Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive2

Michael Persinger
 Section 'Recent Controversy' contains biased and potentially slanderous comments regarding an ongoing lawsuit. Doesn't meet proper encyclopedic standards.

jojo
- This article says JoJo "Another stupid young wh0re who cant sing". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JoJo

Neil Bush
Section on Russian investor is inciting inflamatory language that has nothing to do with Neil Bush. Multiple attempts to moderate by several individuals have failed. Certain individuals will not yield to only including material that has directing bearing on Neil Bush, trying to make in guility by association. Words of "warlord, ganster, mobsters", etc are note appropriate.


 * disagree There is consensus for the section to remain.  An admin there who is currently reverting the vandalism there has had to revert the attempts to blank and/or degrade the section repeatedly.  The section is well within Wikipedia guidelines as shown:


 * Public Figures.


 * " ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... "


 * The Bush and Boris Berezovsky section is, 1) notable (it's made international news from many multiple sources). 2) It's relevant (Boris funds Neil Bush and it's also well-documented that they travel, attend events and more together) and, 3) it well-documented and well-sourced. (Once again, it's made international news from many multiple sources).  All the sources are there within the section.  All we've asked is that the section be edited for accuracy, etc.  Instead, it's continually "edited" to the point where it only contains nonsense sentences and/or it's removed entirely in what appears to be vandalism and/or POV pushing (especially when you consider the nature of the nasty History comments).  I hope that efforts will go forward in the future to, instead, make the section better and more accurate and therefore, benefit the project instead of the current rabid deletions that make the section and full article suffer. 67.190.61.6 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hans Reiser
 The news about his wife's disappearance are for a tabloid, not an encyclopedia!

Cheryl Hines
Offensive vandalism.

Dustin Diamond
I stumbled into this one while on BLP Patrol, slapped on a noncompliant tag, and left a note on the talk page. It needs a lot of help. Crockspot 23:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To me this article has a lot of information about someone not all that important, mainly an ex-teen-TV-Star and his program wasn't even in prime time. Steve Dufour 03:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnell Williams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnell_Williams This article has been vandalized in an offensive manner.

Doug Basham
What is the policy regarding non-web based sources (hard copy analog woodpulp type) for biographies? I'd added in the professional wrestler Doug Basham's real name, based off of my 1990 high school yearbook plus first-hand accounts from friends/family of Doug, just to have it removed due to a weblink that I'd found to a discussion forum not being considered a proper source. I'd asked in the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions forum about the legality of scanning the yearbook for sourcing, only to be asked why the yearbook can't stand as cited. As I detest edit wars and losing civil grace amongst rational human beings more than being accused of lying (lol) I figured I'd ask the experts.

Supersquid 22:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cynthia McKinney

 * - A magnet for unsoursed statements as well as soapboxing Musaabdulrashid 08:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch
The current text is sourced from various highly negative web logs. I've added citations for some rather more impartial news service converage, and removed some highly inappropriate categorizations. The article needs significant improvement to re-base it upon the news service coverage rather than upon the web logs. Please help to improve the article. Uncle G 21:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dick Hubbard


The current text is full of critisms, and half of them are not properly sourced or not sourced at all. Also the article reads like as if the opponent of Dick Hubbard wrote it (no or little positive aspects covered). Please help to improve it! // --inky 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Burton Sr.
Any examination of what User:Jpfagerback and User:Wiley coyote have been doing to the Robert Burton Sr. page, including creating "Big Bad Robert Gene Burton" as a Wikipedia article, would show they've committed obvious, repeated vandalism. Robert Burton apparently made a lot of enemies, and whether it's his fault or not I couldn't care less right now. (I am a third party entirely to whatever disputes Burton and others are in.) I created the article because he's a worthwhile subject who has been the subject of more than one news article and who has had an affect on people's lives in one way or another. It's time for some admin to deal with these vandals and to look at past vandalism on the page. Wiley coyote has been around before. I have suggested that adding information about Burton in a truthful way would be something constructive that vandals could do, to no effect. Please someone deal with this. The changes are obviously libelous.Noroton 01:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Chamillioinaire
the article states that he was shot in florida. this seems to be a misinformed revision or vandalism.

Robert Clark Young talk page
We are requesting the assistance of some administrators who are familiar with the BLP policy to take a look at current and previous edits on the talk page for the Robert Clark Young article. In my view, the edits in question, which make unsubstantiated claims against Mr. Young, are in violation of no less than five Wikipedia policies. The input of administrators who have not previously been involved in this issue would be most appreciated. Thank you. John Bryson 07:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

P!nk
Some claims I have marked as unreferenced might be considered libelous if they were false. -- Beland 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Leon Febres Cordero
I believe the article has been edited twice (I removed once biased comments) with opinions or beliefs of events, not being neutral, or providing raw/neutral facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isther (talk • contribs)

Peter Blunden
Editor of an Aussie newspaper in the Murdoch stable, dleeted as blatant attack (created by ). Please watch this and if the link goes blue have a look to see if it's anotrher hatchet job. Guy 11:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Steven Milloy
Describe the dispute using the following format:
 * Steven Milloy - potentially defamatory material, which is either poorly sourced, unsourced, or irrelevant to the references given.// Peroxisome 03:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a major contributor to this article, I believe that it's solidly sourced with both primary and secondary sources and is in compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Given that User:Peroxisome has repeatedly thrown around accusations of libel, WP:BLP violations, etc., I would invite any third-party to look at the article and talk page and render their opinion. MastCell 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

 * So the main problem I have is that the article contains a very curious mix of original research and poor sources. But other than that, it seems strangely hit-and-miss regarding matters of importance or lack of importance.  I give probably 50-75 public lectures a year (I don't keep count).  So why is a fairly routine lecture for the Long Now Foundation featured?  Did the press "frequently" refer to Sanger as co-founder before he left and started calling himself that?  Newsgroup messages are original research if anything is.  Altruism is "the belief that you have a duty to help others"?  Well, perhaps in a sense, but geeeeee, that more or less misses the important point.  (One of the reasons we forbid original research is that trolls trying to make people who are subjects of biography look bad are notoriously bad at philosophical interpretation.)  --Jimbo Wales 00:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That has to be the most meticulously sourced Wiki bio I have seen yet. You have some valid concerns, which I will attempt to correct, but it could be a lot worse. I also spotted a diff of one of your edits to the article being used as a source... that doesn't seem like a very reliable source either. - Crockspot 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't find it very well sourced. Perhaps it is easier to understand the issue when you are the subject of an article and know the sources and facts quite well. :) See below for just a handful...--Jimbo Wales 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I have made a series of edits to the article, and comments to the talk page. I hope your concerns have been properly addressed, and that my edits survive the night. :) - Crockspot 04:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I wrote on the FAC vote: "In order for an article to be a Featured Article, it should first be, you know, good. This article is actually quite bad in several important respects. Controversial claims are made without attribution. (Example: the bit from Wired about my trading career is something I have objected to repeatedly but it is still reported on as fact.) My birthdate is sourced to a cut and paste from Wikipedia (original research), and is in fact completely at odds with what my birth certificate says. The number $100,000 appears, with no source. The number $500,000 appears, no source. The article implies falsely that the foundation spent $25,000 on my travel. False, and original research. (And a good example of what is wrong with original research.) I could go on, but you begin to see my point.--Jimbo Wales 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)" --Jimbo Wales 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that my knowledge of the subject (you) is fairly limited, which may or may not be an advantage in this situation. I will take another look, but do feel free to "go on", as it is helpful to me to isolate what the problems are. - Crockspot 15:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read the Wired article very carefully, and it is the source of the $500k statement, so I tagged that, and reworded it a little. I removed the other unsourced statements. Are you disputing the accuracy of the Wired article regarding your trading career? If so, I am not sure how to reconcile that in the article, as Wired is considered RS. I did remove the birth date too, since you say it is incorrect, but the use of Wikimedia official web documents seems to fall into a grey area in my mind, as self-published sources are allowed to be cited as RS in articles about the sources. While you personally are not Wikimedia, you are the head of the organization, so it seems unclear to me whether or not WM sources can be used in your article, obviously they would be allowed in the Wikimedia article. If you can direct me to further problematic areas, I would be happy to look at those too. Crockspot 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been giving thought to the RS policy re: sources from wikipedia, and it seems that probably the only Wiki-based source that can be used as reliable is the by-laws pdf, since it is an official document, and cannot be modified by any users. Any other "self-published" sources, such as the Wikimedia article, cannot be verified without question to be written by the subject, as WP:RS requires. Possibly the mailing list emails can be cited too, since policy is often handed down there, attribution does not appear to be a problem, and I often see the subject's comments there cited in WP policy articles. But I am not sure about that, so input from others is requested. Any comments about this, before I start the Great Purge? Crockspot 19:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, I realize that the email list cite is not even necessary. The wired cite following it sources the claim well enough. Removing. Crockspot 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some more pruning and adjusting. The only remaining wiki sources are the by-laws, which I believe is an appropriate source, and Sanger's user page, and Sanger's lecture from meta.wiki, both of which I still question as sources, but that is as far as I am prepared to gut the article today. If someone else wants to take a look at those two, I would appreciate it. Crockspot 20:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that I feel more confident in my knowledge of the subject and sources, and after reviewing the relevant policies again, I took a more heavy-handed approach to the article this afternoon. Some may feel that I have overstepped, but there seemed to be more cruft than controversy to alot of the material. It was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. :) - Crockspot 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

 * I'm bringing up the issue as a potential violator, as User:Iantresman claims my edits, and those of two other editors, violate WP:BLP and constitute an immediate threat he is willing to violate WP:3RR for. I think my edits are fair, and, even if not fair, not an immediate threat, but....
 * This deals with the term "states" as to his academic credentials and "was" to "as" in his presence at the civil rights march in Selma. I don't see a WP:RS for either of those statements, so I agree with User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer that some caveat is needed or the academic credentials should be removed.  User:Iantresman disagrees.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally, "states" would be a pretty neutral term, with "claims" being less neutral. In this particular context however, "states" seems to lean to the less neutral. But I think, considering the lack of reliable secondary sources for the statements, it is appropriate as a caveat. Same with the use of "as" re the Selma claim. There is a certain amount of hair-splitting to this one, and it seems the solution would be to find RS sources for the two statements. I will try applying a little Google Fu to this later today, and see if I can pull something out of the ether. Crockspot 15:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unable to find anything independent and reliable. Perhaps the subject, who seems engaged with the article, can assist. I think with the wording I mention above, the claims can stay in until proper sources can be found, then reworded. This is just my opinion though. Crockspot 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject has given a book reference. Unless someone can show it's inaccurate, it's proven. Adam Cuerden talk 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject has given a book reference. Unless someone can show it's inaccurate, it's proven. Adam Cuerden talk 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah_II_of_Jordan

 * - The "Future" section of the Abdullah_II_of_Jordan article is unsourced and potentially libelous. 141.140.120.176 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like WAS 4.250 already removed that section and the trivia section. Crockspot 12:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Catherine_Bosley
Currently the article is in very bad shape, and I don't have time to fix it appropriately. The majority of the article is describing a supposed play-by-play of a wet t-shirt contest Bosley participated in. Not only is this utterly tasteless (why are the details of when and how someone removes their panties relevant?) but none of this is sourced! --C S (Talk) 09:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a db-attack tag on it for speedy deletion. There is not a single source cited, and most of the article is about the alleged wet t-shirt contest. Need to start that one over from scratch. Crockspot 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag -- Ms. Bosley's own website (cited in the article) is a source for the article. The t-shirt contest section could stand some pruning, but overall, I don't think the article merits the db-attack tag. NawlinWiki 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ms. Bosley's website is not cited in the article. It is listed as an external link. Nothing is cited in the article as a source. Can it be verified that the website is indeed her website? Is every claim in the article backed up by the website? Is text copied and pasted from the website? (copyvio) This article needs some serious and immediate improvement, or I will nominate it for AfD. - Crockspot 14:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What a mess. This is exactly the sort of thing BLP was designed to prevent. I'm off to take a machete to the article. Gamaliel 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good work. I left a note on the talk page. - Crockspot 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

V. T. Rajshekar
I would be very grateful for some further views on this article, especially from experienced editors. There is an RFC on the talk page but it so far has not brought in many extra opinions. I particularly do not want to get into a head-on conflict with previous page editors. So far I have not found it easy to put across my understanding of what constitutes and appropriate source. Itsmejudith 22:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working with the reporting editor, and an "opposing" editor, since last night. I think this article is well on its way to being brought into compliance. At least everyone has a better understanding of where the line crossing into OR is, and what the subject's self-sources can be properly used for. I'll keep it on my watchlist for a bit and monitor progress. - Crockspot 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mahmudali Chohraganli
Can anyone please help with the article on the leader of Azeri separatist movement in Iran? The current version contains some strong claims, based on Iranian sources, which obviously don’t have much sympathy for this person. I think such negative info should be verified from reliable neutral sources. Grandmaster 07:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Del Harvey
I have blocked User:Squaresville for 24 hours for disruptions there and other articles. It appears that this user may only be here to troll, but I have posted to their Talk page encouraging them to revisit their behavior here. I'll keep an eye out and see how it goes when the block expires. I have also reverted the Del Harvey article. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 04:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * - has entered a claimed real name for Del Harvey (which does appear to be a pseudonym, presumably taken for good reason) without any sort of reference or source.  I commented it out and added a fact tag, but Squaresville has reverted my change several times now.  I believe this falls under WP:BLP policy (since Del Harvey might have a very good reason for wanting to keep her real name private) and have said so in my edit summaries, on the Talk page for the article, and on Squaresville's talk page, but Squaresville is completely non-communicative on this issue.  Squaresville's only edits have been to this article and two related ones (Perverted-Justice.com and To Catch a Predator), plus a single overstated warning on the P-J.com talk page.  I can keep reverting per WP:BLP not being subject to WP:3RR, but I really would rather not have to.  Please advise.  Powers T 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred Newman
I'd appreciate help or advice regarding Fred Newman. He's a Marxist psychotherapist who has been accused of being a cult leader, though I don't know how widespread that view of him is. I was asked to take admin action at the page because of reverting by single-issue users who appear to be supporters of Newman. They're opposing edits to the page made by Cberlet. I protected the page on Cberlet's version.

The other users are saying on the talk page that there are BLP concerns, particularly with the lead section. Looking at this, the third paragraph isn't sourced and is negative, though not particularly controversial as I think both sides agree on the basic facts. The second paragraph is sourced, but is negative and it could be argued is being given undue prominence. The first sentence of the first paragraph calls him "controversial" (which he is, but to say so upfront is arguably POV), and the third sentence says he's a psychotherapist, but then immediately adds that he has no appropriate qualifications.

I'm unsure how to proceed given that I protected on the BLP-disputed version, especially given that it's not a clear-cut violation. Should I unprotect and allow editing to continue; or edit the article myself while it's protected to remove the BLP-related issues? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Best to unprotect, so that editors can address the BLP issues. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks, Jossi. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dave Ramsey

 * - Over the past month or more a section of this article called "Criticism" (originally called "Controversy," as I didn't see how there could be one till I edited the section) in which people are repeatedly making biased, unverifiable claims attacking the integrity of the subject. Such claims as "Ramsey has been criticized in financial circles for offering misleadingly simplistic solutions to complicated financial issues" (which Ramsey himself has said in his radio show, however all attempts to include his personal response to the claim gets edited out because "it can't be verified," even though he says it almost every day on his show), and "Ramsey regularly makes spectacular boasts about his own wealth and the number of millionaires he has created via his programs, but he has never publicly released his own financial statements, and he has never presented even a single documented case of a person who has successfully used his program to attain great wealth" (which if this isn't POV biased I don't know what is).

I guess the point here is that the section has gotten out of control, and my impression of the Biography of a living person policy is that un-verifiable or non-neutral comments are to be immediatly deleted. Personally, I think the whole article needs to be re-written from the NPOV standpoint, but thats just me.--Arkcana 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your impression is correct, and negative statements that are unsourced should be aggressively removed. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Escorts
Jeff Gannon is the only person in this category. It has been made a subcategory of Category:Sex workers. There is no evidence that this one person is a sex worker. The editor who insists on it's inclusion failed to get Gannon added to a "prostitution" category and is using the sex worker category as an end run around the community consensus. The Escort category is fine. Saying that the Escort category is a subset of the "sex worker" category is defamation and should not be allowed. It needs to be deleted. --Tbeatty 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The category isn't about his one person, it is about escorts in general, which clearly is a subgroup of sex workers whether or not this one person engaged in any sex at all. There is a substantive disclaimer which should address all concerns.  The category system should not be disrupted because of whatever Tbeatty imagines about this one person. Gamaliel 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not a sub-group of sex workers as you have put a disclaimer saying just that in the category heading. --Tbeatty 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The disclaimer is to address BLP concerns. Clearly many/most escorts are sex workers, and you can engage in work of a sexual nature (strippers, etc.) without engaging in intercourse. Gamaliel 22:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be a subset of a category, all members must fit in both categories. This is fundamental set theory.  Category "Blue" with Subcategory "squares" cannot contain a "Red square" with a disclaimer thant some of the "Blue squares" might be "red".  It's fails basic logic and it's an attempt to smear this single individual as a sex worker.  Your prostitute tag failed and this is an end run around that.  --Tbeatty 23:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's nice to see that you think WP:AGF is no longer policy here. I couldn't give a crap about Gannon, I do give a crap about people bending reality and common sense and pretending escorts don't have sex in a misguided effort to protect poor poor Jeff Gannon. Gamaliel 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians should be working to protect everyone from WP:BLP violations. Why do you think I am no longer assuming good faith? --Tbeatty 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could we bump the parent category of Category:Escorts up to Category:Personal care and service occupations and settle the dispute that way? -Will Beback 23:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That works for me. --Tbeatty 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me as well. Thanks, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent)
 * There are two or three other categories under which need to be killed, then.  (I'm not going to do it, myself, because in would violate WP:POINT as I beleive that category:escorts should be under category:sex workers.  category:courtesans and prostitutes is itself a BLP violation under those circumstances if there are WP:LIVING courtesans, as it implies that there is little difference between them and prostitutes, and that they are necessarily category:sex workers.  I'm sure I can find others.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

David Westerfield
196.15.168.40 is spreading tales about David Westerfield. WAS 4.250 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after reading "Thirty-eight-year old James Selby. San Diego police dubbed him the Banker's Hill rapist, after he was linked by DNA to a series of vicious rapes in the summer of 2001. Selby also attacked women and children in other states. Convicted murderer David Westerfield says Selby may be the real killer of Danielle Van Dam." from LOCAL 8 News Exclusive: David Westerfield's Letters From Death Row Part 2 I don't care anymore. WAS 4.250 05:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the last place I would have expected an edit to be vandalized, but my edit was vandalized (by being removed) so here it is again:

The David Westerfield article contained the statements:

"His computer contained child pornography."

and later, in the Notes

"According to the police a large part of his pornography consisted of legitimate images."

I quantified this by adding:

" - only 1% were considered “questionable” "

with the reference

Bean, Matt, Court TV (June 25, 2002), "Jury sees graphic child pornography taken from Westerfield's home". http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/062502_pm_ctv.html

Someone objected to this addition, and watered it down to:

"A fraction of this contained material that could be considered child pornography"

I then added the statement:

"Some members of law enforcement, such as Detective Chris Armstrong, went further, and concluded that this was not child pornography."

with the reference:

Mudd, Judge William (July 9, 2002), Unsealed trial transcripts, page 6 of document (page 7664 of transcripts). http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/documents/westerfield17.pdf

The same person promptly removed that statement.

I am not happy about this. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL, which means presenting the truth - the WHOLE truth. Furthermore, possession of child pornography is an extremely serious charge and very damaging to someone's reputation. To comply with Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons, Wikipedia readers should be made aware that there is considerable doubt over whether Westerfield in fact had any child pornography.196.15.168.40 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to WAS 4.250‘s comment about Selby. There was a wealth of unidentified evidence in the van Dam home and at the body recovery site: DNA in blood stains on Danielle’s bed, fingerprints in her house (especially two palm prints outside her bedroom door), a hair under her body, a variety of fibers with her body (especially red ones with her fingernail clippings), and footprints and tire tracks at the dump site. All the San Diego police had to do was to check these against Selby, and also determine if he had been in San Diego in early February, e.g. establishing if he had any family there (such as at the ice cream parlor). I can’t get over the fact that the police ignored DNA found on the very bed the victim was abducted from when they discovered it didn’t match Westerfield.196.15.168.40 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ooooooh unidentified blood and prints Westerfield must be innocent. <sarcasm 196.15.168.40 MOST crime scenes contain things that can not be identified.  The Van Dams bought the home used, not brand new.  The small blood spot on Danielle's bed could have come from one of her friends, friends of her brothers.  Danielle was not stabbed otherwise there would be a trail of her blood all over the house.  It means absolutely nothing.  The palm prints outside her bedroom door might have been there, ever since they bought the house.  Doors are not clean ALL the time.  Fibers with her body or in her fingernail clipping means nothing as well.  SHE was a CHILD.  Children run around and play and get dirty all the time.  Do you seriously expect a 7 year old to clean her fingernail clipper everytime?  It means nothing.  You have nothing but mindless conjecture in defending this man.  You are badly mistaken if you think any of this is going to exonerate David Westerfield.  It will have to be connected to someone, for starters, and next the person has to be placed at the scene of the crime. Fighting for Justice 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fighting for Justice:

That evidence won’t be connected to anyone unless someone TRIES to do so, and the police DIDN’T, neither for Selby nor anyone else, not even prior to Westerfield’s arrest and conviction. They had already decided, on the first day they met him, that he was guilty. Much of that evidence I listed WOULD place the person at the scene of the crime.

Your arguments show signs of desperation: YOU are the one guilty of “mindless conjecture”. In particular, the van Dams had been living in that house for nearly 4 YEARS, but you believe the prints were older than that and had survived for so long! You think the unidentified blood on her bed might have come from her brothers’ friends. Why were they bleeding on HER bed? And their blood MIXED with hers. Interestingly, “there was a yellowish stain that was observed on the inside crotch area of the [Danielle’s] underwear” (Annette Peer, Preliminary Hearing, March 12), which is “a fairly common source, for example, in sexual assault cases” (prosecutor George Clarke, March 12). So it looks like Danielle was sexually assaulted in her own house. By whom? One of her brothers’ friends? It actually wouldn’t be too surprising if the children were imitating the sexual behavior of the adults in that house. You might think that “Fibers with her body or in her fingernail clipping means nothing”, but you are WRONG. Let’s see what the criminalist Jennifer Shen said (trial testimony, June 25): “The fibers that I collected from on and around her would have come from whatever environment she was last in.” Obviously it WASN’T Westerfield’s environment. Which, contrary to what you said, EXONERATES him (especially coupled with all the other evidence, such as the entomology). And yes, she WAS a CHILD. And children don’t only “run around and play and get dirty all the time”, they also explore INTERESTING places - such as their neighbor’s unlocked RV.

Are you a sockpuppet of TripleH1976? Your personal attacks are so similar to his, your vandalism is the same, and your arguments are just as emotional and fallacious. It didn’t take you long to get round your indefinite ban.196.15.168.40 04:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness. Are you for real?  A sexual assault right in the bedroom?  I'm dying of laughter over here.  Yes fingerprints can stay there for as long as 4 years, however, let's say it wasn't there for 4 years. All it means is that someone touched the door anyone from a long time ago or a short time ago.  So they have to find the owner of that fingerprint?  The whole world is going to be fingerprinted.  Listen I don't know why the blood was there or why it was mixed.  What I do know is that an actual sex assault would have YIELDED way more then a little blood and a yellowish stain.  Even if she was digitally penetrated in the vagina or anus, there would have been more of a mess.  It would have been painful and she would have been screaming/crying, or at least fighting with the assailant.  Oh and now you're defaming the deceased victim and her brothers.  But you have to fight about a quote describing the convicted child-killer's child pornography.  "It was defamatory" according to you.  Yet you've proven that you have no problem defaming children. I hope you're proud of yourself.  If any of the evidence exonerates Westerfield he wouldn't be in jail RIGHT now.   Jennifer Shen, yes, wow, some statement.  Too bad it is easily negated, since the girl was found nude; I view her statement as an hypothesis.  Do fibers know time then?  Who cares that they weren't found to be from Westerfield.  She was outside and things must have gotten on her body by the wind.   There is a mountain of fiber evidence proving Danielle was in his environment.  A brief cookie sale isn't going to yield so much evidence.  Fibers such as the dog hair shouldn't have been there because the dog didn't go into Westerfield's home.  The length of Danielle's hair, in the RV, was the same length as her new haircut.  The blood and fingerprints, no good alibi, and his pointless trip make him guilty.  I don't believe his RV was as opened as the defense would have one to believe.  The print they lifted off of it was not in such a way to indicate a child was playing there.  Oh, don't, fault the police for their investigation.  Westerfied acted like a guilty person.  What was with his overly cooperativeness? Opening things up that the police were not even interested in.  Not telling them about his jacket.  The trip where he did more driving then relaxing.  The police stated Selby wasn't in the San Diego area when Danielle disappeared.  The guy once confessed he murdered Jon Benet Ramsey.  He was a class nut.  Moreover, if he wanted the police to believe he was the perpetrator why did he do it in a unconvincing fashion?  Like how did he find the Van Dam family?  How did he get inside? Where did he first see Danielle? If he was the actual murderer he would have answered all those questions.  They were on the right track once they knew Westerfield had no concrete alibi for the entire weekend.  They knew child abductors are into child porn.  It was found on his computers and CD's.  Gas receipts and cell phone call records are not concrete alibi.  A good alibi is a person, who could vouch that you were with them during the moment the crime was committed.  He had squat for that.  We don't really know if Westerfield was really alone that entire weekend.  We have no idea what he was doing at night.  The police were right on the money with this pervert.  Where there is smoke there's fire.  And, no, I am not a sockpuppet for TripleH1976.  But I am grateful that he thwarted your plans on making this article a pity party for David Westerfield.  I'm more than happy to continue his legacy. :) Fighting for Justice 07:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Fighting for Justice: How did all this start? I added two short statements made by members of the police, true statements, with good sources quoted, but you removed them simply because they cast doubt on Westerfield’s guilt and even though Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. So you are clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. I don’t know why you have now broadened the discussion so much, except perhaps to draw attention away from the fact that you obviously don’t have a leg to stand on: your action is indefensible and you know it. Your belief seems to be: Westerfield had child porn, therefore he murdered Danielle. That is an unjustified standpoint, it’s based on emotion not reason. And it means that no child porn being in his possession implies he didn’t do it. But you have too much emotional investment to accept that, so you have to suppress the truth. I’m sure you’re not the only person who “thinks” that way, making it all the more important that the article contain the WHOLE truth whether you like it or not. Thankfully, Wikipedia rules are on my side196.15.168.40 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ha ha ha Wikipedia's rules on your side that's hilarious!!!!! omg! That's even funnier then your statement Danielle was sexually assaulted in her bedroom.  I didn't know you could top that one, but you did.  Congrats!  Your comments are defense spin.  You misquote and you put your own interpretation on the evidence.  James Watkins did not say only 1% was questionable.  Someone else did, but you make it seem like it came from James Watkins.  You make it seem like a fact.  THAT'S A LIE! You can't do that here.  Armstrong's statement was discussed during the preliminary hearing.  The article is on the TRIAL.  The judge previously determined Armstrong's statement won't count.  It will be determined by the jury if it was child porn or not.  You are misleading people and you are minimizing the evidence of child pornography.  If you want to spin go on a ferris wheel, don't do it here.  The U.S. Assistant Attorney you quote about what is his name?  You don't provide it.  I went to the reference and I didn't find page 85.  I had to sift through a mountain of pages, and some had no numbers.  But even if I did find it it doesn't matter.  YOU CAN'T QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM TRANSCRIPTS!  How did he arrive at that conclusion? is it his personal opinion, or professional opinion? Perhaps, he's a pervert like Westerfield and liked what he saw.  Your description for the media discrepancies that's your POV.  You are the one violating  policy.  You are not here to analysis things for people.  Like it or not the jury believed it was child porn and found it very disturbing.  It would require a person made of steel to not be disturbed by it.  No, I don't think Westerfield killed Danielle because he had child porn.  Other evidence convinces me of that.  What it does prove is that he fantasized about child sex.  Because no normal man, in this world, would have it if he wasn't getting some type of  pleasurable experience from it.  It would not be there, not even in 1%.  What for? Congress knows it's on the internet.  No this case is not about emotion, it's more about common sense.  It is clear to me that you do not care about children, otherwise you would not be defending this man.  You had no problem defaming the deceased victim and her brothers.  Accusing them of having sex; that's pretty twisted. You see nothing wrong with child pornography.  In fact you think it shouldn't be considered graphic.  You object to the word "graphic" when describing it.  As a result, you have no credibility with me.  I didn't think you were capable of defaming the victim, but thanks so much for revealing the real you.  Fighting for Justice 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

So you agree that a member of the police declared that this is NOT child porn. And it’s obvious that you believe these images have considerable evidentiary value. The logical conclusion is that the Wikipedia article MUST contain the whole truth about them. Thank you.

I don’t know why you were unable to find my reference. It is in a PDF document so you need Acrobat Reader to read it. It doesn’t matter if the individual pages aren’t numbered: you use the number given by Acrobat Reader. In case it helps, the relevant page is part of Attachment D, which was an affidavit for Search Warrant 27830.196.15.168.40 04:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, no you are wrong on ALL counts as usual. Evidentiary value is for the court room.  Wikipedia isn't a court room; try to drill that into your head, ok?  David Westerfield is a criminal.  What wikipedia owes him is an article that is neutral in language.  Wikipedia does not have to cast doubts about his guilt.  Wikipedia does not have to make defense-like apologies for him.  I know all of that is very painful for you to understand.  What "whole truth" are you talking about?  The "whole truth" is only known by the convicted child-killer David Westerfield.  Since, you are a big fan of his perhaps you can visit him at San Quentin and ask him about it.  I know he must be really unhappy in prison right now.  He doesn't have anymore porn or child rape videos to keep him occupied; poor thing.  You might be able to cheer him up.  You can tell him that you defend him on wikipedia.  THe article is very neutral, more so then many other articles on child-killers.  You should be happy by now.  Leave the article alone and find some other child-killer to defend.  I'll suggest a couple: Scott Erskine, Alejandro Avila, Charles Ng, Kelly Ellard, Clifford Olsen, John Evander Couey, Wayne Williams, Westley Allan Dodd, Brandon Wilson, Richard Allen Davis, and finally Scott Peterson.  There you have a HUGE list to choose from now.  Fighting for Justice 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

If the article shouldn’t contain information of evidentiary value then what should it contain: trivia? How should Wikipedia report on court cases? Seems to me you are so eager to oppose everything I say that you don’t stop to think if what you are saying is sensible or not. Where do you get the idea that Wikipedia articles should be neutral in language but not in content? The latter is more important. Any quality academic publication, and not just Wikipedia, should give both sides of an argument, without fear or favor, unless it is expressly stated to be an argument for a particular point of view. The Wikipedia article should not read like it was almost written by the Prosecutor. The only way you can KNOW that Westerfield is a criminal is if you were his accomplice, in which case you should hand yourself over to the police so you can join him on Death Row. In fact, to fit the evidence, the only way Westerfield could be guilty would be if he had an accomplice. That would explain why the police couldn’t find any evidence he had been at the scene of the crime, why there was no evidence Danielle had been in his RV that weekend, and why he had a strong alibi covering the calculated date window during which the body was dumped. What’s relevant is not what’s painful to me but what’s painful to you. I have never deleted anything, whether I liked it or not, I have merely pointed out flaws in it or added missing information. You, on the other hand, regularly delete what you don’t like. That’s vandalism. It was video CLIPS that were presented as evidence, in other words very short, not full length videos. If you want to attack anyone, then choose someone against whom the police were actually able to find evidence of a crime: in the Westerfield case, all they were able to do, after MONTHS of trying, was to prove that they were neighbors who had contact with each other - which we already knew. With regard to the other cases you mention, my question would be: in any of them, was law enforcement in effect told by experts they consulted that their suspect was innocent, but they ignored this advice and continued to prosecute him? Because that’s what happened in the Westerfield case (Faulkner, Goff, Armstrong, etc.), and I find it extremely disturbing. If you were genuinely interested in justice, then so would you.196.15.168.40 11:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Replying to 196.15.168.40
 * I know David Westerfield is a criminal because a jury of 12 people said he is one. Are you then saying those 12 people were his accomplice as well?  You are so laughable.  You want to point out flaws make a website!  Use your imagination and create an online journal, about the case, instead of coming to Wikipedia and being a disruption.  You care nothing about wikipedia besides defending a child-killer.  Wikipedia does not owe anything to his defense.  He does not have a strong alibi for that weekend.  He spent many, many hours alone.  The Entomology is an inconclusive science at best.  The entomologist themselves say their science can't determine a maximum time a body is out in the elements.  Since when did wikipedia get created so you can point out flaws?    If she wasn't in the RV, the weekend she went missing, then why does anybody have to believe she was in there uninvited BEFORE the weekend since there's no evidence to support that.  Blood on your jacket from a child you barely know is evidence of a crime.  Blood that is not yours and you can not innocently explain away IS evidence of a crime!  Particularly so if the owner of that blood is missing.  Westerfield had all 3 against him.  They don't require evidence that he was in the home, because the blood evidence alone is damning enough.  What don't you understand about that?  The article is the nicest article about any child-killer article in wikipedia.  What more do you want?  No one said Westerfield was innocent, not even his lawyers.  All they merely did was challenge the evidence.  Experts can be paid to testify positively for the defendant.  No one gives a d@mn what you find disturbing.  Like I said before, make a website supporting the child-killer for all I care.  Just stop dumping your malarkey in wikipedia.  It's not your soapbox.  Fighting for Justice 07:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to “Fighting for Justice”:

So you DON’T know Westerfield is a criminal: juries make LOTS of mistakes, as can be seen in the Innocence Project. If there are flaws in ANY article in Wikipedia, then they SHOULD be corrected, it most certainly should NOT be left to an independent website to do that. What I want is a more informative and balanced article, like I’m sure most Wikipedia editors, and you are disrupting that. So I am trying to raise the standard of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn’t owe anything to the prosecution either, what it does owe is to the truth. Of course Wikipedia wasn’t created for me personally to point out flaws: anybody and everybody has a DUTY to point out flaws, and I am happy to oblige.

Westerfield did have a strong alibi for the weekend. You can’t look at just the amount of time he was alone: he was far away from the body dump site, especially given how big and slow his vehicle was. Furthermore, it’s not just a case of having an alibi for that weekend, but even more so for when the body was dumped, and there would have to be around a 100% error in the entomological dates for him to be guilty. I’ll leave you to produce other cases in which entomology was so badly wrong (especially four entomologists, and even more especially, entomologists brought onto the case by law enforcement). And because this was a circumstantial case, and given that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (a high standard), it wouldn’t be sufficient to produce just one or two examples of such a huge error, you would have to prove that such enormous errors are common. There are specific circumstances when entomology can’t determine a maximum time, such as a sealed container or the body was moved. No evidence was produced of such circumstances in this case.

If the handprint in the RV and the blood spot on the RV carpet are valid, then she was in the vehicle at some time. The failure of the police dogs to alert to her scent shows she wasn’t there recently. Therefore she must have been there uninvited PRIOR to that weekend. A SMALL amount of blood (you conveniently left that out) on your jacket from a NEIGHBORING child (you also left that out), even one you barely know, is NOT evidence of a crime, as it CAN be innocently explained. If the police had processed it properly - such as examining it for spatter and photographing it BEFORE part of it was cut off for testing - then I would give more weight to that evidence. Evidence he was in the victim’s home (the scene of the crime), when he said he had never been there, would be very different: THAT would be damning. But it was lacking. We didn’t hear from the children that they had never been in the RV.

In his closing argument (August 7), Steven Feldman, Westerfield’s lead attorney, said “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR WESTERFIELD TO HAVE DUMPED THE BODY”. In other words, he’s innocent.

You haven’t responded to my question about the other cases you mentioned, so I presume NONE of those defendants were in effect declared innocent by law enforcement experts, and that this is reflected in their Wikipedia articles. Are you seriously claiming that an INDIGENT man paid a PROSECUTION witness to testify positively for him? So YOU don’t find it disturbing that law enforcement ignored their own experts’ considered professional opinion: that tells us a lot about you, and it isn’t flattering. Clearly you are NOT genuinely interested in justice.196.15.168.40 04:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ha! ha! ha ha! ha! hah ! The innocence project. Every criminal hangs his hopes on them.  What does Westerfield have to do with that?  What lack of DNA testing does he have to show for? faulty eyewitness? coerced or false confession??? police brutality? diminished capacity/retardation??? More often then not juries render the proper verdict. Oh wow! Feldman said it was impossible for Westerfield to have dumped the body.  Oh and you place it in all capitals - nice touch, but there's a problem.  HE WAS HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY!!!!! DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO SAY ANYTHING LESS????  Show me a defense attorney who tells a jury, "my client is really guilty".


 * A search dog did detect her scent in the RV compartment. What are you talking about that they didn't?  None of the entomologist were brought in by law enforcement.  Stop spewing BS.  Three of them were hired by the defense and, no, I'm not saying Westerfield paid for their testimony - I'm saying Westerfield's defense attorney's paid for their testimony.  The fourth was for the prosecution.  Jeff Dusek proved the entomologist for the defense conducted their test in a way to benefit the defense.  He proved that very little testing of the body, particularly her tissue, was examined.


 * You'd think the body itself would paint a more accurate picture of when one expires then some bugs. The longer a body is exposed to the elements the harder it is to determine the time of death.  Some of the nights were cold and sunlight caused her skin to be burnt.  Animals feeding on the body.  You fail to take any of this into account, because this affects the bug infestation.  Many trials have experts sparring with each other over evidence.  They spar over who's the better expert.  Who's got more knowledge.  You think this trial was the first?  The situation plays out in many court rooms.


 * How do you know Westerfield wasn't near the dump site? I guess you were with him then.  It wouldn't shock me in the least if you were.  The RV can't be that difficult to drive since he put in so many mileage.  You once said Westerfield went out that weekend, because he wanted to relax.  Well, does his driving around sound relaxing? forgetting your wallet relaxing? over paying someone sound relaxing? filling up heavy water tanks relaxing?  He lived alone, why didn't he relax at home?  Unless he had to get away from people.  Like the police, or dump a body.  I understand he was allowed to be in his RV.  It is the timing that makes it looks suspicious.  To believe your theory that Westerfield is innocent I have to believe he was the most unluckiest man in the world that weekend.  And the real killer was the luckiest killer of all killers that weekend.  Everything worked out for him.  Westerfield driving his RV.  The police focusing in on him.  The cookie sale.  His laundry situated in a way to let evidence of Danielle falling on them.  Fate gave Westerfield the worse luck that week.  Is that the insanity you want people to swallow?   You must be smoking something really bad then.  You need to a get new dealer.


 * What law enforcement expert declared him innocent? Innocence wasn't even mentioned by his attorney's.  His attorney were looking to cause a hung jury.  Again, must be that stuff you're smoking.  It's getting to your head.  I don't know what type of company you keep but I have NEVER EVER, in my life,  had blood from a child I barely know on any of my personal belonging.  What difference is a spatter test going to make?  It is blood that he has no good reason for having on him.  What is his innocent explanation for the blood on his jacket?  Because I never heard it.  Again, a crime scene does not have to yield a pool of blood to declare it a crime scene.  If the blood of a missing person, however small it may be, is on you suspicion should be cast upon you.  Until you are cleared by conclusive evidence.  Entomology is not conclusive yet.   DNA, his travel that weekend, lies, and circumstance convicted him.


 * If you care sooooooo much about pointing out flaws, why doesn't it reflect in your list of contribution? Don't be lying to people.  You came here with the sole intention of defending David Westerfield.  At least have the nobility to admit that much.  Wikipedia does not need you to raise itself in anything.  If anything it is YOU who needs wikipedia.  Since this is the only place that will permit you to post defense-like apologies for a convicted child-murderer.  &#91;&#91;User talk:Fighting for Justice&#124;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;(talk)&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 10:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Fighting for Justice":

You said you know Westerfield is guilty because the jury said so. I then pointed out, quoting the Innocence Project as evidence, that juries make lots of mistakes. Your response is therefore irrelevant: I proved my point, you CAN’T be sure he is guilty. If juries "More often than not ... render the proper verdict", that means they are often wrong, and this could be one of those occasions. So you are ADMITTING that I was right. But to respond to your new points: The DNA on Danielle’s bed (especially blood stain 10-7A) was ignored when it was found not to match Westerfield. That must be followed up. Similarly, no attempt seems to have been made to obtain DNA from the hair found under her body (Item T.E.-J.S.5 from Item 169). Thank you for pointing out that there was NO eyewitness testimony linking him to her. And that attempts to coerce a confession out of him failed. And sleep deprivation is a form of police brutality. If he is innocent, then "diminished capacity/retardation" doesn’t apply. Why are you pointing out that Feldman was his attorney? To refresh your memory, you claimed that even his lawyers didn’t say he was innocent, so I proved you wrong.

A search dog did NOT "detect her scent in the RV compartment". You are getting the dogs confused. Their handler CLAIMED the CADAVER dog alerted at the RV compartment, but it would have alerted to anything, even animals that had been run over or Westerfield’s own blood if that had been on the shovel inside that compartment: it would NOT have alerted to her scent. But there are two significant points that should be made. Firstly, the handler said NOTHING at the time; over two weeks later (coincidentally (?) just after Westerfield’s arrest) he thought the dog MIGHT have alerted (but admitted that it might just have been reacting to him - "handler bias"); by the time the trial came round he was SURE the dog had alerted. Clearly, you can’t trust his belief. And secondly, the dog did NOT alert the first time it inspected the RV, a day earlier, when the smell would have been stronger, NOR did it alert when the compartment was opened and any smell coming from inside the compartment would again have been stronger. Clearly, therefore, the dog did NOT alert, and the handler was right that it was just responding to his own emotions.

Are you disputing that Faulkner was brought onto the case by law enforcement? He himself said he was invited to the autopsy by Doreen (Dorie) Savage, a Forensic specialist. Sergeant William Holmes said it was his idea to bring Faulkner in. He was their usual expert, but they dropped him when his dates exonerated their only suspect. So you are not saying that Westerfield paid for Goff’s testimony, his lawyers did. The distinction is not significant. I’m not sure about Faulkner, because little was said about his calculation method, but probably only ONE of the four entomologists, Haskell, used a "maggot mass" factor in his calculations, and Dusek didn’t have to "prove" this, it’s common knowledge. Two points: One is that Haskell is surely right - even Goff admitted that "to a certain extent I believe it's already accounted for"(in other words, not entirely) - it’s just that there is as yet a lack of good data to support or at least quantify it; the other is that it doesn’t make much difference, only a day or two in this case (according to Hall), so even if he had left it out he would still have arrived at a range of dates that excluded Westerfield, just like the other three entomologists. If you are going to talk about experts "conducting their test" in a way that benefits their employer - "hired guns" - then rather talk about how Goff in effect pretended that daily maximum and minimum temperatures were hourly temperatures - that makes a much bigger difference than maggot mass.

I don’t know what you mean by "very little testing of the body, particularly her tissue, was examined". It was stated clearly in testimony that attempts to determine the time of death from a body (notably the vitreous humor) have not been successful (see Dr Blackbourne’s testimony, also Dr Rodriguez). That’s why the Medical Examiner gave such a broad range (10 days to 6 weeks) and why law enforcement use bugs - that’s the most accurate method presently available for a body more than a few days old, and it must be pretty good because it’s accepted in court. The method used by entomologists - thermal energy - DOES take the cold nights into account (as its name implies). Her skin WASN’T burnt, it just appeared to be because of the dark color, and that wasn’t caused by the sun but by decomposition (see Lieutenant Collins’ testimony). What do you mean by "Animals feeding on the body"? Unless they eat ALL the first wave(s) of eggs/larvae - which is not so easy, because each fly lays HUNDREDS of eggs at a time - it won’t make any difference to the calculations - just ONE egg/larva from the first wave needs to survive. And the prosecution’s theory that animals opened up a mummified body is a non-starter, because it couldn’t have been promptly mummified by a wind that only began days LATER!

This trial may not have been the first in which experts sparred with each other, but it may well have been the first in which they were nevertheless unanimous in excluding the defendant. That fact alone makes this case notable.

I know Westerfield was far from the dump site because many witnesses said so, and nobody testified to seeing him near it. I didn’t say the RV was difficult to drive: the point I was making was that it can’t be driven as fast as an ordinary vehicle, and you are also somewhat restricted as to your route, so you might have to take a longer route. Driving on the open road isn’t such hard work. And I doubt he spent more than a quarter of the time driving. Forgetting the wallet might not have been relaxing, but by definition that wasn’t planned, so you shouldn’t have mentioned it, at least not in the context you did. You could have mentioned it in a subsequent context, as it proves he wasn’t "the unluckiest man in the world that weekend" - because that caused him to return home that afternoon, and it is implausible in the extreme that a guilty man would have done that, so that is evidence of innocence. In other words, forgetting the wallet gave him proof of his innocence. It is doubtful that he overpaid at the Strand, it’s more likely the ranger made a mistake, but either way, this is further evidence of innocence: a guilty man would hardly have left the child unattended in the RV while he discussed a few dollars. The water tanks might be heavy, but you don’t have to carry them, you don’t even have to carry heavy buckets, you simply use a garden hose: hardly strenuous work. He didn’t live alone, his son lived with him part-time. Technically, he DID relax at home - his motorhome! If he had to get away from people, then why did he mostly go to occupied places? So, by your own argument, that’s more evidence of innocence. If he had to get away from the police, then why did he go to a place where he could be sure the police would be in great numbers, namely back home? For that matter, why did he park close to a group of police officers at the Strand? Still more evidence of innocence. He was at places - the ocean and the desert - where he could have dumped a body and it would likely never have been found. Yet more evidence of innocence. Clearly he wasn’t the unluckiest man in the world that weekend. And the real killer wasn’t necessarily the luckiest. Westerfield often drove his RV, and this was a weekend, after all. That wasn’t the first cookie sale to him, and there was also a gift wrap sale not long before. Even if his laundry hadn’t been on the couch, the three van Dams would still have left just as many of their hairs and fibers behind, which would have been transferred throughout his environment. Where the real killer WAS lucky was that the police focused so quickly and intensely on Westerfield - by the Monday afternoon (4th) they were already CONVINCED it was him, and without good reason. This is so suspicious that I wonder if someone influential in law enforcement was somehow involved (not necessarily the perpetrator, maybe just a friend of the parents who suspected the culprit was another member of their group, or maybe just didn’t want to be exposed).

It was the van Dams and their friends - that’s the people you are so vigorously defending - that were smoking something, not me.

Faulkner, the entomologist originally brought onto the case by law enforcement, but then dropped by them, and Goff, his replacement, both gave dates that excluded Westerfield, and neither could account (with supporting evidence) for the discrepancy between their dates and the prosecution’s. Now I know what you’re going to say: they didn’t explicitly declare Westerfield to be innocent. They didn’t have to, that’s the logical conclusion to be drawn. If you want something more explicit, then Detective Armstrong and the Assistant US Attorney both said that he didn’t have child porn. His attorney was looking for far more than a hung jury, he had every right to expect an acquittal, based on time of death - he had achieved that before, on the Corenevsky case. How do you know that you have never had blood from a child you barely know on any of your personal belongings? The only way we know that in Westerfield’s case is that DNA testing was done. How often have your belongings been DNA tested? Remember that this stain was so faint it couldn’t be seen on the photo shown in court. Have you ever left your RV unlocked and unattended outside a house in which lived three children? A spatter test would have revealed if the blood had been applied with a Q-tip. (And I’d be more convinced it was Danielle’s blood if they had sent the actual material to the outside laboratory, instead of just extracted DNA.) You HAVE heard the innocent explanation but you don’t want to listen. I agree that a crime scene doesn’t have to have a pool of blood: neither Danielle’s bedroom nor the dump site had a pool of blood, and the former had more of her blood than Westerfield’s environment. In principle you are right that entomology is not conclusive: but in this case the time gap was so huge, with no evidence to account for it, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. And the parents told more lies than Westerfield. (You didn’t mention what lies you are referring to. That his estimate of the time he arrived back at the Strand was half-an-hour out? Brenda’s claim, retracted too late, that she hadn’t told him (anyone at the bar) about the father-daughter dance?)

I spend so much time on this case, answering invalid objections, that I don’t have time for contributing to any other articles. I am not lying. I first came here purely to see if there was an article on the case. And when I found there was, I saw it was riddled with errors so my intention was simply to correct them. My present motivation is largely outrage at your totally unfair and unjustifiable behavior. The standard of Wikipedia is low, and you obviously aren’t going to raise it, so it’s up to me. And I certainly don’t need Wikipedia. There are various other on-line forums where I can post the truth, and without having it removed by people who are either ignorant or are acting in bad faith, and there’s also the printed media.196.15.168.40 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This section is not about arguing. You wasted your time typing, because I am not reading anymore of your BS.  Wikipedia is not a place for making apologies for a child-killer.  Don't bother responding anymore.  If you make anymore bias edits in the article I will revert them.  Fighting for Justice 08:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My typing was far from a waste of time: I proved to the world that your beliefs are based on FAULTY information. And you, in your reply, have proved to the world that you’re not going to allow the TRUTH to influence you.196.15.168.40 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * tell it to someone who cares. Fighting for Justice 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * .... I can't help it. 196.15.168.40 = pwned by FFJ. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to “Fighting for Justice”: That response is at about the same low level as your “Wikipedia isn’t academic” remark on Steel359's Talk page a week ago. I can understand why he rapidly hid that remark by archiving that section: home truths can hurt.196.15.168.40 03:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment to “Fighting for Justice”: The change you made to the wording of my edit makes it sound as though the police initially missed child porn but subsequently found some. Please quote your source. I would find it very suspicious if they claimed it took them weeks to find child porn.196.15.168.40 04:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll be receiving nothing. You just be thankful the comment is even in there and if you keep pressing this issue, I might remove it altogether.  I've told you before and I'll say it again THIS AREA IS NOT ABOUT ARGUING.  This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require outside intervention.  I realize all you care about is David Westerfield but at least respect wikipedia's rules.  You got a problem with an edit discuss it in the child-killers talk page.  Now stop replying here.  Fighting for Justice 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are unable to provide a source. I’m not surprised.  The fact that, MONTHS later, Detective Armstrong was prepared to testify to there being NO child porn, disproves your belief.  You expect me to be thankful that you didn’t remove a comment that is true and verified, important and relevant, and therefore rightfully BELONGS in the article.  The reason you didn’t remove it is that you put a prosecution-type spin on it which distorts it and MISLEADS readers.  You appear to have NO ethics.  All this shows that YOU are the one who doesn’t respect Wikipedia’s rules.  This disagreement DOES require outside intervention, so this page is the PROPER place for it.196.15.168.40 04:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've got plenty of ethics, unlike you I don't accuse 7 year olds of having sex with their brothers. You proved the type of person you are with that line.  No wonder you defend Westerfield.  You should be tied together with him. You can be one of San Quentin's finest couple.  Fighting for Justice 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Meili
I'd like to have a second set of eyes there. A User:ChristophMeili has been recently editing this article, adding a link to a self-published video that may show himself. That user has also left sourcing questions on the talk page, and removed a badly worded paragraph over in the corresponding article at the German Wikipedia. I have tried to scrupulously reference the article, but someone else (preferrably someone who can read German, as most sources are in that language) should review this. Lupo 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While "frowned upon", there is no actual policy against the subject of an article editing an article about them (at least as far as I know). Since I don't speak the German, that is all the advice I can offer. - Crockspot 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

David Fernández, Gary Caldwell
and &mdash; unsourced allegations concerning a controversial tackle in a football game. The allegations being inserted do not agree with the BBC News account of the incident. Demiurge 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement from the Caldwell article that did not seem to be supported by the source cited, but I am no expert in the sport, so I may be wrong. But from a lay perspective, it seemed unsupported. The Fernandez article did not seem to have the same difficulty, so perhaps someone beat me there. - Crockspot 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Chenevix-Trench
has a section describing the subject as a child abuser. I'm not sure if the sources given are reliable (seem to possibly be ex-students with a vengence) enough to allow this inclusion. Can someone with a better understanding of the guidelines take a look at this? Thanks, Metros 14:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article is deceased so it is not an issue for this noticeboard. The article may need some POV work, however. Gamaliel 22:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I totally passed over the date of his death on there! My apologies.  Metros 00:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniele Ganser
has made a serious allegation on his talk page of antisemitism against a noted Swiss academic, Dr. Daniele Ganser(diff). The user has refused to remove it(diff). Its all a bit silly, I know, but I'm not sure what the rules are on this kind of thing and I wouldn't like for Ganser to sue wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but Ganser does not have a biography on Wikipedia, in fact his bio was

part of a succesfull VFD (so much for his "notability"), so I dont see how this is relevant. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That isn't relevant. Its dangerous to make such allegations against living people. Anyway, he does have a biography of the German language wikipedia: and his books are used as sources on several articles. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I will remember not to make these allegations on his German Wikipedia article. And thanks for the link on where he is used in English Wikipedia, we got a lot of work to do on those articles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and edited out the text of the section, just to be safe. Sorry TDC, but the original purpose of the section seems to have served its use already, and it is just a flame magnet now. Call me bold, just don't call me late to dinner. Crockspot 19:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, TDC is at it again. This time on my user talk page - so i removed it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

 * User 84.188.241.129 from Berlin, Germany through Deutsche Telekom AG cable service did a defamatory hit and run of living person Prof. Miranda at  articles for deletion that needs to be removed.  User 84.188.241.129 hit the Professor and ran, as the poster has no other posts on Wikipedia.-- Jreferee 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. - Crockspot 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel Tarn
This article has been completely rewritten by an anon and a brand-new user (probably the same person) who seems to be claiming that he is Nathaniel Tarn. I am not sure whether to revert, in case it really is Mr. Tarn. However, some of the alterations are unacceptable. He has removed the fact that he is anthologised in British Poetry since 1945 and he has deleted all categories, including even Living People. Can someone else have a look please.--Poetlister 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jorie Graham
There's a bit about a possible conflict of interest, alleged by a group called Foetry.com (also in THAT article). Doesn't seem firmly cited to me, and is potentially libelous. Not my field, I'm afraid. Anyone? --Calton | Talk 06:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It does seem odd that there's the citation of legal code because a layperson said it was relevant, when no court has so found; does the way it's presented currenly give allegations something close to the weight of fact?

Barack Obama
Two editors dispute an official U.S. Senate page and major media references (NY Times, BBC, Associated Press, an endless list) which state that Obama is an African American. Harr o 5 08:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that a compromise has been reached on this. Steve Dufour 15:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Serj Tankian
Unregistered Users and Registered Users keep posting uncited information about Tankian's religious affiliation, which is starting to border on Vandalism KingVegeta2000 01:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted and asked one contributor to provide good sources before re-inserting this statement. Andries 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Cosby
Proposterous information throughout sections. Example: "In 1987, Cosby attempted to assassinate the president of the United States, and was subdued and tranquilized by seven secret service agents, after taking down the first lady and the president's great aunt, who would have died soon anyways, as she was both old, and senile.Cosby then (after escaping from Medical institute) once again got "hooked on Cronics" and was sent to a rehabilitation clinic after once again trying to kill te president of his company. this time it took 47 rhino tranqs. to take the ravaged Cosby down." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.75.233 (talk • contribs)


 * This was obvious vandalism and was quickly removed. Please feel free to remove any such vandalism yourself by reverting to the previous version.  Thank you. Gamaliel 17:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting NewYorker article on Wikitrickery
I found this article on the administrator's noticeboard, about campaign workers using Wikipedia to take shots at opponents. It's not news to anyone here, but an interesting and quick read. - Crockspot 17:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This underscores our raison d'etre here at WP:BLP and can give us fortitude when we argue about the need to be persnikity on sources when dealing with BLP's - the press is watching how we handle this. --plange 17:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Stryker (disc jockey)
Unregistered users (most likely from the Loveline companion website) have repeatedly posted an extremely offensive message about him along the lines of "Loveline fans agree Stryker is worse than AIDS." When asked for a citation the vandals cites the actual fan site to a post telling everyone to try and keep this offensive message in the Wiki article. GiantRobot 21:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Alvaro Noboa
Describe the dispute using the following format:
 * Alvaro Noboa is full of (apparently politically motivated) allegations. The allegations are referenced, but my concern is that the tone of the article as a whole is completely unbalanced and thus could easily be taken as a hatchet job. The fact that he's a controversial figure needs to be stated, not just assumed and one side of that controversy parroted back.GreetingsEarthling 22:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable Names Database as a source
There is an ongoing (mild) edit war going on in Jonathan Wells (creationist), in which I am involved. One thing that came up is the use of the Notable Names Database as a source. Here is their article on Wells:  As you can see their comments, which seem a bit hostile from the tone, are unsourced. Yet the Wikipedia article repeats them as fact using the site as a reference. This seems like a problem to me since all a person would have to do is post anything he or she liked to a website and then repeat the material on WP using the site as a source and thereby get around the restrictions on uncited negative material on living persons.

Anyway I don't think Wells' article is too much of a problem since most of the material seems to be accurate. I would just like to see the article a little more professionally written, Besides I know Wells and there is almost no chance that he is thinking about suing WP. :-) Steve Dufour 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm...In a weird turn of events the NNDB article changed today and some of its negative statements were removed. I went ahead and removed them from the WP article since they were now completely unsourced.  Steve Dufour 04:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion that NNDB is not a reliable source, and when I see it sourcing negative info in a bio, I remove it. - Crockspot 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that his NNDB article says he was born c. 1956 while his WP article says he was drafted into the army in 1964. Seems a little young to me.  :-)   Steve Dufour 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect NNDB meant to say 1946, which would fit into the rest of his life better. Steve Dufour 15:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)  I sent them a note.

Daniel Brandt (external assessment)
This article was mainly about plagiarism. But something else caught my eye. Near the middle of the article is this statement: Brandt, who has long sparred with Wikipedia over an unflattering biography of himself, called on Wikipedia to conduct a throughout review of all its articles.

This author, who is independant of both Brandt and Wikipedia, has characterized his biography as "unflattering." She could have left that term out and still conveyed the same information if she didn't think it was "unflattering." It seems that this is at least external evidence that article is not NPOV if the perception is that it's "unflattering." It should be neither flattering nor unflattering. I am concerned that Brandt's criticism may have colored the coverage of his life by WP editors and admins. Comment? --Tbeatty 07:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The "unflattering" has been taken out. I didn't think the article was so bad.  Steve Dufour 14:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How was it taken out? This was an AP reporter who made this assessment.  --Tbeatty 16:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes "unflattering" is a euphemism for "attack", and but I have seen it used more often as a simple opposite to "flattering," to mean a writeup that includes sharp criticism. If the criticism is impeccably sourced and given appropriate weight, Wikipedia should not flinch from it. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Still the word "unflattering" itself is an opinion. Steve Dufour 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia bios should be neither flattering nor unflattering. The author chose the word "unflattering" and asserted it as fact even though she simply could have left the word out and not taken a position.  But her assessment was "unflattering."  --Tbeatty 23:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, depending on the precise definitions of those words, a "flattering" or "unflattering" bio is not necessarily a problem. To take an extreme example, the Wikipedia article on Adolf Hitler is unflattering. This is just an inevitable result of readers encountering the facts and drawing their own conclusions. We write from the NPOV, but if the facts lend themselves to a negative impression, then there's no avoiding it, even in a perfectly NPOV article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) AP reporter Anick Jesdanun is a "he," not a "she." Wikipedians often seem to be confused about gender. 2) AP reporters don't do opinion pieces -- if he says it is "unflattering," that's a neutral statement. I say it's "unflattering" also. 3) Oh crap, now I'm compared to Adolf Hitler. Let's go back to comparing me to Britney Spears, as one Wikipedia editor did who was bent on sabotaging my reputation, and needed to justify his attack. 4) I think Mr. Jesdanun probably should have added that I've been trying to get my bio taken down for 13 months now. There are issues beyond "unflattering" or "flattering," such as, what impact does a bio have on a person when it shows up as number one in all the search engines? --Daniel Brandt 68.92.156.87 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This could also just be a simple elision or ambiguous wording. It could be intended to mean "who has long sparred with Wikipedia over an biography of himself that he considers unflattering". —Centrx→talk • 21:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A detailed description of a slashdot discussion was included with quotations from a pseudonymous user claiming to be Brandt. The material was neither particularly flattering nor otherwise, but I feel the inclusion was improper, not to mention far too detailed. I have reverted twice and mentioned on the talk page. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton
- -The admins continue to replace the Gil-White article on Resurrecting racism despite libelous content. Gil-white states about African Americans "The claim that they were innately stupid because they had done poorly on IQ tests was therefore obviously nonsense, but this was Arthur Jensen's claim." is perhaps the most insulting as Jensen has NEVER stated this and it is essentially libel. I have read the majority of jensen's work and to state this is patently absurd and evidence of lack of neutrality again.// BenGibson 19:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing?
This article is about a main work of pop-art by Richard Hamilton. At the moment it is an unverified original resarch essay claiming that this collage should be attributet to another artist, John McHale. I think that this is a violation of BLP as this claim damages the reputation of an artist without giving a single independent reliable source for this change of attribution. --VirtualDelight 18:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is essentially a violation of WP:NOR (or fails WP:RS), then the entire article should be deleted, yes?  John Broughton  |  Talk 19:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be considered an attack article, so a   speedy delete template may be in order. - Crockspot 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, it has been stubbed. Crockspot 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison (politician)
I think this linking of Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations with the title secret ties to Hamas is done in order to have secret ties to Hamas prominently displayed on the page and associated with Ellison, who is running for office. I regard this as disruptive, and a violation of our policy on biographies of living people. I intend to revert, and lock the page or block the user as needed. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please let me know. Tom Harrison Talk 00:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine any lucid argument that the piped wording should be secret ties to Hamas, making that the wording to click on to use the wikilink. You're literally not changing a word in the sentence, you're just having the wikilink be invoked by the more neutral "accused CAIR" phrase.  Wow - that someone gets to keep (a) all their wording, exactly as is, and (b) their wikilink, but still (c) objects because the wikilink is on different words!  -- John Broughton  |  Talk 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom Brewer
This article is a stub, and at the end, it says he lives in the UK and is homosexual. I found it because I hit Random Article. If it's true, and if it's relevant, great. Put a citation. Swilk 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was just school-boy vandalism. I reverted to an earlier version. Tom Harrison Talk 02:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Tina Rosenberg
Stub about a professor, containing an accusation of plagiarism, sourced to a rather dodgy-looking website. Not my field, I'm afraid. Anyone want to look in on this? --Calton | Talk 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I found very little, and nothing from a reliable source. I've nominated the page for deletion becuase of lack of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Prechter
This is a request for an administrator to please restore the Robert Prechter biography article. It was summarily taken down by an editor who has alleged that it violated copyright policy. I have recently contributed to this article, and believe it is consistent with Wikipedia's copyright and biography policies. Thanks. Rgfolsom 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An update: I found a cached version of the Prechter bio and saw that contributions from other editors may indeed be a copyright problem. But I can't address that issue unless I can get to the article. User 141.156.240.102 disregarded Wikipedia policy regarding lag times and failed to post the Prechter article on the copyright problem page. Rgfolsom 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted here yesterday because Deletion review said, "In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be." I've also politely made it clear to the deleting administrator that the speedy deletion of the Prechter bio page was unwarranted and outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. So far I haven't seen an ensuing discussion here, much less any "rapid correctional action." For the record, I'll be resubmitting a new Robert Prechter biography unless I can get an administrator to discuss the deletion issue with me. Rgfolsom 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the proper forum for contesting a deletion. Please go to Deletion review. Gamaliel 21:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting an investigation of a disruptive editor on the Robert Prechter biography page. An editor there has flagrantly violated Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons. See the Talk:Robert Prechter page as well.

Rgfolsom 22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bohemian Grove
I have removed discussions from this talk page twice already dealing the Bush family being alien space lizards in disguise, allegations concerning snuff films, Nazism, child snuff porn, and homosexual prostitution. The essential claims are that members of this club are involved in these activities, with many of the prominent members being listed by name. Both times my removals have been reverted by User:Blue Tie Brimba 05:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would get involved but then people would call me an alien space lizard too. :-)   Steve Dufour 05:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The link to the IMDB goes to Tom Cruise. Someone is screwing around.


 * I have fixed the link. In the future, such minor issues can be dealt with on the talk page of the relevant article. Thank you. Gamaliel 21:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cassie Ventura
her article has a controversy section that should be deleted. PrincessOfHearts 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The section was pretty much "some people don't like her music", not really controversy.  I will take it out.Steve Dufour 01:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I took it out. It was also uncited and negative.Steve Dufour 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Orson Scott Card
The homosexuality section has been an area of concern for a long time now, and I just realized that biographies of living people have very strict guidelines, so I removed a lot of information from that section. However, I am a newcomer to writing about living people, so I really need a few editors to chime in with advice on how to fix these issues. See Talk:Orson Scott Card. Thanks. --Lethargy 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Steven Plaut
The concern here is not with the Steven Plaut himself, but with the fact that this article contains a long vitriolic attack on an Israeli academic Neve Gordon and the Israeli judge who ruled that Plaut had libelled Gordon. Many of the same charges quoted here from assorted columnists are the same ones ruled libellous in court. --Zerotalk 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair
The neutrality of this "article" is disputed (as tagged for some time). It contains rumors and innuendoes about two living people Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph C. Wilson. It presents rumors and other information (POV, "theories") which are not verifiable and is not following WP:BLP and WP:Reliable sources. The very nature of the subject is against Wikipedia's own guidelines with relation to living persons. The existence of the article appears to be a kind of ruse for including information in Wikipedia that otherwise (according to editing policies) is prohibited from inclusion at all in both the main article on the Plame affair and the main biographical articles of living persons prominently figuring in that affair. NYScholar 21:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic
Many editors wish to include a section in this article claiming that a particular Free Republic contributor is in fact Chad Conrad Castagna, a person recently accused of sending anthrax letters to various public figures. These implications rely on dubious claims made on blogs based in original research and lack verifiability. One source of tenuous reliability has linked to this original research and this is being cited as a reliable source. It cannot be verified that this poster is Chad Conrad Castagna and such claims could constitute libel--RWR8189 22:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael S. Steele
There are many, many problems with the section. First of all, Chubbybunny78 has only been a Wikipedian for one or two days and the ONLY articles that Chubbybunny78 seems to be interested in are Steele's and Erlich's. This FACT calls into question the motivation. We must assume "good faith" but a pattern is appearing and it cannot be ignored. Also, the whole section seems to be to tear down a strong, independent black man. That needs to be pointed out. The whole article is just one "criticism" of Steele after another. And don't you even tell me that this issue is not important. The election is over. It is NOW time to start enforcing the Living Person rules of Wikipedia. Is this topic something that belongs in a so-called encyclopedia???? I don't think so. I have never, until I stumbled upon Wikipedia, seen encyclopedias where the articles are written in such stark biased ways. Yes, I know that Wikipedia has a policy to be NEUTRAL, but that ain't happening. This article is a disgrace to a talented and motivated person who has served his state and his country. It is a just a laundry list of so-called "controversies" that are nothing more than spitballs thrown at him during an election campaign. The election is over. Call off the biased Wikipedia dogs and let's make the article neutral. And we can start by getting rid of this unimportant, non-notable incident where there is nothing behind it but allegation and heresay. And it was put in the article by a Wikipedia that has been here a couple of days and the ONLY edits that Chubbybunny78 has made is to tear down Steele and Erlich. Can't we just follow the Living Person rules and make honest decisions on what should be biographical article (date of birth, place of birth, schooling, work experience, etc.) instead of a series of election-inspiried charges by overzealous Democrats out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation???--Getaway 14:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when is this noticeboard the FIRST place to go to, to complain about POV? I was under the impression that edits and discussions on article talk pages were where one should start, with only serious problems posted here. I see no evidence of dialog by Getaway in this situation, just an (implied) assertion that a new editor focusing on a two biographies should be characterized as an overzealous Democrat out to completely destroy a black man that dares to get off of the Democratic Plantation.
 * Wikipedia has an easy remedy for unsourced negative information: remove it. Apparently (reading above) that isn't the real problem here; rather, it's sourced negative information that is bothersome. And if I misread the situation, I'd be happy to be corrected - on the article's talk page.   John Broughton  |  Talk 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The ARTICLE as a whole is biased.  It is a long laundry list of so-called "complaints" by Democrats about Steele.  The article is not about Steele.  The article is about what Democrats think of Steele.  It is biased and needs to narrowed down to what is important.--Getaway 16:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Liam Mower
 Section 'School Life' contains biased, unqualified and potentially slanderous (and misspelled) comments regarding subject's personal life.
 * I have deleted this section. OR at best and violation of BLP anyway. --VirtualDelight 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Fisher
 I feel that this article is unnecessarily opinionative and should be edited if not completely removed. There are contextual issues, a lack of references, chronological assumptions, and other issues which I think should be addressed.

First of all, I'd like to give a quick explanation as to why I'm asserting this position in regards to this entry. The article masks itself as an entry regarding Joseph Fisher, where in fact his "biography" is restricted to a mere three sentences. In which case I would've pushed for a simple renaming of the entry from Joseph Fisher to something along the lines of "The 'Islam Sucks' Controversy." However, the entire article contains many problems, so I raise the following issues.

The quotation in the article "a danger to the welfare of many" is speculative and doesn't portray the implication in Fisher's original editorial. In his essay, Fisher writes "Islam also presents a danger to the welfare of many due to its influence in Middle Eastern and North African governments." It is clear that Fisher's concern over the "danger to the welfare of many" was not Islam itself, but rather over Islamic fundamentalist regimes. This makes the wikipedia entry's statement "[Fisher] remarks on his dislike of ... Islam ... calling it a 'danger to the welfare of many.'" completely false. It should be removed from the entry.

The quotation "As this may suggest, the column is rife with inflammatory language ... where Fisher quotes Pervez Musharraf, calling Muslims 'the poorest, most illiterate, backward, unhealthy, unenlightened, deprived and weakest of all the races.'" First of all, I think the implied connection between the alleged inflammatory language in the editorial and the quotation of Pervez Musharraf fails to show Fisher's acknowledgement of the inflammatory nature of the comment, as indicated by his follow-up sentence "I don't have to defend these words because I didn't say them", culminating in his attributing the words to Musharraf. However, if you disagree on this being a deletion-worthy sentence based on contextual issues, I think many would still agree that "As this may suggest" is a slippery sentence to use in objective writing. It appeals to the audience to come to a conclusion, particularly the author's. It serves no purpose in an objective, encyclopedic entry.

The quotation "Fisher also condemns Muslim sharia law and in particular, the application of justice in Saudi Arabia." is blatantly and entirely false. It is entirely inferred by the author and has no factual basis. In fact, the author of the article even admits sharia is not even mentioned in the editorial. If the entry is (properly, I assert) abridged, it becomes paradoxical gibberish: "Fisher also condemns Muslim sharia law and in particular, the application of justice in Saudi Arabia, ... though his article does not mention sharia or the ongoing debate in Muslim nations about its application."

The omitted sentence between the quotations has its own supplications for deletion. "In [Fisher's] view, [sharia] is antithetical to women's rights." This sentence itself is an insult to "women's rights" as the "antithetical" position the author implies is condemnation of the sharia practice of punishing rape victims. An issue I feel ethically compelled to take a position on, and I hope and intend this position to be the only one I take in critism of this Wiki entry.

The remains of this flawed paragraph reads: "His only differentiation of the Muslim world is that of secular Turkey and just about everybody else - whereas he is unrelentingly critical of Islam and the nations where it plays a dominant role, he calls Turkey a 'shining light amidst all this madness. There's an understanding that a Muslim society can prosper, as long as it downplays the whole Islam thing.'" This paragraph fails to portray the larger context from which the quotation is taken. Mr. Fisher's position in his editorial seemed to be critism of religious law and an affinity to secular governments. The quotation is used in a way to imply criticism of Islam, where again, I don't feel the source properly verifies this assumption.

The statement "The author claims that some versions of the article found on the Internet are inaccurate and have been modified with malicious intent." lacks quotation and is speculative.

The statement "Two days later, after hundreds of letters to the editor poured in, an apology written by Fisher appeared on the front page of the South End." is presumably lifted from the entry's third source. Upon examination of the source, however, it is evident that this statement has been construed from two points in the source, without maintaining the factual integrity of the source. If I'm being unclear, my point is that the quotation can not actually be verified by the source. While the information is there, the chronology is not, and the chronology implied in the quotation is unverifiable. For this reason, it should be edited.

The statement "Fisher has since stated that he was coerced into the writing the apology." lacks quotation and is suspect.

The statement "In the days following the column's publication, he received thousands of e-mails, many of them threatening his life." lacks quotation.

The statement "Fisher believes that he was perfectly justified in writing the article, arguing that was approved by his editor before publication, and that while he 'may want to change a few of the details in the column, I would not change the gist of it.'" is wrong on so many levels, I think there might be a legal case against the author within it, should it prove to be false. Since it lacks quotation and is aggressive, I presume it to be false, and surely deserves deletion if nothing else in the article does. Without references, this claim is simply attacking Mr. Fisher and has NO place in his Wikipedia biography.

I believe in Mr. Fisher's right to free speech, and I think his Wiki article was written by someone who felt otherwise. While the article is seemingly accurate, minor changes and elaborations have been made that tarnish the factual history of the event. I think this subtlety is what makes this article particularly insidious. It wrongly chronicles Mr. Fisher's biography and inaccurately portrays the "furious debate" from the point of view of one of Mr. Fisher's debators. I originally started this piece with the intent of asking for the expurgation of large portions of the article, but upon the completion of it, I request it be expunged unless many feel Mr. Fisher deserves a Wikipedia entry, in which case, he deserves a cleaner rewrite with a more neutral tone.

Thank you for your consideration of my case, and I apologize for its length. J.S.

Star Jones Reynolds
Biased, slanted, unbalanced article with 5 sentences on her early life, education, and television career. The remaining sentences focus on controversy. Libelous comments on the discussion page need to be removed. These sentences include

"Star Jones is a despicable human being who kills puppies for fun, eats kittens and mocks the handicapped. She has been seen flirting with five year olds and even supported the nazi's during ww2 (she did this before being born through her alliance with satan). She sold out the human race to the aliens years ago and even flew one of the planes into the world trade center. I have personally seen her club baby seals and sodomize a blind dog. She has been spotted many times fisting sheep on various occassions. Finally, she is the anti-christ and must be killed asap. Thank you for your time."

"She is a fat stupid and obnoxious cow, and that, in my mind, makes her a target for ridicule."

I don't expect Wikipedia to do anything--obviously you've ignored all other complaints. But at least I've followed the rules and reported the libel against a living person.


 * I have removed the cited comments per BLP and as vandalism/trolling.--VirtualDelight 18:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:blpwatch|Henriett Seth-F.]]
She herself is constantly editing the article. The problem is, she doesn't really speak English. I've tagged the article for cleanup and copyedit (because it needs cleanup and I don't have time to do it right now), but then she attacked me in the revert comments, and she and a newly registered user magically appeared and vandalised my userpage 3 times in short order, commenting (in Hungarian) that "if you don't stop yourself, you'll get more of this, but in Hungarian". (I haven't edited any other articles related to Hungarian topics in weeks.) To her credit, she did add references to many of her statements, which I requested on the talk page alongside the English cleanup, so I'm really straining to assume good will. I've tried her talk page, but I think she doesn't know how to use talk pages.

I'd happily copyedit the article, but she seems firmly set on my being a vandal at this point, and I don't really feel like having horrendous things appear on my userpage overnight. I don't know what to do - I don't know her in person and I've never been connected to her in any way besides Wikipedia.

Related usernames:

Hungariandeedee - her main username (she claimed it was her in Miklós Győri, which is now deleted after I edited it - Miklós Győri is my thesis advisor and I couldn't stand to see the broken English in the article, as it used to be the first hit on his name that came up on Google - and she blanked it entirely. I didn't restore it - I didn't think the whole thing was that important to get into a revert war over - and it was deleted after a while.)

Possible sockpuppets: Wekings, Nicholas2006

Thank you for your help, prezzey 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sean O'Callaghan
&mdash; the subject of the article is notable because he was a member of the Provisional IRA who became a police informer and later wrote a book about his experiences. Unsurprisingly, this makes him a hate figure for many Irish republicans. There are unsourced allegations that he is a homosexual &mdash; Category:LGBT people from Ireland has had to be removed from the page a few times. The dispute is about the inclusion of an unconnected incident in which he was tied up and his house burgled (by ordinary criminals, not related to his IRA past at all), an incident which is used to reintroduce the gay allegations into the article. I've removed most of this content under the "Wikipedia is not a tabloid" and "include only information relevant to their notability" clauses of WP:BLP, however my removal is disputed on the talk page by. Can I get a third opinion on this please? this section was written by
 * The article highlights the recent controversy where O'Callaghan was duped into taking to men he met into a pub back to the house he was staying at and then he was tied up and robbed.

One of the men that did this was caught and and he claimed that O'Callaghan asked him to do this as part of a sex act - this is all reported widely and and reference in the article. The only person claiming that he was gay and the jury didnt believe him and convicted him of robbery. This is also highlight in the article. The section relating to this episode is relatively simple and written in a conservative manner and not tabliod in any way and only outlines the fact -  has a vested interest in this issue and is trying to censor the article. Vintagekits 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is my "vested interest"? And also you still haven't addressed the "include only information relevant to their notability" rule. Demiurge 00:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is notable at least three editors have added this section in one form or another and you are the only one that keeps deleting it! If it wasnt notable it would not be added to the article non would it be reported widely in the press. Vintagekits 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC) thats your POV not that of the majority - want ot put it to a vote?? Vintagekits 01:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still not relevant to his notability. The number of editors who have added it or the number of newspapers who covered it has nothing to do with it. Demiurge 01:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sean o callaghan picked up two guys in a gay bar & his freinds house was robbed while he was tied up during sex - this section was written by
 * This is not what the article is saying. The article is in no way saying he is gay. It was the the guy that robbed him that made that allegation - however he was convicted of the theft - what the article does is just hightlight the episode, which is very notable Vintagekits 13:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

David Loebsack
The article on freshman congressman David Loebsack currently includes the sentence "Loebsack was known to inform his non-liberal students that he would deduct points from their papers should they express views contrary to his well-known socialist stances." This accusation sounds inflammatory and dubious at best. As there is no source material referenced to support this argument, I think it should be removed. -- User:RyanGWU82
 * Very much so, and it has been removed. FCYTravis 08:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Erin McNaught
user 220.236.8.106 has repeatedly entered the following on Erin's page. (Before he started, she originated in Brisbane) "She is from the Gold Coast. She is currently dating Changsta from C-Unit.She's known to be the hottest model in Australia." The middloe comment is unsupported, and the last is, of course subjective. I have rved twice, and he is coming straight back and re-reverting. ta--Bilbo B 12:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick Ross (consultant)
User:Tilman is reverting my edits which removed material that is either unduly weighted, unsourced or improperly sourced, and being extremely contentious about it on the talk page. My version: Tilman's version:  .......I would like to see each of the disputed statements individually and specifically referenced. I welcome the input of other editors. wikipediatrix 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The material was well sourced... Wikipediatrix deleted the sources as well, instead of reading them. See the discussion in the article. Wikipediatrix uses a "delete first, talk later" strategy, and is somehow expecting that other editors explain to her every single sentence, and tell her in what line of the source it is.
 * Wikipediatrix deleted about 2/3 of the article, which was well balanced and has been watched by many editors for many months. I've reverted her deletions a few times. --Tilman 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although there was a long list of alleged sources, they were mostly at the end of the article, and not directly attached with ref tags to any of the disputed statements. In the interest of WP:BLP, I have been temporarily removing the disputed text until we can get each claim individually tagged and cited. I don't think an article about a living person should make controversial claims about them, plunk down a long list of "references" at the bottom, and expect the reader to wade through them all trying to figure out which sources support which statements. If it was an article like Larch or Cheese, I wouldn't care, but this is a living person and I take WP:BLP very seriously. wikipediatrix 19:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Both editors are somewhat right. And it is good of User:Wikipediatrix to be bold and make some changes.  The version of the article before those actions read like a personal attack on Rick Ross.  He is a living person, and we should tread more carefully with WP:BLP. Smeelgova 19:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I could of course also be bold and look at Wikipediatrix edits, and start to delete many really poorly referenced articles that she started. However, I am aware of the WP:DISRUPT policy, so I won't do it.
 * She deleted the Jason Scott segment in full, just because she didn't want to read the source referenced at the end - which had the whole story. It is ridiculous to have over 20 sentences with "[12]" at the end each. We do now have the weird situation that Jason Scott is mentioned in the introduction, but not elaborated on.
 * Rick Ross is a controversial person. So its only logical that he has critics. However, each criticism had a rebuttal. --Tilman
 * There were over 20 individual references, that were ignored by you. One can simply compare the numbers in the two versions. --Tilman 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tilman, if I have EVER inserted libelous unsourced information into a living person's article, don't hold back - go forth and zap it mercilessly. I can't imagine what articles you would be referring to, though, because I am very careful with articles about living persons. If you feel I am in error on other articles, answer on my talk page or on the talk pages of said articles. wikipediatrix 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DISRUPT. Plus, it isn't the way I work. But Norton S. Karno is an example of a poorly referenced article, or referenced with dubious anonymous sources. But I don't really have the time to start to show you all the details. I've already lost valuable time with your destruction of this definition. --Tilman 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the Jason Scott issue should be mentioned in the article, but I also agree with Wikpediatrix that most of the stuff from the old article was unnecessary and read like a personal attack. Smeelgova 20:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Not mentioning the controversies makes the article look like a whitewash. The current article does him a disservice, because now there is also no neutral review of these attack arguments (e.g. scientology, Ammerman, Wessinger, etc). --Tilman 20:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep talking as if I want to permanently keep this info out, when I've stated repeatedly in the plainest English I know that this is not the case? Attribute proper sources specifically and directly to their individual statements in the Jason Scott section, and we're done here. wikipediatrix 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I told you before, this would mean having "[12]" after every sentence of the Jason Scott segment. Of course I could do this just to show you how silly this is, since you don't want to read that article source. But again, this would be against WP:DISRUPT. --Tilman 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, you and I have disagreed in the past, but I have to agree. Tillman's edit is too negative and the citations arent clear. Jason Scott could probably be mentioned in a sentence or two without going into all the gory details, but the article looks good to me the way it is. Crabapplecove 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rick Ross comes up as the final winner in "my" edit. After all, Jason Scott first won a lawsuit against Ross because Ross had tried to deprogramm him, then he fire his (scientology) attorney, settled with Ross for a tiny amount of money, plus 200 hours of his expert time! --Tilman 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As an example, how it would look per Wikipediatrix:


 * Ross went into bankruptcy as well, but emerged in December 1996, when Scott reconciled with his mother  and settled with Ross for $5,000,  and for 200 hours of Ross's services "as an expert consultant and intervention specialist."  Moxon was fired the next day  and Scott then retained long-time Church of Scientology opponent Graham Berry as his lawyer instead.

Of course its all the same link. --Tilman 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Bad example. For a two-sentence paragraph, you only need one link at the end of the paragraph.  Nothing in wikipedia policy says that every phrase, or every word, or even every sentence needs a separate citation.  John Broughton  |  Talk 18:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I haven't suggested anything on the order of what Tilman is facetiously (at least I hope he's just being facetious) claiming I have. A link at the end of each paragraph would suit me just fine, provided that everything in the preceding paragraph is in fact supported by that link's info. wikipediatrix 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, so you guys seem to be coming to at least a small consensus and agreement that you only need citations at the end of the paragraph on a specific issue? Smeelgova 21:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Roland Rance
User:Fumigate, who has been blocked, and User:Wczto, a suspected sockpuppet, are constantly replacing the content of the article Roland Rance with untrue, grossly defamatory, and probably libellous material. They are also regularly reverting edits by me and other users to articles, such as David Bukay and {Steven Plaut]. RolandR 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the comments added are defamatory, but I also have to ask: does Rance really qualify for a Wikipedia article? The article really needs some more info. PetitionOnline.com petitions don't really belong. Crabapplecove 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any notability established. I put a db-bio on it. Crockspot 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Matheson
The criticism and controversy section of this article is completely unsourced. It accuses Matheson of rarely going to church, having a far left voting record on social policy, and getting a free pass from the local media. The writer's uses some version of the phrase "some say" or "critics say" repeatedly to cover up the lack of sourcing. I attempted to remove the section, but the original writer added it back. I'm new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what to do.

Brooke Hogan
Please check this article. Someone replaced the entire article with offensive text that had nothing to do with the title. The original text has been revived but needs to be checked by an experienced Wikipedia editor.

Mwai Kibaki
Certain sections of the article on mwai kibaki ,the president of kenya are libelous .The article does not meet Editors standards of not being biased or malicious .The article is clearly  pushing an agenda and  biased point of view. The third-party published sources are cleverly picked from government critics and news sources that have a history of being biassed such as the bbc when it comes to african issues.The writers of the article are  representing their views and misrepresenting them as a majority view.sections of his personal life that state he has a second wife are of concern  and of damaging repute to the president. i also take issue with the highlighting section concerning 2005 dismissal of the cabinet. though the event of the sacking did take place most of the insinuations in the article are false and clearly aimed at damaging the reputation of the president. most of the claims are infact  out rightly false eg 2005 constitution- the article claims that "Though strongly supported by Kibaki, the majority of Kenya's citizens rejected it". what exactly constitutes a majority ,referendum results clearly showed that though the president was for the constitution it was defeated with a narrow victory for the opposition a 47% loss to a 53% win.

On the 2005 dismissal of cabinet- this events hadly qualifies as a major incident in the presidency of mwai kibaki its importance is grossly over blown.the article goes further to state that "The Cabinet was appointed, but some MPs were offered ministerships but did not take up posts" which also is a fabrication one agin aimmed at the presidents reputation.The laterst entry  that On 15 November 2006 he reinstated Kiraitu Murungi as Energy minister, accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal, and George Saitoti as Education minister, previously accused in the Goldenberg scandal.is infact misleading Kiraitu Murungi  Energy minister, was never  accused of corruption in the Anglo-Leasing scandal but rather he was accused of slowing down investigations into anglo leasing as justice minister a huge difference  than the implied actual involVement in the scandal

Dave Ramsey Continued
I have vigerously removed comments made by User:170.252.11.11, who now goes by User:70.129.156.204. He seems to have changed his IP after I tried to contact him through his talk page. He will not speak to me directly, but has made grandios claims on the talk page that I am a "Dave Ramsey lover" and that I am vandalizing the page by not allowing this person to "reveal any kind of criticsm about Dave Ramsey." I don't know what controversy he is referring to other than the one he seems so intent to invent. Ramsey himself admits to being criticized by some in the financial industry, but the only thing I can find to support that is in his books, in two blogs, an Amazon.com member review, and a Myspace page. This person has cited his sources as that Amazon.com member review, three articles that don't even talk about the arguement he was making in the statement, and a form on Dave Ramsey's site allowing listeners to enter a contest to win a free TiVo. He also repeatedly adds an uncited comment that Ramsey makes derogitory statements against women by calling them "Darling." When I revert his comments, he reverts them back stating that I am vandalizing the article and either twisting wikipedia policy to support my actions or making up wikipedia policy to forward my "Pro-Ramsey agenda." I admit I'm fairly new to this, and I'm pretty much learning this as I go. This isn't exactly the only article I contribute to, I just have a fair bit of knowledge about it. I'm not really sure what stage to take next with this guy. If any of his statements had any strand of truth, I'd cite it properly. (and believe me, I've been using every resource I can think of to try and verify any of it-Besides the rediculous nature of some of it, really the only thing I can find validity to is the comment about other financial professionals, and according to Wikipedia BLP guidelines, the only usable source available is his own books) So what do I do? Or can I get some help in the area? Should some sort of block take effect? It seems like if he's changing his IP that won't do anything. I'm going to look into requesting this be protected. But could someone maybe look over the history page and see what should be done? I saw something about removing this stuff from the history as well, but I'm not even sure how to do that. Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated.--Arkcana 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Larry Merchant
Flurry of vandalism following a link on a boxing forum. Please block offending IPs

Elizabeth Eckford
The Article on Elizabeth Eckford contains a section "Family Tragedy" which states: On the morning of January 1, 2003, Elizabeth Eckford's son Erin Eckford was shot and killed by police in Little Rock. Killed By the Ku Klux Klan.

The "Killed by the Ku Klux Klan" was not borne out by a search I carried out. I am going to remove these six words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike M SA (talk • contribs)

Joseph McMillan
Not sure if this is the place to bring it up, but, who is apparently the subject of the article blanked it, with the edit summary ''Deleted article on myself, which consisted of a bio written by myself for a published book, not for Wikipedia. I am not a public figure and do not wish Wikipedia to have an article about me.'' It was immediately unblanked by AntiVandalBot.

Dantallass has left a message on AVB's talk page which states ''I wish the article about myself that appeared on Wikipedia without my knowledge or consent to be deleted. It is taken almost verbatim from a bio prepared by me for a printed publication, Burke's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit. Its republication certainly violates Burke's copyright. Furthermore, as I am not a public figure and do not wish to be covered by Wikipedia, I consider the article a violation of my privacy. I tried to remove the text and see that it has been restored. Please delete it. Joseph McMillan''

I couldn't find any guidelines for this situation in various BLP-type policies.

I've actually just found an online version of Burkes World Orders..., and the article text is a copyvio (it has been wikified but that's about all). I guess I could tag it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but I don't want to confuse the situation. Dr pda 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like Oden already tagged it. That's an easy speedy delete. Crockspot 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tagged it according to Copyright problems regarding blatant copyright infringements (there is no clean revision in the page history). Also left a note on the talk page of the apparent subject of the article: user talk:Dantallass (see also User_talk:AntiVandalBot for more information). --Oden 02:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been corresponding with Joe McMillan today and can confirm that the user in question is, indeed, him.--dave-- 04:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings
(Note: An spanish speaking administrator is a plus -not a must- for this issue)

One : User:Igor21 wrote: ''I forgott to speak about Anson and La Razon. Anson was involved in a attempt of military coup in the 80s.''

"Anson" is Luis María Anson, a famous living spaniard.

Igor21 provided no source whatsoever.

Two : User:Igor21 wrote: now that it is possible to demonstrate that Pedro J was favourishing the creation of the death squads

"Pedro J" is Pedro J. Ramírez.

The "source" provided is an unrelated quote taken from interventions in a blog. .

I asked the user if he checked the unrelated quotation, he gave no answer.

Three : User:Igor21 wrote:So when PP and PSOE agree in doing dirty war against ETA terrorists in the 80's...

I asked four thrice for a source for this bold affirmation. He gave me a rather vague source:


 * There are many sources for this. The most easy to find is a front page article in magazine Epoca entitled "Comienza la guerra sucia" ("Dirty war starts"). There it explains a meeting between Gonzalez and Fraga in the country house of the latter. It says that shorly after Manglano, Casinello and Galindo have held some operational meetings and were destined to Basc Country. This article was published some weeks before the GAL started its actions. I do not have the exact date because I lost my archive in a change of house. Anyway this is not the issue here.

"Fraga" is Manuel Fraga, a famous living spanish politician.

The "source" given by Igor21 does not exist, due to two simple facts.


 * 1. The Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación criminal actions started in october 1983.


 * 2. The first "Época" magazine was published in march 1985.

After this gaffe, Igor21 wrote:


 * I have been trying to remember and my memory has bring me a surprising recall. I think that the source was Cambio 16 (the rest of the details are the same) that at this time was directed by Pedro J and was a fan of the dirty war as you can see in this link http://www.libertaddigital.com/bitacora/piomoa/comentarios.php?id=1518&num=3.

Now "he thinks" it was the magazine Cambio 16. After this he wrote a text in spanish in my user page  where he writes further unsourced accusations against Fraga an Pedro J Ramírez. He also talks about the source he has not been able to provide as the "mysterious source".

I asked Igor21 for a formal statement about that "mysterious source", because I wanted to check his assertions in the library and I do not want to go there every time Igor21 has a surprising recall about the "mysterious source". He made no such statement.

Finally :

I gave the User the link to Biographies of living persons and asked him for sources several times, with no success.

AFAIK this is libel against Manuel Fraga, Luis María Anson and Pedro J. Ramírez.

Randroide 08:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer also to the opinions of other editors as expressed on the talk page for the Madrid bombngs. This is a debate which is entirely unproductive and irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. Those who accuse, without evidence, the Spanish government of participating in the massacre of 191 of their own citizens are on very shaky ground when accusing others of libel.

Southofwatford 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot
Bigfoot may or may not be a living person. However the majority of scientists are and the article says about them:


 * The majority of scientists reject the likelihood of such a creature's existence, and consider the stories of Bigfoot to be a combination of unsubstantiated folklore and hoax    . 


 * Do you consider this to be a negative statement about scientists? Inadequately sourced negative statement?  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is. Scientists should keep open minds and not reject possiblities. Although in this case they are said to only reject a "likelihood", which I guess is not so bad.  I made a suggestion on the talk page of the article which could improve the sentence without changing the point it is trying to make.  I will wait and see what other people think about it.  Steve Dufour 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So provide a reliable source indicating that the majority of scientists -- or even anything more than a percent or two -- do not consider Bigfoot to be utter hooey. It might be an interesting process. (Note that the purpose of BLP is not to inject anyone's desire for how things should be; I think it should defame the American people to say that a large minority believe in creationism, but that's how it is.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "consider to be utter hooey" and "reject". :-)  Steve Dufour 17:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is, to me "reject" implies a postive action. I don't think that the majority of scientists have "rejected" Bigfoot.  Most of them have not considered him at all.  Steve Dufour 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This "Bigfoot" entry has absolutely nothing to do with WP:BLP and frankly, I'm surprised editors are even giving it the time of day. wikipediatrix 16:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much more public interest in Bigfoot than in Barbara S. :-)  Steve Dufour 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The "problem" seems to be now solved. Thanks. Steve Dufour 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Help requested with Mike Mendoza
Some person or persons editing from IP addresses are repeatedly reverting to a version that includes unsourced/poorly sourced information, while the subject himself is removing the unsourced information but also an item of sourced information. The latest revert claimed that 192.com, i.e. the phone book, was sufficient proof that Mike Mendoza the DJ (the subject of the article) is also a former Tory councillor, which is one of the items the subject has been removing and is not supported by any reliable source - the phone book plainly doesn't qualify.

I've summarised the points under dispute on Talk:Mike Mendoza. I've asked for a third opinion but it was the wrong place to go - I need someone to actively edit the article rather than just give their opinion. Specifically I need someone to either help revert, or even better, semi/fully protect the page to force participants to discuss rather than edit war. I've reverted too much myself, and can't protect as I've 'taken a side'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)