larry Clapp be deleted, claiming to belong to his family. It's a bit odd, given that the article does not mention his family.-- Auric    talk  19:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't delete bios on demand, but per WP:BLPDELETE this might be just under the notability threshold of WP:POLITICIAN and just above the definition of a wholly negative BLP. At AFD any closing admin might opt for a soft delete if there is no consensus, assuming of course there are no compelling arguments to keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he meets WP:POLITICIAN #1 as a member of a state legislature.--ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't fall under BLPDELETE, as he is no longer living; there would need to be consensus to delete. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me that's the case, since WP:BLP applies to recently deceased people as well. Not that it matters if he meets WP:POLITICIAN anyway. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi-I was the editor who started the article. I raised some BLP concerns on January 9, 2013 on this board and they are in archives # 168. There was a need to be sensitive. The article meets WP: Politician. Larry Clapp was a state legislator. The events about his indictment and career were covered in the Wyoming press and even in the US press. I agree nothing was mentioned about his family. The article should not be deleted. Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanking request - reality show contestant
FYI: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Alan Lorber


A little of everything. Copyright violation from non-reliable source, WP:COI, promotional tone, WP:MULTIPLE and WP:OWNERSHIP concerns, and check out the discography listing. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Inevitably it'll need to be returned to something like the November version, but even that had issues. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See also similar concerns at the currently incubated Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Iris Music Group (IMG). 99.137.210.226 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: user MikaelH57 has been very cooperative in responding to these concerns. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this. I stubbed the article because it was a copyvio of another web page, and left a comment on the talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up (hate to jump IPS, but it happens every time the connection breaks in the country....must buy more hamsters for the treadmill, anything to remain mysterious and not resort to the old registered account). 99.136.255.134 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Pierre-Alexis Dumas
I don't see that there are problems with the entry. The claim that it is "a mess" is severe. In what way(s) is it a mess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel Byars (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if that was added when the article was messy and the issue was addressed then feel free to remove the tag. It's just a way to keep track of the millions of "to-do" items we have around here. Once the concerns covered by a tag are taken care of, get rid of it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One significant problem with the article is that it's not written in an encylopedic style. Four of the sections are inappropriately written like a resume; bulleted lists of his accomplishments, quotes, and personal milestones. Therefore, in my opinion, the tag message is accurate and appropriate: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: it's a mess. Proseline, style, tone all need to be revamped." --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just discovered that this article went to AfD a few months ago and (obviously) was saved. But what's interesting is that FreeRangeFrog said "the article itself is a mess", and the other editors also alluded to the article's problems. So, yeah, it's a mess. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Another discovery. Ugh. It was actually Mel Byars who added all the resume-style content. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted Freerange's close of this thread temporarily because the problems still exist in the article. He added a couple of sources, which is good, but all the sections improperly displayed in resume style need to be written in an encylopedic mannter/tone. Also, the entire "1993 to 2001 in Asia and Britain" section, and numerous other claims, are unsourced. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I said it was a "mess" in the aesthetic sense. This is BLP/N, so unless there's a gross violation of the policies we concern ourselves with here, there is no issue. Generally we don't lose sleep over few unsourced paragraphs in a bio. However, as courtesy to, and in the spirit of completeness, I reworked the article, and now reworked it a bit more. If that's acceptable then please close this section again. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I don't agree that "a few unsourced paragraphs", particularly in a BLP, is acceptable, the improvements you've just made are excellent. The resume-style layout was also quite a problem. Thanks for the fine improvements you've just made. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Kenneth Frazier
There has been edit warring at Kenneth Frazier to add/remove some negative content to this article. One IP with a likely COI (IP resolves to subject's employer) was reported at AIV. I declined an immediate block because of the BLP nature, and then removed the disputed content for discussion. Another editor promptly added it back in. The disputed content is sourced, but may not be sufficiently so in my opinion, and it may not be terribly relevant to the biography anyway. Input from uninvolved editors would be helpful. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The user making the changes gives no explanation, has not raised any issues on the Talk page, and is employed by the subject, since subject is chairman of the company that owns the IP. To me, this is not edit warring, but vandalism and clear COI. The disputed edits are well-sourced, and since they involve subject's reaction to a remark about the matter for which the subject is best-known, clearly relevant. I believe action should be taken, but in the spirit of full disclosure, I admit I have already reverted some of these changes as vandalism. ubiquity (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Merck IP is edit-warring (with no edit summaries) in violation of clear policy. I reverted content per WP:COI, WP:VERIFY, WP:MOS, and WP:COPYVIO (a straight copy-and-paste). Fortunately, the article has just been protected for two weeks. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This matter appears resolved. 155.91.28.231 has been blocked for one month. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

POV concerns regarding Adrian Lamo (from Adrian Lamo)
I've nominated my own article for review of neutrality, POV and tone, for reasons which I've outlined here.

Because I am a controversial public figure who cannot be considered truly objective regarding my own article (although I have made a good-faith effort to be) I am posting this to the noticeboard in order to invite preemptive community review of potentially controversial proposed changes.

I welcome any input.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have a (very) good reason as to why you are editing your own article? GiantSnowman 17:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, and he has added his reasons (as he sees them) to the article's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Raising concerns on the article talk page or at a noticeboard are the best way to deal with any issues; not editing the article himself. GiantSnowman 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the policy position on article subjects editing their own articles is that the primary concern is the neutrality and verifiability of the content the subject adds or modifies. My roughly 80 edits to this article since 2005 (it's existed since 2001) are 1.5% of my total edits on the English Wikipedia - hardly indicative of someone here to push POV on their article. Like any other article on the system, I've made sure my edits are sourced and objective, and heeded community consensus.
 * I don't mean to seem difficult, I just don't think someone calling attention to their thoughts for article changes on the noticeboard is quite the COI issue you may feel it is. :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Raising concerns on the article talk page and this noticeboard is exactly what he has done.


 * If it would make you any happier, I'll remove the neutrality check template, and then re-add it myself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

davil silva
teh total number of goals is wrong. I don't know if the spreadsheet works or not, but the total is wrong and when you change a figure the total doesn't change automatically (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.60.144.66 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like that table is just a table, and does not calculate the totals for you. You may wish to correct them yourself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very Serious People
User:CartoonDiablo created an article called Very Serious People in May of 2012 and almost immediately added a picture of Paul Ryan with the statement (unattributed) "Paul Ryan has been called "the quintessential Very Serious Person". CartoonDiablo stated in the creation of the article that this was a "sarcastically derogatory phrase"  This would appear to be a pretty clear violation of WP:MUG and thus WP:BLP.  The image serves no purpose other than to prominently note that a blogger doesn't seem to like Ryan all that much.

How this passed AfD I don't know, since it seems to be used primarily by Paul Krugman to denigrate people that simply disagree with him, but that aside, there is no reason to include a picture of Paul Ryan simply to denigrate him based off the words of a couple of bloggers and Paul Krugman who is not shy about his dislike of Ryan either. Arzel (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Denigrate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  Adding: my post was a response to a misspelling above, now changed.  No biggie... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we put an image of Dan Quayle in the potatoe article under etymology? WP:mug may apply here unless we include more than one image of VSPs with sources that they are such.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a BLP issue per MUG.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been avoiding US politics issues since my beer can/firewood rant. Would someone like to rem the image pending consensus of including many or none?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of listing people as violating BLP. If an article like Feminazi can list living people I don't see how this would violate that. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, but perhaps that bears examination as well.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon examination of both of these articles, the listing of sourced examples (read persons identified) are not BLP. The image issue however is clearly a BLP violation as the photo is used out of context.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bad idea to have lists of people in this manner. The extraordinary focus on Ryan in the wording is, however, undue.  It appears to be the view of one person, and from the sources given, similar wording could be applied to others, which is even a worse idea.  Arzel (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So we're meant to have an article on "VS People" but not give any examples of the sort of people the term has been applied to? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the definition, there is no need for a list of people that some people think are such. However, I simply think it is a bad idea.  Focus on the second part of my statement.  Arzel (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally. I think this is a Very Stupid Phrase. But we do have RS examples, so it's not BLP to include them.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said that the list of a BLP issue. I think part of it was WP:UNDUE and I don't think it is neccessary, but this was not the focus of my creating this section.  Arzel (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO this is not a BLP issue; we have numerous such articles, see Category:Pejorative terms for people, and many of them include lists of examples of who the term is applied to. However, I think a photo of one of the targets is inappropriate and gives undue weight to that one person, out of many to whom the term is applied. So my opinion is: keep the article and the list of people, but not the photo. --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, it would be much better to use non-living people as examples. Since most pejoratives have been around for a long time, I see no justifiable reason for using living examples when deceased ones should be readily available. Yworo (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This may be a case where BLP policy/guidelines clash with censorship ones. Images of dead people and only blue links to living ones?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Another thing to note here, is we cannot use the instance of name-calling as a source. That's an editorial opinion and a primary source, not in itself either a reliable source or making the incident a notable event. For a living person, the source would have to be an uninvolved and neutral third-party reporting on the incident of name-calling. This should reduce the lists of living examples considerably. Yworo (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing the photo, but not because of WP:MUG. The description for the photo says it shows Ryan giving a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference. From the background and the way he's dressed, I can believe that. He wasn't dragged out of bed and photographed against his will. I'm sure there are more flattering photos of him, but it doesn't resemble a mug shot. His hair is combed and he could have put on make-up had he wanted to. I agree that the article gave too much emphasis to Ryan and that if there are to be photos in it, they shouldn't be of just one person, or for that matter, people from one political party. — rybec   02:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:MUG is not reserved for actual mug shots. Arzel (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. When I said it doesn't resemble a mug shot, I meant that it isn't even similar to one. I was also trying to make the point that a politician giving a speech at a conference expects to be photographed. You never explained why you think WP:MUG pertains. — rybec   00:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The real problem with the passage is the use of the passive voice. Actually, it seems to be problem throughout the article. Reading between the lines, it appears to be a term of ridicule specifically targeting conservatives. It would make as much sense to put up Krugman's picture saying "this guy calls other people 'VSP' a lot." The whole thing needs to be much more up front about who is calling whom this name. BTW, I don't think this particular picture is a problem; it's the context which is an issue. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the term is not directed at "conservatives". Not at all. It is targeting people who are generally accepted by the media and the common wisdom to be sages, voices of wisdom, moderates - "Washington insiders that the political establishment respects and listens to" - but who often promote ideas that Krugman, Benen and the others believe are wrong-headed or foolish, such as austerity during a down economy (a bipartisan pursuit these days), financial deregulation, etc. You could say they are promoting some conservative ideas, but they are not identified either by themselves or by others as conservatives. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The picutre draws WP:UNDUE attention to Paul Ryan, who would seem to be the primary target of Krugman. Arzel (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Has anyone described Ryan as extremely serious? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As that is an irrelevant question, I doubt it needs an answer. WP:BLP seems all-encompassing, and that is what needs to be discussed:  Do images also need to meet the WP:BLP strictures about claims?  And is "X called Y a (name)" a "contentious claim" ?   And extreme example is the "santorum" campaign - where AfD found the "campaign" to be notable, but using it as a claim about a specific person was subject to BLP concerns. Collect (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it falls under that section of BLP. He was, in fact, called a name; that's not contentious in the sense of someone doubting whether it is true.
 * The reason it shouldn't be in the article is that even true things don't necessarily belong in an article, which is a different part of BLP. For instance, WP:BLPGOSSIP says that we should consider whether "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."  (Of course this isn't an article directly about the subject, but the BLP policy later clarifies that it applies everywhere.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Questions: I'd like board regulars to help me understand the labeling of BLP when an article is not about a single person and doesn't mention or disparage the names of specific people. I'd politely ask that those already engaged in discussion (above or at AfD:VSP or AfD:BDS) hold fire while I get the opinions of people who normally maintain this useful resource noticeboard. My question: "Would an article like Very Serious People (version) or Bush Derangement Syndrome (current version) violate BLP if one or neither included the names of individuals classified?" Another: "How can an article which is expressly not about one individual or group of specific individuals fall under the heading of BLP?" I reiterate my civil request for those already engaged in the discussion above or in the named deletion discussions NOT to answer my questions until other noticeboard regulars have helped clarify the answers for me. I'd like some third party guidance. (I'm hardly a newbie on en.wikipedia, was around during the entire BLP haggle, have done some citation myself on uncited BLPs, and I just see nothing in WP:BLP which covers these pages as I've described.) BusterD (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * [crickets chirp] BusterD (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's how I see it. BLP applies to any mention of a living person. It also requires strong sourcing. Op eds are not strong sourcing, they are a primary source for the editor's opinion being expressed. These facts combine to say that if an op ed says something which is intended as derogatory, we can't repeat it based on the op ed itself. If it becomes a big kerfluffle and gets reported in actual news articles, then BLP would be met and we could say something like, "In 2006, pundit called politician a marsupial. This led to a response from the politician in which he threaten to sue pundit for defamation." (sourced to news source). You see, the act of a pundit or other blogger coining a term to use derogatorily just isn't really notable - it's what they do - we may as well report that one day they were breathing. It's any result outside of opinion columns and blogs that would make the utterance significant and notable enough for mention. This is a result of how BLP interacts with our normal sourcing policies. Yworo (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have zero issues with User:Yworo's above interpretation of BLP policies. However, in the versions of the two articles I mentioned above, exactly zero living persons were mentioned as being a VSP (in the case of Krugman) or possessing BDS (in the case of Krauthammer). FTR, I'm not trying to re-argue either deletion discussion. I can accept when my opinion doesn't match consensus (which doesn't mean I'll roll over or fail to defend if I feel my position has merit). To the larger issue: How does BLP apply to classification articles when no living people are mentioned? As a side example, may I use the term Redneck? (not as OSE, but as a mere example) I'll begin by stipulating the term has far broader colloquial, cultural and historic usage, and that the page is appropriately sourced in a far superior way to my query examples. I notice that no living individuals are listed as belonging in the class of "redneck" except some who self identify. Would List of rednecks which included living people be a violation of BLP if it were appropriately and completely cited? Would the standard for sourcing be lessened if the list were restricted to only non-living individuals? Do you see what I'm getting at? How is it possible for an article to violate BLP if no living people are disparaged? BusterD (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

AfD closed as Redirect to Paul Krugman. David in DC (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wendy James
PLEASE UPDATE PROFILE. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANY RELEVANT RELEASES OR EVENTS, SINCE IT HAS BEEN FROZEN DUE TO STALKER INTERFERENCE. HOWEVER A MORE MODERN ACCOUNT OF SUBJECT WOULD BE HELPFUL

RE: Wendy James RE: Given the article is currently locked, the best course of action I can suggest would be to post to the talk page at Talk:Wendy James and post your suggestions there, in a brief summary form. If you add the following at the bottom of your suggestions (with the brackets at either end), it will flag it for attention and review by the community so they can consider updating your article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.231.154 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Veena Malik's year of birth


She's a Pakistani actress whose first movie was released in 2000. Typical for such articles, we have a very difficult time finding reliable sources amidst all the tabloid journalism about her.

(There is a past BLPN discussion about some FHM images of her here.)

We've had a dispute about her date of birth for over two years now: Talk:Veena_Malik. Recently an editor representing her, Merockys, has been trying to clarify why there are so many erroneous reports about her year of birth, wanting to correct it (as well as other information about her).

To date we've been leaving the information out of the article. Her official website until recently said she was born in 1984, there are numerous sources verifying that year, and she's been quoted saying, "My date of birth is 1984. I have my passport to prove it."

Numerous other articles verify a 1978 date, a few claim 1980.

is offering 1987 as the real year, and wants to provide a birth certificate (and perhaps the passport mentioned by the press as well?) to rectify the situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like her age is unclear, which is what the article should reflect. I don't think we should be accepting a scanned-in birth certificate in this case or encouraging one to be publicly posted. You can easily find clips from her 2000 film Tere Pyar Mein on YouTube, in which she is clearly not 12 years old and not, if we are being honest, 15/16 either. Formerip (talk)


 * Per WP:VERIFY, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." A scanned birth certificate or basing someone's age on opinions of how they look are major violations of WP:OR. If the birth certificate were published in a reliable source, then it could be used. ;) For the record, there have been numerous instances in which actors have been proven to be significantly younger or older than they appeared. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but not so significantly as has been suggested in this case. While it would be OR to source her age to an editors opinion, it is not OR to say that placing her age in 2000 at 12 or 15 would be an exceptional claim (to say the least), and would require exceptionally strong sourcing. Formerip (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're wrong in this case. Interestingly, there have in fact been numerous cases of significant age differences with actors, in terms of their character's age and their real age, where the discrepancies have been anywhere from 10 to 17 years! The discrepancy with the birth year of this actress is nine years (1978 to 1987). There was a huge debate in the media and on Wikipedia about the age of Jason Earles, who was approximately 30, but playing a teenager on Hannah Montana. There was a very similar story about Meredith Monroe who played Andie on Dawson's Creek, who played a teen kept it from the producers that she was much older. See this page for a great slideshow of examples of big character vs. actor age differences, which includes Earles and Monroe. In any case, the point is that even if it's obvious, we can of course never use our opinions as a reliable source. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Formerip, your initial advice ("It looks to me like her age is unclear, which is what the article should reflect") was excellent because it was perfectly in line with policy. Anything involving OR or opinions is a big no-no. And yes, as I stated in my previous post, WP:VERIFY clearly addresses the need for reliable sources, due weight, and a neutral point of view. If different reliable sources say different things, then simply state that in the article, but being sure to give due weight based on the number of sources for each age. If four reliable sources say someone was born in 1990, three say 1987, and one says 1986, then the context of the content needs to reflect that. The 1986 date should not even be used and the content should simply reflect the debate between the other two years. If there are numerous different years being used, in about the same numbers, then that fact can simply be stated with the relevant reliable sources attached. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:RS states, "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." As reported in WP:Inaccuracy, one of the factors is the age of the source.  Thus you can find a 1925 source that reports that there are eight planets, but to use such a source in a current article to "verify" that there are now eight planets is not good "editorial judgment".  Or perhaps you are counting the number of textbooks in the Library of Congress that report the number of planets as nine and conclude you can't report that there are now eight.  That is not good "editorial judgment".  Since I've seen JClemens argue to the "count the number of sources" guideline, there is more to this, but when you've got a small number of sources like here, you need to dig down and get more information.  If one WP:RS source says 1986, then editors are empowered to determine that the WP:DUE weight of the seven other sources is less than the one source that says 1986.  For each source you need to decide if you will report it in Wikipedia's voice, report it as a quote with inline attribution, report it in a footnote, or conclude that the WP:DUE weight is insignificant.  Patterns of inaccuracies can be useful to our readers, so there is more here than finding The birth date.  WP:OR is a content policy, and decisions made on the talk page are not subject to content policy; thus the work product that goes on the article page must comply with content policy, but not the decision-making process.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, I thought your points about considering whether or not to report content in WP's voice, and about the benefit to readers of reporting inaccuracies, were great. However, your examples about the planets made me laugh since they're clearly not relevant to the situation with this young woman. Haha. In any case, I too often see content inappropriately being presented in WP's voice, as well as discrepancies worthy of inclusion improperly being left out. With this issue, I think it's important to lay on the table every truly reliable source available and evaluate them. Then decide on the most proper way to present it to readers. Btw, are there really nine planets now? :p 76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has worked on more than a few BLPs where the birth date is unclear, I've never heard of editors agreeing to present the conflicting dates within the article itself. It seems that would be a rather blatant BLP violation from my viewpoint. Can anyone offer some BLPs where it is done, preferably good articles or close? --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read at least two or three BLPs that contain age discrepancy content. Unfortuately, I can't remember who they are at the moment as I've read at least several hundred BLPs. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of BLPs, so I doubt you'll find anyone willing to go on a treasure hunt for ones that include age discrepancies, let alone ones that are "preferably good articles or close". Haha. I'd suggest you embrace policy and not run away from it. I would remind you of Unscintillating's wise words: "Patterns of inaccuracies can be useful to our readers, so there is more here than finding The birth date." The only thing that matters is that policy is followed, as clearly referenced above. If there is a notable discrepancy with the age of an entertainer, simply explain it and source it. Again, per WP:VERIFY, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Following this policy precisely can never be a BLP violation. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's how I would see this panning out. 1987 is completely implausible and there are no reliable sources for it. 1984 is also pretty implausible. The subject is on record as claiming this as her year of birth, but she is a reliable source only for what she has said, not for her date of birth, per WP:SPS. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for the subject, but it is not unknown for actresses to tell white lies about their age. 1978 is plausible. But the question is then about how solid the sources for that date are. Are they solid enough so that we can state it as fact (for example, in the infobox). If so, then we have our answer. If not, then we should say something like: "Sources conflict as to the year of Malik's birth. It has been reported as being 1978, but she has said that she was born in 1984". Formerip (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which years you personally believe are plausible or implausible does not matter one bit. What's relevant are what reliable sources say. And, yes, if there's clearly a notable discrepancy about her age but the subject herself is reliably-sourced saying her birth year is 1984, then put exactly that in the article; that she said her birth year is 1984 (along with what the other reliable sources are saying). But of course it would not be listed (as a fact) in the lead or infobox because of the discrepancy. I think everyone knows what needs to be done here. So just do it. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is the only solution I've ever seen - leave the material out. As I pointed out, I think it's a blatant BLP violation to present multiple dates. Anyone want argue why it is not? Maybe we should just track down similar discussions? --Ronz (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "recommendation"? Uh, you're the OP, so you're the one who came here seeking recommendations. I'm not sure why you brought this matter here if you're going to simply ignore clear policy and the feedback of other editors. It sounds like you already had your mind made up from the outset and were simply hoping that you could come here and get others to agree with you. You keep repeating this unexplained, illogical belief that following the policy would be a "blatant BLP violation", yet fail to acknowledge that it's precisely what WP:VERIFY instructs you to do. No one has ever told you to add false information to the article. Rather, you have been advised that if there is indeed a notable descrepancy with regard to the subject's age, to simply present those reliably-sourced discrepancies for balance and reader clarity, and not to put an age (birth year) in the lead or infobox. Once again, per WP:VERIFY, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." I'm not sure why you refuse to accept this policy. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to leave it out. It's the simplest solution and it's consistent with policy in the sense that we are under no obligation to include information and parrot contradictory sources. In reality though I don't think that would work. People will always try to add date of birth/age information (see the history of the Haifa Wehbe article for a tedious ongoing example). Something like 'her year of birth has been variously reported as X, Y, Z.[refs]' seems okay. Obviously the article can't include any analysis/discussion of the contradictions by Wikipedia editors. Perhaps there is a sensible secondary source out there that cares that does discuss/analyse the discrepancies.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 15:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Choosing to hide a clearly notable discrepancy in a BLP is the wrong way to go. Anyone familiar with this actress is fully aware of the debate about her age and the conflicting information she herself has provided on her own Twitter. While there have been questions about the age of many entertainers, a relative few of these descrepancies have risen to the level of notability. This one is certainly notable. When you have a much-discussed controversy like this, it needs to be addressed in the article. Otherwise, many readers will come to the article and say, "I can't believe there's no content about something as prominent as the debate about her age! How can they ignore such a big issue surrounding this person?" As Unscintillating said earlier in this discussion, "Patterns of inaccuracies can be useful to our readers, so there is more here than finding The birth date." He's absolutely right. This issue isn't about what her actual age or birth date is; it's about the reliably-sourced controversy about her age, which is clearly worthy of inclusion in the article. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence in the form of secondary sources that discuss this debate about her age at the meta-level to demonstrate that it is a 'prominent' debate' and a 'much-discussed controversy'. If it is the case that this is a 'much-discussed controversy' then we don't need to discuss it here. The sources that discuss this controversy can be cited, thus rendering this discussion redundant.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP has already alluded to the notable discrepancy, which is why he brought it here. And there's been a two-year debate about it on the article's talk page. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless there is evidence that anyone cares, and I mean RS, not Wikipedia editors, it's not notable, not prominent, not a debate, and not a much-discussed controversy, it doesn't matter.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, if a particular topic isn't notable per reliable sources, it shouldn't be included. The OP's premise is that this discrepancy is reliably-sourced, which is precisely why he came here. And the advice being given to add the content is based on that premise. For the record, it is not of course a talk page discussion that makes an issue notable; it's reliably-sourced information presented in that discussion that makes it notable. Again, ignoring a significant discrepancy is not the way to go. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Obviously, if a particular topic isn't notable per reliable sources, it shouldn't be included." Then I think we're done here.
 * No, I never said or meant to suggest that the discrepancy is notable in any way. On the talk page I wrote, "I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to try to resolve this, but we can try." The purpose of starting this discussion was to address Merockys' concerns in the context of the relevant past discussions and editing history. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. Then continue discussing it on the article's talk page. :P Btw, I recall a website displaying tweets by Malik about the age discrepancy, which explained that her mother and grandmother told her different birth years (1984 and 1987). 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As i mentioned i talk page the confusion started when she did a show in India and as she was from Pakistan(due to no proper reps in india) they put an erroneous date and since it was a 'hit' show, all press/media picked up details from there. It was also negligence on Ms Malik's part that she did not try to clarify things actively. Also the first film Tere Pyar Mein she did at only 13-14. I believe there would be no way that we can come to a decision if you go by sources present now and rather feeding more confusion on her age we should wait as more reliable sources report things. The latest one being this http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Veena-Malik-wants-to-break-four-more-records/articleshow/18953268.cms --Merockys (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great, reliable source. It's from four days ago. Clearly, you can say that she says she was born in 1987 (26 Feb, which is not in dispute) and attach the source. Her official website also states that date. Also, this website displays a tweet of hers that indicates she was born in 1987; the tweet was posted on 16 Feb 2012 and she says she's 24 (at that time). So all those sources have her saying she was born in 1987. The only unknown is what her actual age is. Haha. She sure looks older than 26, but fortunately that's not for editors of Wikipedia to determine; we can only go by what reliable sources tell us. And what's most important is that the subject herself has consistently reported that she was born in 1987. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have given a suggestion on the article's talk page to show exactly how the content can be added to the article, in line with policy. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How's that in line with any policy, much less BLP? --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's been made abundantly clear to you by multiple editors. As the talk page discussion indicates, you now stand alone in your opinion. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can't explain yourself, you won't change consensus. And please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that would certainly be a first for Wikipedia; an editor who ignores multiple clear policies and stands alone in a talk page discussion claiming he has consensus. You really need to stop this intransigence. Your continual citing of inapplicable guidelines can be considered disruptive editing. It's about time to make the changes per the agreement of the other editors and put an end to this issue. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, who's claiming consensus? It's you.
 * If you believe any guidelines don't apply then participate in the discussion about them, rather than declaring consensus. --Ronz (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe my participation regarding your statements here and at the talk page is abundantly clear to any editor reading them. Continually deflecting the fact that no one agrees with you at the talk page is not helping your cause. Btw, I'm not sure why you're refusing to answer Unscintillating's question at the talk page, but it's not a good indication of your willingness to participate in the solution with other editors. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Versus your saying, "We perhaps have consensus. Ronz now stands alone in his position. " . --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. I'm not sure if you realize it, but you just reinforced my point. Anyway, we see that you still have yet to answer Unscintillating's question at the talk page. It's disappointing that you're unable to work with all the other editors who've done a great job of working towards a compromise solution. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to stop making claims and assumptions of others, and follow WP:DR and WP:CON instead. How about it? --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone can read the discussion to see what's going on, my friend. Again, continually citing inapplicable guidelines is not helpful. You still haven't answered Unscintillating, which is very curious to the participating editors. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ronz, I see that a few minutes after your prior post here you responded to Unscintillating. While I appreciate that you finally answered his important question, it would have been more productive to do it in the article's talk page discussion, where he asked it, rather than covertly doing it on his talk page where other editors would not be aware of it. It's very difficult to have a discussion that's going on in three different places, so I'd suggest limiting it to the article's talk page. There's really no point in keeping this thread open since the article's talk page is clearly where this matter is now being handled. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Could an editor settle this by providing a birth certificate and passport?
As I originally mentioned, Merockys has offered to provide her birth certificate and passport for verification. Since I very much doubt we will be able to find electronic versions of these documents or similarly definitive documentation, would it be acceptable to use Merockys' scans as verification? --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it would not pass our basic sourcing policies (the source would not be reliable and the material would not be verifiable). Formerip (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ronz, stop this nonsense by violating WP:MULTI and purposely posting comments about this matter in numerous forums at the same time. It is highly inappropriate and disruptive, as you've been told repeatedly. Your question is merely a distraction. You know full well, as it was clearly explained previously, that using scanned documents like birth certificates and passports is a gigantic violation of policy. Formerip already explained this to you at the beginning of this discussion, and you know it. Yet once again, he has to repeat this editing 101 policy to you. I suggest you fully educate yourself on WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFY, WP:OR. Finally, this discussion, as you've been told by FreeRangeFrog and others, must take place at one forum. So please stop these very distracting tactics in order to avoid participation in the talk page discussion. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FreeRangeFrog had other things to say as well. Let's not overlook them, "Just omit the birth date from the bio and call it a day. When you have an unambiguous and uncontested secondary source then add it back in. We routinely omit birth dates from bios for this very reason. In fact there are examples of that very thing on BLP/N right now. Just exclude it."
 * Likewise we shouldn't overlook Sean.hoyland recommendation to keep it out.
 * And let's not overlook that Merockys has a direct conflict of interest in the matter.
 * Not that this is a vote, but I agree with FreeRangeFrog and Sean.hoyland - just exclude it until far better sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 76.189.111.2, if inclusion arguments have failed to convince an experienced and sensible editor like Ronz, there is probably something wrong with the arguments. Ronz isn't on their own. I agree that this material could and ideally should be left out. Not putting worthless contradictory crap in an encyclopedia, doing no harm, and not participating in PR, especially when it comes to BLPs, is a sensible approach. However, I do accept that the strong urge many people have to put garbage in Wikipedia usually outweighs a sensible encyclopedic approach, especially when it comes to celebs, so arguing for exclusion may be futile. Either way, there's no rush, the information can be absent for as long as it takes and it doesn't matter at all other than from a PR perspective. Also, your confrontational attitude isn't helping.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not useful to see an official document, that's a primary source by definition. The date should just be omitted from the bio if we don't have a reliable source for it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, have you read the discussions? We have three sources where Malik gives the same birth date. Hello? That doesn't mean it is the actual birth date, but it verifies that she says it is. And you want to simply ignore this fact and hide it from readers? No one is saying to put it as fact in the lead or infobox, but simply to add content to the body in some fashion that explains what she herself has stated repeatedly. In terms of the other discrepancies from various media sources, that discrepancy in itself is what is being suggested should be included in a format in line with WP:VERIFY, as explained numerous times in this debate. FreeRange, I'm sorry to see that you're perpetuating the violation of WP:MULTI. Ronz has taken this discussion to five or six different forums. Sean, do "experienced and sensible" editors ask if it's acceptable to use a scanned birth certificate and passport as a reliable source? Haha. Please, let's tone down the rhetoric. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Skullphone
Needs watchlisting, just created two days ago, street artist bio (passes GNG and ARTIST), usual puffery, copyvio, press releases, SPS, overreffing and such like. I have pruned all this down to the encyclopaedic, verifiable stuff (feel free to edit further if necessary), but I do feel that a few more eyes would be helpful as I'm sure the page creator will come back and freak and probably try to reinstall all the stuff I have removed, so a few fellow BLPers watching would be great. Oh and anyone know how to recenter the infobox image, it moved slightly off-center when I forced the image size down? Cheers!  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is some fine pruning. I fixed the infobox for you, just adjust the image size if you want it to be smaller. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fix, couldn't see the wood for the trees! Well thanks too, now it stands as a readable, balanced artist bio I hope, without all the usual "padding".  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

wesley weber


Wesley Weber and Shawn Lesperance were not sanctioned for stock market fraud. The biographical reference is inaccurate. There were no findings of fraud. Instead the Respondents engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest by:

i.engaging in unregistered trading and advising without the availability of exemptions in breach of sections 25(1)(a) and 25(1)(c) of the Act; and ii.breaching sections 122(1)(a).

Section 25(1)(a) is as follows :

Unless a person or company is exempt under Ontario securities law from the requirement to comply with this subsection, the person or company shall not engage in or hold himself, herself or itself out as engaging in the business of trading in securities or derivatives unless the person or company,

(a) is registered in accordance with Ontario securities law as a dealer; or

Section 122(1)(a) is as follows :

"Every person or company that,(a) makes a statement in any material, evidence or information submitted to the Commission, a Director, any person acting under the authority of the Commission or the Executive Director or any person appointed to make an investigation or examination under this Act that, in a material respect and at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is misleading or untrue or does not state a fact that is required to be stated or that is necessary to make the statement not misleading;"

Source

The re-write should read :

After release from prison, Weber began trading equities for a living and breached the Ontario Security Act Sections 25(1)(a) by regarding himself as a trader without being registered, in accordance with Ontario securities law, as a dealer, as well as section 122(1)(a), making a misleading statement to the commission by continuing to trade even though he was prohibited to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMyung7500 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but we cannot interpret (or accept interpretations) of legal documents, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, if you have a reliable secondary source that supports your proposed change, we'll be more than happy to work with it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the disputed material until such a time as an appropriate source is found. I've also removed other unsourced statements about living persons from the same article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Selma Botman article editorial policy concerns


As the creator of this subject's biographical sketch, I seek help concerning the editorial warring, COI, and neutrality issues that have become an issue in both the text of the article and its Talk section. Since I have a COI as a former colleague and as a subject within some of the cited articles, I would deeply appreciate the help of disinterested editors in resolving the contentious and increasingly bitter personal disagreements over content among the editors. The Talk section of this article also deserves attention, both for possible violations of neutrality, respect for other editors, civility, and self-admitted bias. The subject of this article deserves an evenhanded, dispassionate article that reflects the principles of BOLP. Please help restore the orderly development of this article by the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptortx (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this. There seems to be some really serious edit warring going on there - as far as I can see WP:3RR has been trampled a few times already. I've requested the article be protected, and once it is, I will bring it down to the bare minimum (meaning anything that can actually be sourced) and ya'll can work it out on the talk page, although I see there hasn't been a lot of consensus there either. That level of messing around with a BLP (by both sides) is unacceptable. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * She is apparently a somewhat controversial figure and there is clearly some ax(e) grinding going on here.--ukexpat (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On both sides, I agree. I saw the comments re: deletion, I don't necessarily disagree with that avenue at this point, but I'm not 100% sure she doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. I'm really bad at the whole h-index thing. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 19:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me that she meets criterion #6 of WP:ACADEMIC as a former president of of the University of Southern Maine.--ukexpat (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Phil Ranstrom
If someone has time to take a look at this article (and the article about the documentary), it would be appreciated. I just blocked a user who added material claiming that Ranstrom is a convict. An edit war ensued with SPAs removing the material and the now-blocked editor adding it back. The article itself, though, is a mess. Most of the sources are either dead (they need to be marked as dead) or unreliable. The whole thing is weird. The only reason I even think the documentary exists is because it's being sold at Amazon. Obviously, a fluff article is better than a BLP-violating article, but perhaps we could end up with a decent article, or no article if that's appropriate. I'd like to retain the ability to act administratively with respect to the article and its editors, or I would try to figure this all out myself. Also, I want to go to bed. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Puff pastry isn't as delicous. That and the wiki linked film articles need much better sourcing, as well as having the prose toned down.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 04:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, very fluffy. I'll see if I can get the clean up started.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I've cleaned it up. Its now a stub with two valid citations. The question is now: is he notable. My preliminary search says no. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for a single nomination without a win, and if he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG then it's AFD time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Chris Benz


Edit warring over accusation by a photographer against a designer. Reliability of source may come into play. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * has been blocked for edit warring and violating WP:3RR. The source is reliable, and the addition of the paragraph is well within WP:BLP. Thanks for reporting it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks FreeRange; I'm less sanguine. Apparently no legal action has been engaged, and this was borderline newsworthy to begin with. Barring any follow up I don't think it's noteworthy, and an accusation of illegal activity had better have recognized merit for inclusion in a BLP. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked this section of the article to better reflect due weight. (The instrument I used to "tweak" it was a machete.) This has also had the side effect of removing mention of accusations of illegality from our article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That... that was definitely a machete :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Demiurge, I think that's an improvement. I don't think it belongs at all, any more than do thousands of dutifully covered accusations made against notable personalities. That's not said solely to protect the accused, but the accuser as well; if she's a non-notable whose claim is either dropped or found unwarranted, her name needn't be in someone else's biography. If no charges have been filed it's hard to imagine its significance here. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has been in with the Agent Orange! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey M. Smith
This short BLP has been tagged as sounding like a resume because (edit summary) [the editor does not feel that] "an encyclopedic biography needs to list every passing mention in the press, or every conference attended, or every tv appearance". I could do some clean up but I'm an involved party and the article is slightly controversial --though there are no edit wars or open talk page discussions at present. So...... if anyone here has a few minutes to give it a glance, make some edits or give some feedback, it would be deeply appreciated and I would be happy to return the favor if anyone needs a pair of fresh eyes or clean up assistance on an article they are working on. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bo Ryan -- Grinch problem
There was a lead image of Bo Ryan extensively comparing him to the Grinch, which I removed, and there are repeated edits calling him the Grinch or a vampire; see here and here, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, the article was semi-protected and the image was deleted from WP:COMMONS. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Robert Eringer
This article is currently dominated by a controversy section filled with accusations and court judgements against Eringer. I would appreciate some more eyes to look at this section and its sources, to make sure it is in compliance with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It appears that Eringer may in fact be notable mostly for his controversial activites, so it's not so outlandish to have a large portion of the article be about controversy. But it still gives me unease. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Vahan Chamlian


Article seems to be promotional. It is mostly the positive aspects taken from the LA Times article cited, with all negative or critical content removed. For example, Chamlian flies in a private jet while paying employees $189/week and refusing to visit his factory floors. (Defamatory BLP-content removed, can't find appropriate template!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.214.59.250 (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * After checking, and minor tweaks for punctuation, readability and syntax, the OP seems to have an axe to grind or just objects to this person. The article is concise, encyclopaedic, respects the sources, doesn't give undue weight to a minor fact (not visiting the factory floors), and is definitely not promotional, it just tells it like it is. Next! (or see above if you're looking for some juicy bios to prune).  Captain Screebo Parley! 12:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lill-Babs


"Lill babs is still going strong"

Looks like it's a self-promotional page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.10.246.10 (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm no, that's a very notable actress. Not sure what you're talking about. The article has a complete lack of inline citations though. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is indeed correct, there was plenty of overly-promotional material, reads like it's been written by a fan (or more) and that, combined with the lack of references, means I have pruned it completely. GiantSnowman 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I get that, but the woman is 75 years old. It's not like she's advancing her acting career or spamming Wikipedia for financial gain. The bio is 9 years old, and we don't necessarily know what the references in there support or not. There was no contentious material. Wouldn't it have been better to maybe post in the talk page asking for a good refactor, and then stub in a week or so if no response? § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm from the 'stub first, ask questions later' school of editing. I reason that removing unreferenced, possibly dodgy content on articles, and then re-adding later, is better than leaving it while we try and find references i.e. we should find references, and add material which compliments them, rather than adding content and then trying to find sources which backs it up. GiantSnowman 21:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Duns (again, sorry)


Hi. I'm an author. I also dislike sockpuppetry and plagiarism. So I write books and articles. And I have also discussed several cases of sockpuppetry and plagiarism. Because I dislike sockpuppets, and refuse to use fake identities online, my Wikipedia page is, naturally, a massive open target for sockpuppets. They can present me in a way they wish to, as a shrill witchhunting accuser with too much time on my hands for 90 percent of the entry on me, and then, oh, I happen to be a published author and journalist. If I attempt to correct this in any way under my real name, I'm a diva writer 'begging' to have my Wikipedia entry deleted. A national newpaper in the UK already contacted me about just that last time I raised this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive168#Jeremy_Duns The advice I was given then wasn't that useful for me, as it took these two forms, pretty much:

1. Complain to Wikipedia by writing to them directly, thereby wasting a great deal of your time, because even if you're successful, which is highly unlikely, any sockpuppet can just do the same thing all over again next week.

2. Well, hey, you have exposed some sockpuppets and plagiarists. So eat up whatever agenda pseudonymous strangers with clear conflicts of interest in your career choose to write about you. That's how Wikipedia works!

Is it, really? A new user called 'BookLoverBrit' has made a number of edits to my page and others'. All their edits are very blatantly designed to paint a more negative picture of me. I do not want to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with them and other editors about why I feel the edits aren't accurate or weighed appropriately. It would take a long time, as they will be persistent - using a fake identity they have nothing to lose. I do have something to lose, as the argument can then be pointed at (as can even this comment) as me being overly-sensitive, begging Wikipedia to remove negative material about me, and so on. That is an assymetrical argument. And even if I did spend ages pointing out that someone who jumps to add blog entries disagreeing with me but removes entries that do agree with me pretty obviously has an agenda, and convinced someone I was talking sense and reverted all this stuff out of my entry so it reads rather more soberly... what would be the point? They or someone else can wait a week, log in as someone else from another computer, and do it all over again.

My entry at the moment argues that it is notable that I accused the American novelist Lenore Hart of being a plagiarist. And yet Lenore Hart doesn't have a Wikipedia entry. Why is it necessary I have one?

Is Wikipedia's position really that I am just going to have to repeatedly battle infinite numbers of sockpuppets niggling away at my account from now until forever? That seems a little crazy, frankly. And extremely frustrating! JD Jeremy Duns (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I'm being dense, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking of us here. I was tempted to remove all these "controversies" outright before I realized the sources they are backed up with are, to put it mildly, impeccable (except your blog, which I removed). They are hardly contentious towards you. That is, they're not negative other than towards the people you seem to have accused of plagiarism. Which you most certainly did. If you feel they represent undue weight in relation to the rest of the bio we can certainly reduce all that to a single paragraph, but I don't see how removing them completely would be fair or neutral. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're being dense, but I don't think you can possibly have weighed the entry and all the sources in 12 minutes! You can't even have had time to read the sources. Instead, you went right in and changed my url. I saw that the article linked to my official website, jeremyduns.com. I decided several months ago to let that domain name lapse, and tranferred all the material from it, about my books, articles, interviews and so on, to jeremyduns.blogspot.com. Plenty of authors use blogspot and other such sites as their official sites, but fine, remove it, change it, whatever! It is, though, my website, and it is by me, so I fail to see how it's any less official because Google owns the domain and not someone else. But regardless of your rapid interest in that edit, which proves my point that it is really impossible for me to argue my case without people presuming the worst of me (I was correcting a minor error in my entry!), the problem is yes, about undue weight. The wording of the entry is obviously contentious, for a start: 'Duns has been quoted in various publications accusing other authors of plagiarism and sockpuppetry.' Well, yes, that is true. But as you say, I have accused them. So 'Duns has accused other authors of plagiarism and sockpuppetry' would be more concise. But it's the second sentence in my Wikipedia entry, which is ratehr a lot of emphasis. This should, in my view, go down the page, ie after it has established *what I do for a living*. If I had written my Wikipedia entry - which I haven't! - I wouldn't write it this way, precisely because it's contentious. I'd fill out what it is I spend most of my days doing. So, sure, you can certainly find articles that mention me regarding plagiarism and sockpuppetry. If you only look for that. If you look for other things, you might find I've done other things: original research, some of which is already cited on Wikipedia, some of which isn't. The editor who added a whole section on what they titled 'Accusations by Duns' has only made edits to my entry and two other people I've exposed (Stephen Leather and Nate Thayer). None of them are saying 'Jeremy Duns is the Antichrist'. But all of them have an agenda of downplaying what these authors did, and painting me as a witchfinding troublemaker with an implication that I am falsely accusing people - the last is enabled by Wikipedia's rule of disallowing original research. If you read the Washington Times article cited on Lenore Hart, it doesn't state she is a plagiarist, but includes two passages that make it very clear to anyone with any sense she is one. I stated she was a plagiarist on my blog, but that doesn't count. So the reality, for anyone who looks at it properly, is that I proved that Lenore Hart was a plagiarist but that no newspaper dared say so and her publisher stood by her. That is translated into me accusing her of plagiarism, the wording of which makes it sound like it was a false accusation, because why not proved. Don't believe me? Read the passages in the Washington Times article and come back! I understand the reason fro not allowing original research, and for legal departments not stating this sort of thing, too - but what it means is that someone calling themselves 'BookLoverBrit' can, with no accountability at all, weigh the way most people will see me at a glance Googling.

I see you or someone else has now changed the emphasis, for which thank you! But the problem isn't likely to go away, is it? Wikipedia has a policy of allowing pseudonymous edits, with no credible or timely way of checking whether the editor has a conflict of interest in the way they place emphasis in an article. So someone else can do this in a different way next week, and back here I'll be. Ad infinitum. It's pretty frustrating, especially as most people who know nothing about me will come straight to the Wikipedia page, the fifth most visited site. So it's very influential. And rather than introducing me and then further down going into this, almost the first thing they'll learn is that I 'accuse' other authors, apparently full-time, apparently incorrectly, and that my actual career, which the entry was set up because I was (barely) notable enough to warrant it, is lost. So I feel like my reputation is being held hostage by Wikipedia's irresponsible policy of allowing pseudoymous unvetted strangers to edit. And that I'm going to have to spend years correcting sockpuppets messing with it.


 * I can see why Duns dislikes the article as it stands: it's mainly about the things he has said about other people, not mainly about him. The question, I think, is whether we can say more about Duns here.  Are there reviews of his own works, prizes, etc.?  If there was more about him, the big section on accusations towards others wouldn't look so big.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sure, there are tons of reviews of my work, in the national press. My first novel was a Daily Telegraph Thriller of the Year. I've discovered quite a few things about James Bond, including a screenplay by Ben Hecht. I've presented a BBC documentary showing how MI6 infiltrated the media during the Cold War. My next book is a non-fiction investigation of Oleg Penkovsky. I'm sure there's plenty to add. A lot of it's on my blog (which functions as my official website). I don't want to add it, and don't want to make the decisions about what are important in my career. But then... I don't really see why sockpuppets with a grudge against me should be the ones to make those decisions, either. As I've already indicated, I don't really see why I have an entry at all. Lenore Hart doesn't. I'm no more notable, and probably less so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Duns (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with you having some input into the article. The best way to do this, consistent with WP:COI, is to propose an addition on the "talk" page of the article: write some text based on the reviews, give the sources that support it (including links, if possible), and invite other editors' views on it.  The chances of adding it will be improved if you include some of the more critical things reviewers have said (don't just cherry-pick the good stuff).  I've put the article on my watchlist, so I'll see when you've done this and will then add it if it looks okay.  This is a much more promising path than deleting the stuff that's already there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I will do this now. Thank you. As for criticisms in the article, well, I guess I'm not really sure why giving a damn about ethics is presented as a bad thing, or that it justifies being criticized. I'm not wishing for a long Wikipedia entry singing my praises - I'd rather not have one at all, for the reasons given - but why can't it just be neutral? Surely plenty of people have neutral Wikipedia entries. Oh well, I'll give it a go. I hope it's reasonable. What do I do when it is inevitably changed around by some other pseudoymous editor in the future? Just keep coming back here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Duns (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, I have now added something to my Talk page - see what you think! And I see now that I misunderstood what you meant about criticism, as you were referring to reviews of my novels. I don't really think positive or negative reviews deserve to be quoted in an encylopedia article, thinking about it, unless it's something exceptionally notable like Time saying you're the century's greatest novelist or Salman Rushdie saying you're the worst. So I haven't included reviews. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Duns (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Lavie
Lisa Lavie relies exceedingly extensively on youTube and "bloginity.com" as its sources. I am concerned that the first are self-published, and the second is a glossy blog site which does not appear at first blush to reach RS status (even though Bloginity has an article (AFAICT mainly by one editor and an "orphan article" and really poorly sourced if anyone wished to remove puff and refs which only show that Yahoo etc. have linked to it for entertainment blogs).  Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . That's awful.  Probably should be a message over at COI as well.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 12:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon investigation, the major contributor to this page (that needs a threshing machine taken to it) appears to be almost uniquely involved in promoting fairly obscure minor celebrities, with one or two more well-know names thrown in.
 * The editor in question has a tendency to load the pages with trivial, undue puffery, all the while overreffing the article to dozens of youtube clips, electronic press kits, webcite archives of the YT front page and so on, which makes sorting the wheat from the chaff a whole lot harder. Seems to be heavily involved in the promotion of:


 * and associated artists
 * and has also heavily edited the following, there is definitely overkill and undue weight in the Joel and Crosson bios, so feel free to have a browse and remove what you see fit.
 * and has also heavily edited the following, there is definitely overkill and undue weight in the Joel and Crosson bios, so feel free to have a browse and remove what you see fit.
 * and has also heavily edited the following, there is definitely overkill and undue weight in the Joel and Crosson bios, so feel free to have a browse and remove what you see fit.
 * and has also heavily edited the following, there is definitely overkill and undue weight in the Joel and Crosson bios, so feel free to have a browse and remove what you see fit.


 * Er, that's all for now!  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, that's all for now!  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, that's all for now!  Captain Screebo Parley! 14:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Lavie article sure is a mess. I'll note Mary Simpson (violinist) seems to have lots of weak sources, and Lauren Jelencovich relies heavily on cites to Yanni (related/interested party, duh) and her own interview, which do little to explain why the details and content are significant enough to take up as much of the article as they do (WP:WEIGHT through good sourcing). I'll pick at them if I have a moment. But please, don't wait for me! JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks, I will try and get back to these articles too, but I was just adding info to the OP's observations, so anyone with some spare time is free to have a crack.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Edgar Manucharyan


I am bringing this here because fails to understand WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - he continues to add unreferenced material about a living person, and remove valid maintenance tags. He refuses to provide any sources because he believes the stuff he is adding is "obvious" and that it is "ludacris" (sic) to expect references on an article. This is basic stuff and I am very concerned about this user's competence and understanding of our policies and guidelines. I have tried to discuss it with him on the article talk page (no response) and on his talk page (he still doesn't get it) so I am bringing it here for wider input please. GiantSnowman 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All that stuff they're trying to add is well and good, but it does need to be referenced and referenced well. I reverted his last revert (3RR here we come!). Hopefully he'll come over and talk to us. If not, well there's ANI. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to go to ANI anyway (he has been WikiStalking me and POINTily editing articles I have previously edited; another user has alreay picked him up on this) but I hope we can resolve this here. GiantSnowman 22:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowman wants sources for things that are already proven or clearly backed up. Some of the things he wants sources for are the birth place of the person and the honors won, clearly backed up by external links. Another is proof he left Club A even though he's currently playing for Club B. It's like he wants a source for every sentence. No article is that perfect. The talk between me and him is no longer productive and he's just wasting time. I'd almost consider it trolling. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you know there are sources that confirm place of birth, and honours won, then what's so hard about slapping a tag around it? But there's more than just that, and as I've explained other articles being in poor shape is no excuse for you to add unreferenced material to a living person's article. GiantSnowman 22:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * External links aren't supposed to be references, they are supposed to be other credible biography-like sites.
 * Because there is no rule that says every sentence needs a reference. There are such things as stubs and incomplete articles, I don't know why mine needs to be 100% perfect. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going round in circles here so I will let someone else try and explain why you need to reference biographies of living people - but just a quick aside, this is not your article as you claim above, see WP:OWN. GiantSnowman 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Mine = Article I am editing, as opposed to ones you edit, in which you do not use the same strict standards. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But I am editing this article as well...and so is FreeRangeFrog, who has reverted your additions as unreferenced. Why do you fail to see why your edits were not positive? GiantSnowman 09:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If your edits are positive, then so were mine on the Joe Hart article, but of course God forbid the English nationals be tampered with. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is just atrocious fan-addicted slavishness, FRF and GS are quite right in asking that it be more encyclopaedic, ok so he's a footballer, he's not Madonna, the article should reflect his (modest) contributions and nothing more.  Captain Screebo Parley! 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I could say the same about many English and French football player articles, but those are protected. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they're not, your accusations of bias are unfounded. GiantSnowman 15:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I am forbidden to remove content from those pages because the only reason I'd be doing so is to prove you wrong, I could have justifiably done so using the same logic as you. So you must accept your logic is false, and do it soon. This discussion is to mediocre to be taking days to settle.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow, I suggest you find references for each paragraph of text you'd like to add, and for any set of statistics like goals etc. Referencing every single sentence is of course not needed, and I'm among the last persons to cry for plenty of inline citations, but biographical articles of living persons are a special case that need special diligence when being edited. Anything in such articles that is questionable and unreferenced may be removed per our policy. You should also keep in mind that referencing is not done to please your fellow editors but to provide a service to the general reader who wants to avoid fact checking on their own and who expects to read an articles that is as reliable as possible. As Snowman said, if there are sources it's not hard to put them into tag.


 * That said, you should also consider whether adding any more personal information will improve the article. Sometimes less may be actually be more. De728631 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are only two unsourced paragraphs in my version, both under Pyunik. The first one just talks about Leagues and Cups won, things backed by external links and external articles. The second talks about an injury he had before going to Ajax. He still had the injury when he went to Ajax and it is mentioned again and sourced under Ajax. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there are far more than two unsourced paragraphs. There was 7000bytes of unsourced material removed! 16:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mostly from templates and honors. Didn't you yourself say on the James Dickey page they don't require sources? In fact, player honors are very rarely sourced because they provide links to the Cup or League won and the templates don't have anywhere to put them. I am sick of this stupid game. GiantSnowman is being an extremist and hypocrite editor who is clearly the wrong party here. If De728631 supports that not every single word needs a source, I am taking this as a sign that I am correct. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are clearly not correct, and the number of paragraphs added is totally irrelevant to this discussion either. Text added to articles about living persons needs to be supported by a reference in the article. And if other editors keep challenging your input then you are best advised to use inline references to back up your edits. Also, honors are especially in need of sourcing because otherwise one might think that you are only promoting the player by making up some trophies. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Crow, if anything, this thread shows that there is no support for your edits - so please do not re-introduce them. GiantSnowman 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Look at the complete lack of sources here. Would you delete it? Of course not. And De, if you are doubting the existance of the Armenian Premier League, Armenian Cup, Armenian Supercup and KNVB Cup, I'd say you have just thrown all your credibly out the window. This article has many sources confirming it's content. The only reason this discussion is still going on is because you both want to avoid the "Admin was wrong" result. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No-one is doubting the existence of those leagues/competitions, we are doubting Manucharayan's involvement with them i.e. where are the references that he was a top-scorer? Where are the references that he won those leagues/cups? etc. There will be no "Admin was wrong" result because I am not wrong - you are, as you have been told now by 4 or 5 different editors. Start listening, please. GiantSnowman 19:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If he was a member of Pyunik and Ajax at the time, then there is nothing to doubt. Again, no other article is judged this strictly. No one better think of touching the England team! Right? It's sad you cannot except you're wrong, because then you'll likely drag this on even longer.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is - just because you are contracted to a team, and they win a competition, does not mean that you win that honour. There are rules which stipulate that you must play in a minimum of games in a season to win a League winner's medal, for instance. Last time I'll say the following two points - there is no pro-England players bias here, and if you still think I am wrong, despite the consensus in this thread, then you need your head checking. GiantSnowman 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But that usually happens to players who spend their entire time playing for a team on loan. He was loaned by Pyunik in 2011 and loaned by Ajax in 2009 and 2010. I did credit him with anything those years.
 * And I still can't believe you Admins want to question to credibility of an article of over 30 sources when there are articles with none. And did you just make a personal attack about me being stupid? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone here is an Admin, you are ignoring the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I have never called you stupid. GiantSnowman 21:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Screebo is the only non-Admin and he has only given one statement. And yes, you clearly called me stupid, because I clearly said you are wrong (if you still think I am wrong ... you need your head checking), and therefore you clearly personally attacked me. I should report this to ANI. It wouldn't look good for someone who hasn't been an Admin that long. However, if you stop interfering with my edits on the Manucharyan article, I'll let it slip. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies if you were offended, that was not my intention - I simply meant to say that there would be no reason behind an editor editing in this manner in the face of such clear consensus. If you want to take to ANI, be my guest - but before you do so you might wish to read WP:BOOMERANG, given your POINTy editing and WikiStalking yesterday. GiantSnowman 22:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the only clear consensus is that the Manucharyan article is well sourced. By the way, and this is like the tenth time I've pointed this out, the external links confirm competitions (specificly soccerway.com) that Manu has won. This is what your said you are doubting and there is no doubt about it. What else do you doubt? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeeeeeez. No, there is consensus that the points you are trying to add into the article need sourcing, and that if those comments are sourced by external links, then cite in-line by adding tags - it's not hard. GiantSnowman 23:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have to. De728631 said not every sentence needs a reference and I think it would just look stupid and hard to read if it did. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "I suggest you find references for each paragraph of text you'd like to add" - something you have yet to do. GiantSnowman 17:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If I do that can I put my version back up? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No; given the number of times myself and other uses have removed your contributions from the article, I suggest you use the article talk page, where we can discuss the matter before adding it back. GiantSnowman 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wendy Williams


This article has a lengthy criticism section. While some of the criticism comes from reliable sources, some of it comes from questionable or unreliable sources (YouTube, Zap2It, EurWeb, News One, TMZ) or is completely unreferenced. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at removing the worst of it. Still needs more attention. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering the reputation of the subject in the biography, it can't be expected that the criticism wouldn't be lengthy. Most of the subject's career in question revolved around being a shock jock. In other words, she generated controversy to attract the ears of an audience. I'll address the reliable source issue first. News One comes directly from the channel TV One, so I'm not exactly clear on why its reliability is being called into question. As for Zap2It, the website is used widely as a hub of reliable information concerning the media, and ratings. If you look at some of the pages which describe the contention of television shows, such as Scandal and Desperate Housewives, and many more than that. Last time I checked, Eur Web reported on the news. The web site is http://www.eurweb.com/ and appears to be credible enough to satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG. Unfortunately, there was never an attempt to reach a consensus or discuss the issues on the subject's talk page, Talk:Wendy Williams. So, what may have seemed like "constructive" editing to the complaining user really came across as disruptive, particularly "Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Particularly, the removal of information that had been reliably sourced, such as " 19:51, 13 February 2013‎ Silver Buizel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,355 bytes) (+2,551)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: - Beyonce criticism was removed with reliable sources - IBTimes and STLA, both being WP:NEWSBLOG. Add sources from Huffington Post, ABC News and TMZ.) (undo)" After the user removed the the TMZ article, I made sure not to include anymore so as not to offend the complaining user. My first edit on the page starts on 14 December 2012 so the history of the changes from then until now can easily be reviewed from |Wendy Williams: Revision history. Silver Buizel (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

William Agee
Senior editors - Please review notes on the Talk Page of this article that I made on 16 March 2013, in which I noted that the name of a former spouse is repeatedly being added to the Info box. And in this case, 10 articles containing libelous statements were also added to References by a non-neutral party with a retaliatory motive. By some method, these articles were added and then protected so they couldn't be removed. I have removed the name of the former spouse from the Info box again but need help from qualified senior editors with a neutral point of view to evaluate and remove the recently added references containing defamatory and poorly sourced material. It can't be right or appropriate to allow an editor with an agenda to add 10 vindictive articles that are not needed to communicate an accurate biography and then prevent them from being removed. Locking the Info box would prevent editors with an agenda from constantly changing it. Thank you.Grateful41 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To all and sundry who post here Please link your articles, either by using the insert link button at the top of the editing window (the chains next to the pencil) or by copy-pasting the template at the top of your post, obviously replacing the name with the exact name of the article in question. Thanks, it makes it so much easier to help.  Captain Screebo  Parley! 13:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I second that request! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we not add this in to the page header info about instructions for posting here, or maybe even get the VP people to make it an automatic feature?  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just sourced the spouse thing (on both articles). § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Kalki Bhagavan
I expect this article has been here before. I closed down a minor edit war by temporarily restoring a couple of newspaper stories in this article, but can some one cast an eye on the articles I restored/linked to make sure they are appropriate. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Silver Buizel


I had a look at this editor's contributions after a complaint further up this page about some of the problematic content that was added to Wendy Williams.

I find it concerning that this editor is doing things such as;


 * creating new articles about living persons with already present at the top of the article when created


 * creating significant numbers of articles about living persons that are then subsequently deleted (see their talk page for a selection)


 * regularly adding material to BLPs with what seems to be a pre-prepared edit summary along the lines of "Sources include News One and US Magazine, satisfying WP:NEWSBLOG", "Sources include NY Daily News, Huffington Post and Zap2It, satisfying WP:NEWSBLOG", "Added Rachel Crow back with a news website and video clip of interview. Zap2It Blog also satisfies WP:NEWSBLOG, and is frequently used on Wikipedia" (there are what look to be dozens or hundreds of these in their contribs)


 * using Youtube videos as references.

Worth keeping an eye on, in my opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll address some of these "concerns" right now.

1. If there is a dearth of located material, the BLP source tags are included so if there are editors who find more information, they're open to include them.

2. Four of the articles I've created in the past were deleted. But there are many more that I've created which have met the criteria. Examples include Sonequa_Martin-Green, Jon Huertas, Gemma Chan and Vincent M. Ward.

3. Statements made in regards to [|Wendy Williams: Revision history] were made after another user on the page removed material under the pretext of not being reliably sourced when information came from reliable sources, many of which are used on other Wikipedia pages. An example, I will point to a statement in regards to one of the changes that was undone after reliable sources had been removed: "(cur | prev) 00:53, 12 February 2013‎ Silver Buizel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,013 bytes) (+2,832)‎ . . (Sources previously removed included CBS News and Fox News.)" and "19:51, 13 February 2013‎ Silver Buizel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,355 bytes) (+2,551)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: - Beyonce criticism was removed with reliable sources - IBTimes and STLA, both being WP:NEWSBLOG. Add sources from Huffington Post, ABC News and TMZ.) (undo)" Let the record reflect that when the other user complained, more reliable sources, such as the Huffington Post and reliable news outlets were added. Also remember that I am not responsible for the creation of the entire Criticism section. What you seem to have neglected mentioning in your post is that you left nearly all of the changes I made to the section in tact. In fact, you only removed one complete section I was responsible for creating, and that was the feud under Janet Hubert. The segment removed from Lil' Kim was not of my creation.

4. YouTube video was likely added as reference to prove the existence of a feud. It was probably mentioned somewhere in the edit history, perhaps to be used to show that there was in fact a feud. The offending section had been removed, so I thought providing a video might've sufficed. Silver Buizel (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Craft


The last two sentences of this article state facts that have not happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.177.236 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the sentences sourced to this article and this article respectively? If so, what's wrong with the sources? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ash Stymest
Please monitor for badly-sourced/BLP-violating edits. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Quin Snyder


A discussion has been opened on the conflict of interest noticeboard which probably belongs here (Quin Snyder article being censored by someone who claims Snyder as "client"). Strs2010 has removed some unsourced and obviously defamatory claims from that article in the past ( & ), so this appears to be less about conflict of interest and more about the usual inadequate policing of a biography. Perhaps someone interested in the professional basketball topic area would like to take a look at this one? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh... another failure of Wikipedia. I'll apply pending changes protection, since we've shown a clear inability to watch this page. (I've been monitoring lots of basketball articles myself, but this one fell through the cracks because it's not part of the broad categories I check regularly.) Zagal e jo^^^ 08:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've hidden those two revisions, because they really are gross. Zagal e jo^^^ 08:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that should probably take care of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've further pruned the article. GiantSnowman 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nasser_El_Sonbaty
He's dead, but the page is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrlord (talk • contribs) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And your point would be?  Captain Screebo Parley! 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is only semi-protected, which prevents editing by IP editors and non-auto-confirmed users. His death, with source, has been added to the page. Livewireo (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I guessed, but if people only wish to post semi-literate enquiries, oops a bit harsh, unclear requests, then we are not all mind-readers - a bit more information, linking to the article, the specific problem would all be helpful.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Upshaw


I just started an article about Jessica Upshaw. She served in the Mississippi House of Representatives and was a lawyer. Apparently, she was founded dead of a shotgun wound today although I did not put that in the article. I am not sure what revisions to the article will be done because of that. Still one needs to be sensitive. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. Watchlisted and will monitor it for problems. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Danso Gordon
Not sure how to best handle this, from a BLP POV. This link to my talk page lays out the issue. Basically there's a reference on the page to an article with a rather NPOV title. And that title is thus showing up in the page's reference section. I'm tempted to chop out the reference, given the NPOV title, but that would leave uncited the information that it cites. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no problem, the article title is in the reference section, and is immediately followed by another article from the same website recounting Gordon's change of heart concerning LGBT people. So we can't just strike it, the references reflect what was said about the people at the time.  Captain Screebo Parley! 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite as simple as that. One must consider the following - if the title is NPOV, is the article also NPOV? If that is the case, is it a reliable source? GiantSnowman 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks to be a blog to me, which would pretty much put the answer at "No", it's not a reliable source. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually not that simple, the first ref with the BLP-objectionable title was a blog post by a user on a pro-LGBT site, that does have editorial staff! And the second was by a named staff writer of the same site. So, after hunting i found an initial article about this issue, written by a staffer at AfterEllen (well the former editor-in-chief FWIW), so I updated the ref and added the reported reason for his leaving the show. Then, I tried to give balance to this fact by using the 2nd ref correctly and summarizing Gordon's change of heart - to me, important, as I'd heard of this vaguely here in Europe, but had never heard the rest of the story. I hope this is more acceptable to everybody, and suitably balanced. Tweak if you feel the need.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Joan McAlpine MSP
This article was recently vandalised with defamator information. It is a biography of a living person and therefore requiresmonitoring. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.168.11 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added the page to my watchlist and advised the editor that added the BLP violation of our rules against adding things like that. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are of course welcome to edit the article and remove whatever is inappropriate yourself. GiantSnowman 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Patricia MacLachlan (children's book author)


Mrs. MacLachlan did not lose her parents at early ages. Her father died in 2004 (he was 102.....http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=37108595)...and her mother died 1994 (she was 89)...http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=37108644

Mrs. MacLachlan also never lived in Minnesota. She moved from Cheyenne (her birthplace) to Storrs, CT when she was 9 after her father took a job at the University of Connecticut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.209.173 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just removed all the unsourced information, per WP:BLP. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Samson Satele


In the article it states that Samson Satele replaced Jake Grove as the teams 9th starting center in history. The Oakland Raiders became a team in 1960, and have definitely had more than 9 starting centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.241.125.33 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a source for that, you are welcome to add it to the article. This board is intended to report serious problems with biographies, rather than content issues. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the part about being the 9th starter in history. If anybody has a source for this, please feel free to read. --Malerooster (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Rodney Glunder
I just removed a paragraph from this article about a drug arrest as it was completely unsupported by the cited reference. I'd appreciate if some other editors could help me got through the references of this article, as a lot of it is quite negative. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I just removed some questionable categories. I agree that the material about his friends arrest is questionable as well. What do others think? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jim Sterkel
An anonymous donor donated money to name the Galen Center court which has been attributed to a man named "B. Wayne Hughes." I removed it a day ago as it was unsourced and against this man's wishes to be named (the column cited extensiverly only calls him 'Anonymous') but it's been added back in there. I'm not very aggressive, so I'm wondering if 1) this violates BLP and 2) how much I should fight to keep this name out of the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly more than moderately aggressive, so I've decided that it makes an assertion about a living person without a source, so it can't stay. Rather odd situation though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Isha Judd
Isha Judd (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.11.4 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't quite know what you're trying to say, but you need a reliable source for it if it's about a living person. Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bernadette Nolan
You have falsely stated she died 26th March 2013, she is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.150.101 (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting us know about this. Deaths should not be added to articles about people without a reliable source. The disputed information has now been removed by an unregistered editor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Naughton
This could do with some experienced eyes. It began as a sourced article about a crime victim, but was replaced first with a legal threat and then with an unsourced piece mostly promoting her writing career. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted to the last "decent" version, which is pretty much a stub now. Not sure why the threat, since there was nothing there that could be constituted as being inappropriate, other than completely unsourced personal information. Maybe they want the page deleted? I guess we'll see. I'm guessing this is a WP:BLP1E and probably AFD material. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've redacted the legal threat. Not much point in blocking the IP due to the age of the threat. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad
needs attention. After removing an unsourced claim she was a Communist the same editor has added some little reported stuff about 12 residents complaining about misuse of funds. No time to look at the article carefully but we don't usually say that someone (not Setalvad) has attempted to pick loopholes. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Allan Savory
Related articles to take an interest in:



Someone already reported this here, it's a bit of a can-of-worms with a crackpot/genius (depending on who you listen to) known as Savory promoting dubious(?) environmental techniques, basically all of the related articles have suffered from COI, section-blanking (anything negative), promotional material, bare URLs to company sites, talks and other affiliated sites, and my head is starting to spin trying to keep track of the bs. Anybody who is interested and has the time might like to take note of this user's talk page comment, (Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the entire Criticism section was recently deleted by a Wikipedia user who shares a name with a director of the Savory Institute.) flagging a member of the org for blatant COI. Thanks in advance.  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This all looks like a WP:Walled garden of spam to me.--ukexpat (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking an interest, was unfamiliar with the "walled garden of spam" business, well didn't know there was a specific WP page about this sort of thing, no wonder my head was spinning as it's all very circuitous, a lot of the reffing used leads back to one or the other of the various affiliates. I'll pop over to the AfD(s) soonish.  Captain Screebo Parley! 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Kami ethridge
The bio picture in the article is of ksu assistant head coach Kelly Moylan, not of Kami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.38.109 (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems you are correct: https://ksuhoops.com/women/staff.php I left a note on the uploaders talk page at commons. I will remove it from Kamie Ethridge but it is used in other languages as well. File:Kamie Ethridge Associate Head womens basketball Coach Kansas State.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I fumbled through the other languages and removed it as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Maker Studios


The 'controversy' section, recently moved to the top of the article, looks like a good example of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I'm also wondering how much of this spat, no matter how closely watched on Twitter, merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. Luckily for me I never heard of any of the principles, so there are advantages to living in a hut in the sticks. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wholly WP:UNDUE and I have tagged it as such. It merits one or two sentences at most, if it is included.--ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm adding a link above to a WP:SPA. I think WP:OWNERSHIP is a serious issue, and there's not a hint of neutrality to be found here. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Elena_Kagan
The first line of the article seems to be graffiti: "Yes, marriage is only allowed for a male and a female, because only they can have children. And yes, when father Abraham popped his﻿ 90 y old wife Sarah, they still had some offspring (Isaak). And yes, that is why we have marriage: because of propagation, which does not know any age limits (see bible, Abraham)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.81.226 (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed Snowded TALK 12:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Barber (musician)
The website link at the bottom of this article is broken, as noted. Information on Billy Barber's CDs can be found archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20071224152017/http://www.dmprecords.com/DMP%20Releases.htm and at http://web.archive.org/web/20080503235541/http://www.dmprecords.com/CD-445.htm

I hope this is helpful. 216.164.54.108 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Morey

Coatrack
I just came across this at help desk. Seems that one of the subjects thinks the article is out of line, undue, coatrack, tabloid dirty laundry, etc. Other editors have been labeled as COI subjects in the lawsuit sections.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems the same material is copy/pasted from/to Judith Sheindlin. She is the actual star of the show and her article seems rather coatrackish as well. None of the litagtion was against her but it seems to be in her article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am trying to NPOV the legal issues with a Judge Judy section. I keep getting edit conflicts from the editor that wants to wp:undue the article with material that doesn't match sources. I give up for now. I never did like the show anyway and don't really care at this point. Someone else take over.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue is now in Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin from 3RR has fully protected the article. At no time were any of the issues ever discussed on the article talk page. I still couldn't be bothered to spend any more time trying to clean it up. If no one seeks consensus on the talk page as to inclusion/exclusion then I can assume that the edit wars will happen again when protection expires. I will assist but will wash my hands of it if it degrades to a drama-fest. I should re-state that I don't really care how this article turns out as I never liked the show anyway.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

RELATED: I have removed info from the Judith Sheindlin BLP which had no justification for being there. Moriori (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ben Domenech
I just reverted a partial blanking of this article, but the restored version suffers, at first glance, from a serious lack of balance. Perhaps someone else can have a look: I got things to do in the real world. Thank you for your help. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any notability mention in the lead, let alone the rest of the article. AfD will either solve that or have the article deleted. I would put it up but I just had a slap from admin for another article and I would rather not make more waves.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I would chance taking that to AFD. It's a WP:BLP1E but the depth of coverage seems significant. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nicolás Maduro
I'm going off-wiki, but there is a lot of bad editing going on at this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Brenda Dickson
Edit warring by (apparently) the subject, some possibly contentious work and personal life details that could use better sourcing. Page is protected and blocked from editing for one week. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice Polack
This article, currently also at AFD, focuses on a meme based around a single person. That person has received some negative coverage in the media because of that. What's BLP take on that? Are few mentions in media enough to have an article about an Internet meme based around making fun of a single individual? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The meme has actually already had negative consequences for the person's personal and professional life. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am personally against these types of articles because they're a mix of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. However, and as is noted in the AFD, there is unfortunately enough there to pass WP:GNG. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant, steaming pit of BLP problems, and I have to wonder at the apparent personal vendetta that is helping keep it going. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Article was speedied as G10, so we good. We good. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well never mind that, it's back on. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wetback (slur)‎
Violation of policy by adding WP:UNDUE material about a living person. More eyes needed. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an obvious issue of undue weight; I've commented there. MastCell Talk 21:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That goes in the dude's bio (observing WP:UNDUE), not there. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He may rate an entry in Political gaffe but not the slur article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Pooja Chopra - Early Life, Ref is wrong.
Ref given on the wiki page of Pooja Chopra earlier life is wrong. I am sorry I do not have the correct reference, but have a Facebook ref , which I am not sure if true.

Santosh — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.santosh2k (talk • contribs) 08:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Algenon Marbley


Objective information about Judge Marbley is continually deleted from wikipedia page by left-wing liberal that takes offense to the truth when it doesn't agree with his agenda. Please allow Judge Marbley's Wikipedia page to be updated by users so as to improve the quality of the Wikipedia website. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.132.184 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this. Yes, that's pretty bad. We'll keep an eye on it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a dedicated edit warrior here. I've requested semi-protection.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm -- huge backlog at RFPP. If any admins are reading -- it really needs semi-protection.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. – Connormah (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody has a really big and really nasty axe to grind. I've put the article on my watchlist. I hope others will do so as well.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  23:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilfred De'ath
Concerned about this article. The subject has apparently recently been arrested in connection with the Jimmy Saville scandal, and this has been reported in the British media. However I am concerned (1) about the editor's basic competence (he seems to think that Google searches constitute adequate references) (2) that the subject may be borderline notable and (3) that the is going to head towards BLP issues. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This needs to be taken to AFD. It's a huge coatrack, and I don't think he meets the notability threshold. The bio was obviously created solely to "document" his arrest, which makes it a wholly negative BLP at best. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OTRS email re Terrence Scammell
Folks, would someone please take a look at this. There are apparently two actors called Terrence Scammell. We have received an email at OTRS from the wife of one of them, some of the text of which is pasted below (with permission):

''The issue is this: most, if not all, of the credits on this site are for my husband Terrence Scammell, who was born in  Montreal, Canada, on January 10, 1958, and not in London, England, in  March 1937. My husband is 55, not 76, so you can imagine what this error is doing to his career in terms of hiring him for roles. The imdb page is similarly flawed, but that it another issue. There are two Terrence Scammells in the world, both of whom are actors. The one born in 1937 does not live in Canada, and has done mostly small parts in live-action dramas such as "Murder She Wrote". My husband, on the other hand, is an award-winning voice director and actor with hundreds of projects to his credit, including series for  PBS, the BBC and numerous production houses around the world. Because the Wikipedia page has been used as a source for many other sites, the information is wrong on him throughout the Internet, and  it's been a huge pain to try and track it all down and have it fixed. And, even when we do, people refer to the Wikipedia page and change   it  back again. Can you help? Every time we try to change this page or edit its content, it is changed back...''

The solution, it seems to me, is to create an article about the other Terrence Scammell (both would appear to meet the WP:ACTOR guidelines). It's not clear to me at the moment which one should use the current article as its starting point. Would appreciate someone taking this on and reporting back. Thanks so much.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like a case of WP:FRANKIE. Don't inadvertently build a Frankenstein, by blending two people with the same name together. In the old days, newspapers would occasionally make this mistake. More often these days,  is my guess.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328   Let's discuss it  22:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed so. Anyone willing to sort this out, please?--ukexpat (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are editors working both actors in the edit history, but after trying to find any reliable sources, even one, I find nothing to work with here. There has been a resume at www.mensour.ca/Resumes/Scammell.htm, but it is now gone.  I suggest that we declare this a BLP situation justifying total removal of unsourced content.  I'd change this page into a disambiguation page (keeping the edit history, since this shows the two versions of the WP:OR) showing the two alleged birth dates of the two actors, but from which neither actor has an article.  This would tend to burn off the old data in at least some of the mirrors on the internet.  P.S. And fully protect the dab page for six months.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I am repeating my request for someone to work to resolve this one please. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have received a message from Mr Scammell, the voice actor, on my talk page. Relevant details follow:


 * I was sent a link to a page so that I could follow the progress of the group tasked with looking into the matter. After having read the correspondence I felt that I might be able to help with information germane to the discussion but was unable to make contact with any of the participants. I confess to not being very adept at following the intricacies of the Wikipedia correspondence protocols or computer correspondence protocols in general, which may explain why I was not able to communicate with anybody. I suspect, however, that I may simply not be allowed to make contact with the discussion group. It is somewhat frustrating to watch a group of people discuss who you are or might be and what to do about you without being able to add anything to the discussion. I would like to assure you that I am not annoyed but simply frustrated.


 * If there is some way you could possibly pass on the information I would like to relate, it would be much appreciated. It would appear that the intention is to create two separate pages for the two Terrence Scammells. One of the participants - ukexpat- opined that he did not know which of the two Terrence Scammells should use the current page as the starting point for one of the entries. I may be of some assistance here. The British Terrence Scammell, born in London in 1937, has very few credits and they are all in the 'Live Action' section of the page, with the exception of - 'This is my Father' which is one of my credits.  The rest of the hundreds of entries in all the other categories belong to me, the Canadian Terrence Scammell born in Montreal in 1958. I have painstakingly gone through all the credit entries and can verify this. Which leads me to my second comment concerning the response by - Unscintillating - regarding independent verification sources.


 * He mentions a resume at - http://www.mensour.ca/Resumes/Scammell.htm - which has now disappeared. This site belongs to my agent - Kate Mensour -located in Ottawa Canada. I checked the site myself this morning. I can see why one would think that my resume has disappeared. You cannot find the actors by searching for them by name. If, however, you go to the site there are category listings at the top of the page. If you select - Directors - a photograph of me with my name will appear, if you select the photograph a biography of me will appear. So, the resume does still exist it's just a little difficult to find. 


 * Generally speaking if one checks the entries and the productions are in the animation, documentary, video game or voice over field and originate or have co-producers in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver you can be sure that they belong to me. The fly in the ointment is ,of course, that alot of these projects originate in Europe or the United States and they may not list their Canadian co-producers.


 * If there is anything else I can do to help resolve this matter I am more than happy to assist in the process. I can forward you resumes of my acting and directing work if that will help. Frankly, however, short of sorting through boxes of old contracts and sending them to someone to verify that I have done the work I claim to have done or getting signed and notarised statements from directors and producers verifying that I am who I say I am, I don't really know how else to try and convince people that I am me and that my 30 year career history is real.


 * Thank you again for all your help.


 * I hope this will help with the resolution of this issue. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not jumping in here but I was dealing with the 10 other things. What is the consensus on this going forward, this becomes a dab and we make two stubs differentiated by nationality? § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's most appropriate way of resolving it. I suspect that article about the English actor will be a stub, whereas the article about the Canadian voice actor would be a little more substantial. Thanks for the help.--ukexpat (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, this is Terrence's wife Sheila. I don't know if it's possible to put up his website on this page, nor where it should go (external links, or references maybe?), but if appropriate, here it is: www.terrencescammell.com We've also been working with imdb to get their references fixed up as well, so hopefully that will help also. Thanks again for all your help on this; especially ukexpat--you've been great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilmory (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, this is done. Terrence Scammell is now a dab to Terrence Scammell (Canadian actor) and Terrence Scammell (British actor). I don't have time to go through every single credit in the previous article and decide who did what, I'll leave that to the interested parties. They were all wholly unsourced anyway. There are also about 40 incoming links that will have to be disambiguated as well. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for sorting this out, much appreciated. I will reply back to the OTRS e-mail accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Inventor
Under what circumstances should a BLP referent be described as an "inventor" or not? If someone has an article about him, but not because of his/her inventions, but who does hold patents, should we identify the person in the lead sentence as an "inventor", or not unless there is some proof that the person's patents are significant in some way; they have been/are used in a significant way, or the patent has come to naught? Chrisrus (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a secondary reliable source that unambiguously identifies the person as such, then it's OK to use the term. Arriving at the term because you researched the person's patents, etc. would not, since it would constitute original research. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, please edit the article Keith Raniere accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help if you told us what the actual problem is. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The actual problem is that the subject complement "inventor" is used as a primary descriptor, although no WP:RS identifies him as such. An editor arrived at the term from non-RS sources and from researching his patents.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We just need to delete the word "inventor", the word "and" and a comma, so that it reads "...born 1960) is an American inventor, entrepreneur and..." It'll take just a few seconds.  I'd do it myself, but for complicated reasons it's better if I don't personally do it. Chrisrus (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I went through all the sources and not one of them describes him as an inventor, so I removed the claim. That said, as a wholly negative BLP where the subject is notable in the context of the organization he founded, the best thing to do would probably be to redirect to the company page and add a paragraph or two about the guy there. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! ✅
 * By the way, in reply to your idea about merging that article into NXIVM, that's an interesting idea, but actually he is also known for his relationship to several other organizations, too, chiefly | Consumers Buyline, a notable referent with a red link on Wikipedia (Consumers Buyline). Chrisrus (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, too bad I strongly dislike negative BLPs. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 01:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jimbo Wales and I have been trying to enlist a trusted BLP noticeboard active participant to take on that article and "do it right" as he says.  However, I think by now it's clear that no one wants to take it on.  Still, if you have any ideas about getting an experioenced BLP editor to bring it to WP:GOOD status, please act.  Although it's distasteful, it's potentially very important.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to applaud Chrisrus for staying away from the article and echo his interest in getting good uninvolved editors to watch list and review this and related articles carefully. Ongoing problems with COI editors, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at Inventor then anyone who files a patent is an inventor. He may not be notable for that but if he played the flute he may not be notable for that either and it could still be mentioned in the article. It should be mentioned in Jonathan Frakes for trombone and Patrick Stewart for the flute. Both of them played them more than once in TV shows. Our people infobox should actually have a musical instrument parameter because some readers may find this useful information the same as patents filed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mentioned yes, but not as one of the principal claims to notability or primary line of work/activity/etc. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could we use the term 'innovator' in the lead and mention patents/inventor later? Inventor seems funny to me for software so innovator may read better.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)