Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive22

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Anthony Peratt – Article deleted. – 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Antony Perrat



 * Editor User:Velikovksy added (1) A contentious sentence to this biography. without any source. (2) Contentious category tags,
 * Without reliable sources, I both removed them, and warned the user that I thought it was a violation of WP:LIVING here.
 * Editor User:Velikovksy subsequently threatened me with unfounded claims of Conflict of interest, (following another COI report), then changed their username to User:Mainstream astronomy
 * Under the new username User:Mainstream astronomy, they have restored the contentious material,, again without reliable sources, which I have highlighted on the talk page.
 * During the Conflict of interest incident mentioned above, another user queried whether User:Velikovksy had an agenda,, and a look through their editing history shows a preponderance of adding contentious material,, which may be valid, but shows a trend. --Iantresman 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wonder about the new user name (as about the old, considering the topics being worked on)  DGG (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That contentious sentence (first bullet point above) is OR, so I removed it. But I don't see any evidence that article passes WP:PROF. Does anyone agree? If so, let's WP:PROD it. CWC 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Mainstream astronomy has now added a ((prod}} template to the article which I have no objection to in principle.
 * However, User:Mainstream astronomy has added a number of new unsubstantiated controversial comments to the template, such as: "itinerant" expert, the person is on the outskirts of academe, is not considered important, He is pretty obscure, etc.
 * This is third time this user has added such material to this article, and also to another living author, without substantiation.
 * I suspect that the user used to go by the Username User:ScienceApologist under which username, similar unsubstantiated controversial comments were made,, including suggestions of improprietry,, all contrary to WP:LIVING guidelines.
 * User:ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of other living people too, and also under yet another username, Joshuaschroeder too, eg.
 * Surprisingly, User:Mainstream astronomy admits that he doesn't know whether the subject is legitimate!


 * Yes, that PROD text was probably too strong. I've WP:BOLDly condensed the text, just to be on the safe side of WP:BLP. Cheers, CWC 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We're now running an AfD instead of a PROD. CWC 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lise Skaret – Article deleted. – 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lise Skaret

 * - A rash act by a 19 year old girl shouldn't be forever immortalized in an encyclopedia, especially with a compromising picture. Per WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E and others.  henrik  • talk  12:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to ascertain the importance of this topic, should it belong on Wikipedia? Is it notable enough? If so, I suggest redirecting to a properly named article, as this is most definitely not a biography. As for the picture, WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored.--Ispy1981 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo has no source information regarding the copyright holder, and will be deleted unless that can be provided per WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about this for a bit, but I decided to kill it. A teenage stunt shouldn't be immortalized by a Wikipedia biography. Perhaps those interested in this can add a small bit about it to the russ article, since there seems to be a history of wacky russ stunts. I will open a discussion at WP:DRV if anyone wishes to object to this deletion. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is here. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DRV endorsed deletion. Resolved. - Crockspot 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David R. Hawkins – Article deleted. – 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David R. Hawkins
There are critical links that are being removed on the Hawkins page that I believe should be included. They are good, legitimate criticisms. There seems to be a bias about removing any critical comment from the article now. Thank you. --Alienlifeformz 16:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Monica Leech – Speedy after AfD – 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Monica Leech
This article, up for AFD, stated that soem said she was paid too much for the work she did for the government, and that a talk show caller had made a specific obscene suggestion as to what she did to earn it, and that she had pursued a libel case against a newspaper that reprinted the talk show comment. I blanked all but the first sentence of the article, that said she was a "self-employed communications consultant, who runs her own company." The article reprinted unsourced libel. If the court case were notable, there might be an acceptable article, but I wonder, given the recent WP:BLP1E deletions by admins. Edison 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. I'm wondering if Natalee Holloway should be moved to Disappearance of Natalee Holloway to conform with WP:BLP1E?- Crockspot 21:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. It's certainly not a bio.  -Jmh123 23:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * She was non-notable before the disappearance, but the right-to-life issues of the killing of her unborn child Connor, and the Missing white woman syndrome on the 24/7 news channels made the case notable, apparently. With the front page stories and news coverage, millions came to feel that they were close friends, and news stories often referred to her only by her first name. WP:NOT became policy after that, so if an identical case came along today the outcome would be interesting. Our style more recently has consistently been to title the article as the case, not the person(unless they were notable before the incident). Edison 14:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Article has been recreated. Tagged for CSD G4. - Crockspot 02:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And deleted again. - Crockspot 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Frank Fahey – User warned – 03:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Frank Fahey
- A couple of users are inserting unsourced or poorly sourced derogatory material about Frank Fahey into his article. Sources are being cited that do not support the mateerial being added. Some of the wording used is definitely not NPOV. See, , and. -- Donald Albury 22:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Placed a warning on article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Strathairn – Content issue resolved, legal threats retracted – 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David Strathairn
On the Wikipedia page, someone has repeatedly been inserting more biographical information related to Mr. Strathairn's biography, along with a list of references. I run David Strathairn Online at www.david-strathairn.com, where ALL of that family and background information comes from. That information is exclusive to David Strathairn Online, and Wikipedia DOES NOT have the authority to reproduce or reprint any content from that website without expressed permission. Such a libel warning is printed at the top of the Biography page here: http://www.david-strathairn.com/bio.html] where it states: "This biography is copyrighted and was compiled/written by Andrea Weaver. Not for reprinting or reproduction."

I have repeatedly deleted the stolen information and it keeps reappearing. I just recently deleted it once again and, for the moment, it has not reappeared. Should you continue to violate the copyrights on David Strathairn Online, legal action should be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)


 * There does not appear to be any copyright violation. You don't own his biographical details. Can you provide the url to which you believe the material is being taken from? (Additionally, the material is sourced and non-controversial; none of the references even use your site (missed one).) shotwell 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I actually do own this biography. It was written by ME, and some of the information was provided by Mr. Strathairn through a contact. Wikipedia, on the otherhand, has no right to copy parts of the biography and is in violation of the copyrights on what I wrote. The url was already provided above for the stolen content, but since you don't seem to check links on stolen copyrights anyway, here it is again: If you continue to steal copyrighted material from my site, I will not hesitate to take legal action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)


 * You own the biography, but you do not own the facts. Even if the information was provided exclusively to you, once it was released to the world, it can be repeated on other people's pages. The only type of legal protection over facts is over trade secrets, and that requires first of all keeping them secret.--Prosfilaes 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. Stealing copyrighted content, regardless of what it is, and passing it off as your own is still, well, violating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs)


 * I don't understand what possible objection there can be to use of the personal information on this authoritative website in Wikipedia. Mr. Strathairn is a notable, widely known performing artist and the article is fair and neither even remotely libelous nor invasive of his privacy. This material was not plagiarized and was properly attributed via a footnote. It cannot possibly be a copyright violation. However, a claim from a website of "stealing copryighted content" is serious, and I've posted a notice on the Administrator's Noticeboard to ask that this user's claims be addressed by an administrator versed in copyright issues.--Mantanmoreland 16:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how biographical information can be copyrighted myself. Wildthing61476 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Information such as the name of someone's parents, etc. is not eligible for copyrigh. A biography is. The Wikipedia article does not include text taken from the copyrighted biography on the site in question, only information. Even apart from that, some of the information being removed by Andiweaves is clearly marked as coming from sources other than the official site, so to claim that it is exclusive information is ridiculous. JPD (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What Andiwaves is overlooking is that the material is footnoted to his website. Additionally, his website is listed first among the External Links. Far from material being "stolen," I'd say that this article goes out of its way to direct readers to this website. If there is any attribution issue that I am missing, he should say so. Honestly, he is acting as if this was some kind of attack article. I wonder if Mr. Strathairn, who portrayed Ed Murrow very recently, is aware of this complaint.--Mantanmoreland 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To the point, it's the principle of it. I work very hard on this website, so it's not appreciated when Wikipedia or any other webmasters come along and just take material, more particularly without asking to do so. The other "references" that you link to for the information came from my site initially--the source. If you're going to continue to steal material, at least have the curtesy to reference and provide credit to where the information comes from.


 * Oh, well that changes things completely, not with regard to your "copyright" complaint but rather use of the material in the first place. If it's not Strathairn's official website, then I will have to rethink use of the material at all as well as the link to the site.--Mantanmoreland 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a complete misunderstanding of exactly what copyright is, and what is copyrightable. The exact text that you have written on your site or substantially similar text to it to the point where it can legally be regarded as a derivative work is protected under copyright. However basic facts are not. If I start a website on an up & coming actor, and I'm the first to publically publish his place & date of time of birth, that information does not become my exclusive copyrightable property, only the specific text I used to describe the information does. Exxolon 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since BLP issues are not involved, I'd suggest that this discussion be moved to Talk:David Strathairn. I think that there is a problem with use of this website as a source, but not the one raised by the website.--Mantanmoreland 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't just provide "official" links on Wikipedia pages, so I find that unfounded. It may not be official, but Mr. Strathairn is well-aware of its existence and provided writings/corrections/material on the Biography page some time ago. It's the most complete, reliable resource on his work, and it's not right to delete reference to that information. I understand copyright laws, and that doesn't change the fact that information has been taken without credit, both on Wikipedia and other sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.69.184 (talk • contribs)

You may not be aware of WP:LEGAL, but you should review it. You've made a legal threat, and repeated it at least twice. - Crockspot 00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know I have. That being said, the majority of the offending content has been removed, which is appreciated. Should it stay that way, I hope this matter can be resolved.


 * Unless you retract/ strike the threats, you are subject to a block. - Crockspot 00:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the info is removed, yes, I retract. I'd like to close my complaint.
 * Resolved. - Crockspot 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Benjamin Boorem – Speedy deleted – 03:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Benjamin Boorem & Mika Boorem
Benjamin Boorem appears to be a non-notable person who was convicted of money laundering. I am not quite sure that he merits a Wikipedia page, especially since the only reason it seems to have been created is to add negative material to another page, that of actress Mika Boorem, including claims that she is his daughter, although these don't seem to be explicitly supported by sources. (There was a wealth of other negatively-skewed material added to Mika Boorem's page, also unsourced, which I have now removed.) My main question is, does Benjamin Boorem's page pass notability criteria? Tell-Tale Ghost 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Violates WP:BLP1E. I tagged it for a CSD A7. Cleanup on isle three please. - Crockspot 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Benjamin's page is toast. I forgot to tag the talk page, which is now tagged as an orphan talk page. Marking this one resolved. - Crockspot 16:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Laurette Onkelinx – Unsourced material removed, users warned – 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Laurette Onkelinx


Two Belgian editors are edit warring here: User:BogaertB and User:Mario scolas. I feel a bit awkward because I warned the latter not to edit war, but now that the former has reverted again, I feel I have to mention the problem here. The text that is being added and deleted, also has a WP:UNDUE problem, as the passage that the "charge has been dropped" is not very prominent - and the casual reader may even think it refers to something else (the passage between brackets preceding). There are references for the story on the internet, but none from established Belgian newspapers who did not dare to touch the story (as far as I know, only Humo mentioned the story, to debunk it, well after the charge had been dropped). The story appeared on militant muslim sites, on extreme-right wing French speaking Belgian nationalist sites and on the blog of a Vlaams Belang politician (Marie-Rose Morel). (So, some people may understand the bad blood between the two editors)

Basically, because trustworthy sources did not mention this (although they were not unwilling to criticize this minister on other occasions, see the rest of the article) I would say that if this thing cannot be shortened (giving a more prominent place to Morocco dropping the charge), the passage should be deleted. WP:BLP, WP:Undue, and "not really about the subject, but we all like something juicy now and then". --Pan Gerwazy 01:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jonas Renkse – Non-recurring vandalism reverted – 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jonas Renkse


Mr. Renkse has been repeatedly reported as having passed away as of last week (untrue)

Some of the versions allege that he committed suicide, which the community considers mal intentioned and hurtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nogs00 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears as though this was the work of an anon vandal who went on a spree with this article 3 days ago. I'm putting it on my watch and warning the vandal.--Sethacus 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Graham Ovenden – Checked – 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Graham Ovenden
Could someone have a glance to check recent revisions regarding the controversial aspects of his work. Thanks. Gordonofcartoon 02:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Current version is OK of the particular passage. Sourced. Not undue weight. Tyrenius 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jeffrey Kofman – Resolved through sourcing – 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jeffrey Kofman

 * - This bio does not cite a single source. There are two LGBT categories applied. I don't think sexual orientation is disputed, so I did not remove them, but this one needs some quick help. If I removed everything unsourced, there wouldn't be anything left. // Crockspot 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another editor has removed the cats pending a source. - Crockspot 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hopefully your concerns will be allayed by the edits i've made to the article.--emerson7 | Talk 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Greg Lloyd Smith – Speedy CSD A10 – 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Greg Lloyd Smith

 * - Repeated untrue statements of libelous nature are posted to this article including references to an alleged lawsuit by Amazon.com, Inc., untrue comments regarding Quakeaid and completely false allegations regarding Jennifer Monroe and Greg Lloyd Smith being the same person. These statements are untrue.  They have been fabricated by users who either have been sued by or pursued by through legal means, lawyers for Greg Lloyd Smith or one of his companies.  I have attempted to amend these comments and the user/administrator restores them without any shred of evidence or proof for the claims being made.  I request that the page in its entirety be removed.  // Greglloydsmith 09:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The present form of the page looks like an attack page. It is possible that neutral information could be collected about this man, but there is no evidence of it so far. There are some primary sources regarding Greg Lloyd Smith's legal troubles. Because of the BLP risk, and since notability remains to be shown, I think taking the page to AfD could be the simplest course. EdJohnston 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagged for speedy deletion CSD A10. No neutral version in the history. Zap the bugger. - Crockspot 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gone. - Crockspot 03:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Douglas Anthony Cooper – Stubbed – 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Douglas Anthony Cooper

 * - The "neutrality and factual accuracy of this article" are in question, according to the tag at the top. This article WAS being attacked by a stalker, but I am told that it is now protected.  I am the subject of the article in question -- I have checked the current version, and there are no factual errors; also, it appears neutral enough to me. Nevertheless, I would be happier if the article were removed in its entirety:  I am nowhere near important enough to require a wikipedia entry, and given that I am currently being stalked by an anonymous vandal -- who continually libels me on the web -- I would rather I simply did not appear in wikipedia at all.  (If you do keep the article up, you can remove that caution at the top, but I really would prefer that it were deleted.)


 * Stubified article keeping only sourced information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Sexual Discrimination in Malaysian Parliament – Deleted, CSD A10 – 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Sexual Discrimination in Malaysian Parliament
This article primarily consists of unsourced alleged incidents of sexual discrimination and a “blacklist” of parliamentarians. I have submitted it for a G10 speedy and will post a notice on the editor’s talk page. May wish to watch for recreation in same style. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Smail Tulja – Problematic content removed – 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Smail Tulja
Article about a man being tried for murder, but assumes his guilt. Needs a lot of scrubbing, perhaps even a speedy. THF 13:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed everything potentially libelous that was unsourced. Anything about him being a criminal needs to be sourced before being added back in. Basejumper 16:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Akebono Taro – Resolved. – 02:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Akebono Taro


One editor is assuming bad faith and I believe wrongly re-emphasising a negative nickname and reverted what seemed to be a well balanced review of Akebono's post sumo career to one with a more negative spin. Any reversion would just be reverted again, and the other editor has already expressed bad faith in other editors of the page. I am looking for outside opinions I also posted this on RFC/biographies and all the information is on Talk:Akebono Taro. XinJeisan 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Church_of_Christ_(Temple_Lot) – Material removed – 19:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

URGENT: Private individual defamed in Wikipedia article
UPDATE: the individual defamed in the citation in a Wikipedia article and, by extension, discussion of the situation in Talk pages (supposedly prohibited at WP:BLP), states that he will contact the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and other relevant law enforcement agencies after 17:00 hrs UTC/GMT today if this complaint is not addressed or resolved by Wikipedia administration by then. Piledoggie 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An old newspaper report about a still-living person, who is not a public figure, nor a celebrity, and which is unusually inaccurate and libelous, keeps being linked in a Wikipedia article. While the newspaper report does not provide a name, the .pdf copy of it is part of a webpage which repeatedly provides the name of the individual, as well as false and defamatory material, most of which is not rebutted in a sketchy "rebuttal' included there since May of 2005. Until yesterday, the website containing the copy of the newspaper article was repeatedly linked to the Wikipedia article, prompting an OTRS ticket which was mistakenly revoked after only 24 hours. Incidentally, the 1990 newspaper report is web-published without copyright permission. I should have posted the problem here, four days ago, when the dispute began (see history for that page). As it is, a huge amount of quibbling has taken place between users and editors (including myself), none of whom are thoroughly acquainted with WP:BLP issues. A good summary of the situation, and of some of the dilemmas and misunderstandings which have prevented it from being resolved, is at User_talk:Cbrown1023 Could at least one administrator experienced in BLP issues please read yesterday's discussion on that talk page entitled "urgent", then take the appropriate action and/or advise me, including--if necessary--via my email at my user page? Piledoggie 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Kansas City Times is (or, was, as it is no longer published) a reliable source. Neither it nor the Wikipedia article names the person who set fire to the church building.  The relevant material in our article is written neutrally, and is an accurate summary of the KCT article.  The fire is a notable event in the history of the church, and should be covered.  Nothing is sourced to the Watchman Expositor, nor should it be.  I see no BLP problem here.  There may be a copyright issue in the hosting of the KCT article, but that's an entirely separate issue.


 * Also, legal threats, direct or indirect, are not welcome on the wiki. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the individual defamed in the the Times report responds: "...except for the reply about the copyright issue, the reply by Jonel is just more "noise" and obfuscation, it is obvious the history of the dispute/complaint was not examined. The Kansas City Times report cited in the Wikipedia article is an unreliable and defamatory source. The Times .pdf is clearly sourced to and by the Watchman Expositer, online edition: http://www.watchman.org/lds/KCTimes01-02-1991.pdf, and more significantly, repeatedly linked in the Wikipedia article's page history and discussed on its Talk Page, in contravention to Wikipedia's strict regulations regarding unreliable and defamatory sources. For the sake of urgency, here it is:
 * http://www.watchman.org/lds/fire.htm :::


 * It is 1721 hrs UTC (1:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time).


 * This thread will now be forwarded to  in a last-ditch effort to protect Wikipedia as well as the offending editors and administrators, from criminal prosecution.


 * If Jonel and Wikipedia administration do not enforce WP:BLP then legal threats has no relevance here, except in that it constitutes a "legal threat" of its own. 69.154.18.251 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend removing the objected source, and protecting the page until this issue is resolved. - Crockspot 17:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Above IP user is actively making legal threats. There's no such thing as criminal prosecution for something like this and the FBI will probably laugh in their face if a call is made. There's no need for this drama.  I suggest a short block of this IP user to prevent further disruption, per WP:NLT.  I'll also look at the article and check for WP:BLP issues. Jehochman Talk 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The FBI has been contacted previously in regards to exactly the same offense at another popular website, and took an active interest, and the offending material was removed before further action was required. And the FBI [field] officers contacted then said to please contact them again if the same or similar problem occurred, again. Internet defamation of a private citizen is one of the "internet crimes" investigated and prosecuted by the FBI In other words, the 'legal threat' was neither laughable nor inappropriate, and you should offer a gracious apology for stating otherwise, but I somehow doubt you will. Also, the offending citation was removed shortly before you viewed the article, I'm not sure yet by whom. I don't wish to point-for-point argue with other comments in this thread, except to urge any editor or administrator to not jump to conclusions before closely examining the page's history, talk page, and salient user pages. To those who have responded to this crisis in a reasonable and considerate manner, I thank you very much, and that's an understatement. Wikipedia Team was notified, but the FBI (and other relevant "law enforcement authorities" were not notified. Anyone that questions the need for law enforcement intervention in an internet defamation case, please imagine what you would think or do if someone appeared near a busy intersection during rush hour, near your home, with a sign containing your name, and particularly defamatory and unfactual allegations, displayed in what appeared to be a very credible format. In that event, you would spare no effort to see that criminal action cease as soon as possible. THIS is why the FBI doesn't "laugh in the face" of complainants. Piledoggie 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Recently some editors have changed the article so it no longer points to the watchman.org site that was hosting the Kansas City Times reprint that mentions the fire. The watchman.org site claims that this person was convicted of third-degree arson in January, 1991, though it offers no reprint to back that up. I would suggest that we just get rid of the sentence that says the fire was set by a former member of one of the churches, because it doesn't seem germane to the article. To keep that sentence, without saying who it was, raises the question of how we know, and might indicate we should follow up with a citation for the arson conviction. Also it sounds like WP:WEASEL because we don't say who did it. But it's hard to see why that's very relevant to the topic of the article, unless I'm missing something, so I don't see how the added labor of referencing is worthwhile. So my proposed change is: replace a former member of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) who had recently joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the simpler phrase an arsonist.  EdJohnston 18:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, you may be absolutely correct, but in that case this is just a run of the mill content dispute, not a BLP issue. If the parties can't agree, this should go to Dispute resolution. Jehochman  Talk 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Piledoggie has removed the BLP dispute tag. Are we done here? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * yes! please see my reply just now, further up the thread. Thanks again...and I have to rush to an appointment now, not related to this dispute, so I won't be able to reply for awhile if someone has a further question or comment. Please feel free to email me via my UserPage if you would like (anyone). Piledoggie 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two issues not fully answered. (a) What is Piledoggie's actual issue? He doesn't want us to point to watchman.org, but he won't say what is incorrect about their account of the matter.  (b) There is a complaint above by  69.154.18.251 who says that the original Kansas City Times article was libelous. We have not seen a clear version of an alleged fact which is being disputed. There is no reason for us to remove a newspaper reference, but it would be helpful to know what the IP believes is wrong in the newspaper account. EdJohnston 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Fred Phelps – Resolved. – 02:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Fred Phelps
- I'm not entirely sure I'm doing this right, so please let me know if I have done something wrong. There is information on this entry that should be removed immediate according to WP:BLP, but since I am not a user, I have posted a request for edit. Just in case I am supposed to post here as well, I am. If someone would like to let me know on my talk page one way or the other, I would appreciate it. The request I have made can be found here. Thanks! // Drake Maijstral 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed down the excessive coverage of a fringe theory, but more editing is probably desirable. I've also left a welcome2 package and a message on this editor's talk page. (What a great start to editing here!) Cheers, CWC 02:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Andrew Theophanous – Inactive. – 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Andrew Theophanous
Two versions of the Andrew Theophanous article have emerged from two or three contributors, both with an opinion on his activities, with very little discussion just reversion conflicts. I have a declared political bias and have done the best I could using reasonable quality sources. The other author seems to be someone with a great knowledge of Theophanous who has a very favourable view. It is most probably the man himself or close family member. Given we both have a bias and have made little progress in resolving the differences, it's probably time that others more familar with the Wikipedia has a go at fixing the mess. Apologies in advance if this is not correctly formatted.Visasforsale 11:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just read the article and deleted one sentence with an unsubstantiated claim about a third party. I could have missed other WP:BLP problems. I'll watch the page for more BLP violations.
 * As an Australian, I followed Theophanous's travails in the media. As a wikipedian, I find the Andrew Theophanous article ...err... rather unencyclopedic. Fortunately, someone has done a good job putting warning tags on it, and there's probably no great urgency about bringing it up to scratch. CWC 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ross McKitrick – Resolved. – 02:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ross McKitrick

 * - A line critical of his work has been included which is based solely on a blog post. The line: "Yet, after Lambert ran the regressions using the correct angle measurments, he claimed to have found that they "no longer 'explain' half of the surface warming trend McKitrick has pointed out." The source:   I have removed it several times, but it keeps getting replaced by various editors.  Additionally, Sourcewatch, a wiki critical of the subject is repeatedly included in external links.  Thse both violate WP:BLP: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link"  I have detailed my thoughts in the discussion and edit summaries, but have been accused of whitewashing.  I would appreciate more opinions on the matter.  // Theblog 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The editors in question have stopped adding the blog supported lines for now. --Theblog 01:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Portillo – Resolved. – 02:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Portillo
Repeated problems at this article eg, also 89.242.99.202 is making a lot of unfounded statements about other public figures here, SqueakBox 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I requested semi-protection on this page, but it was rejected. I'm taking the page off watch now, so you're on your own.  (I refuse to spend my time manually reverting policy violations once a decision is made not to use the perfectly reasonable automatic process) Mark Chovain 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Minka (porn star) – Challenged birthdate removed, as there is no reliable source for it. – 17:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Minka (porn star)
A little background - my primary work is obtaining free images, which I normally do by contacting article subjects. The subject of the article above told me that her birth year as stated in the article is incorrect, and I could find no verifiable reference of the birth year as stated in the article, so I removed it. (The reference seems to be the entry at IMDB, which I don't think can be classified as reliable or verifiable.) I've twice removed the birthdate based on the lack of reliable sourcing, but my edits have been reverted. Rather than get into a revert war or go to oversight, was hoping it could be reviewed here. Would welcome any advice. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're in contact with the subject of the article, perhaps you could suggest that she ask IMDb to correct their entry? Seems that that would eliminate the problem. --Stormie 05:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I advised her to do that - it's not the first time (had a similar issue with Kelli Maroney). But IMDB's errors really aren't our problem, we just shouldn't be echoing them. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting it's the case here but as a general observation it's not unknown for people to lie about their age. Teens do it to get into clubs; actors to present a more youthful image. -- R OGER  TALK 10:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree, but the onus is on the person who adds the information to provide a verifiable source for it. If the article subject says the date is wrong, we have to take her word for it unless reliable sources say otherwise. Videmus Omnia Talk  15:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Which is a good argument for just taking unsourced dates out and leaving them out until properly verified ones turn up. -- R OGER  TALK 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In a case like this, people are going to keep adding the date because they think it is accurate and they think they are improving the article. If the subject of the article is unwilling to contact IMDB, the only thing we can do is post a note on the talk page and an inline note in the article. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The IMDB citation is incomplete. I also don't think that IMDB is reliable for information other than filmography-related info. I don't have time to find it now, but IMDB is discussed as only reliable under certain conditions somewhere in policy or guidelines. - Crockspot 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what I've seen and heard in the past, IMDB is not particularly responsive when it comes to changing or verifying its info. But I like your idea of an inline note. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you're in touch with the article subject, and she has an official web site, the best option is to get her to add the correct date to her bio there, and that will be a Reliable source for our purposes. Meanwhile, I'll put the article on my watchlist, and will back you until a more reliable source than IMDB is found. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll ask her to do that. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, IMDB disclaims the accuracy of any information contained on their site. I would say that means "unreliable". I think that as an EL, or to source info like what movie someone was in, it can be used, but otherwise should not be used to source content, especially if contested by anyone, particularly the subject. - Crockspot 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Ward Churchill misconduct issues – AfD resulted in no consensus; offending links have been removed. – 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ward Churchill misconduct issues
Over at a fork from the main article (due to the length of the topic, there is currently an issue with two external links in the article. Both the links are from self published sites, on pro-Churchill and one anti-Churchill, and both need to be removed.

Relevant statement from WP:BLP:
 * ''Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article

I think its rather cut and dry, but in order to not provoke an edit war, I would rather post it here, and have the community deal with it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with TDC's view, it looks straightforward, the links should be kept out of the article, at least one persistent editor disagrees and keeps reinserting them. --Theblog 01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is a complete coatrack for BLP violations. I have speedied it accordingly.  The editors should incorporate non-violating material into the main Ward Churchill article as appropriate; I've offered to provide the text of the deleted article to any editor via email. Nandesuka 02:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a slew of redirects to this article, which are all now deleted as well. - Crockspot 18:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article has been temporarily undeleted via a deletion review and sent to an AfD discussion, I'm taking the tag off for now. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Rupak Bhattacharya – BLP/N is not Articles for creation – 16:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Articles requested about Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya, Originator of Bhattacharya Model of Universe
I found the information about Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya in www.unipathos.com see the foloowing 1)linkshttp://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_weblinks/catid,2/Itemid,23/ 2)http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

3)http://www.unipathos.com/main/content/view/8/37/ 4)http://www.extremeastronomy.com/forum/search.php?searchid=13873 5)http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=884948 6)http://forums.astronomydaily.com/search.php?mode=results Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya has his own model of Universe look at link http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,27/ and http://www.unipathos.com/main/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,28/

Dr.Srabani Chakraborty


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Talk:Scientology weddings – Resolved; tag hasn't been removed recently – 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

BLP tag removed
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this. However, I tried to add a blp tag to Talk:Scientology weddings since the article concerns living persons. Two were mentioned by name, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The tag has been taken off twice. Steve Dufour 15:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Contestants on TV shows – Notability dispute, try WT:MUSIC – 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Contestants on TV shows
This is a recurring problem where users are creating personal pages / biographies of contestants that take part in singing competitions like Sa Re Ga Ma Pa Challenge 2007 or Indian Idol. Ideally, there is no need to create personal pages of contestants who are not significant people as they do not have any singing contracts or albums. The Administrators delete the pages and someone goes and creates one. For some users, they feel that the rule is being misinterpreted and pages of contestants must be allowed. Following are some discussions that have taken place till now related to deleting the personal pages:


 * Discussion on page deletion
 * Ongoing discussion on page marked for deletion
 * Reasoning by admin on deleting pages

It is important that the admins look at this issue and probably refine the Wikipedia policy stated at

According to one of the page creators, the following point makes it a valid argument that personal pages of contestants should be allowed:

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

However, it does not make sense to create a personal page of every contestant as otherwise you would see Wikipedia flooded with personal pages of participants from all the shows that are telecast worldwide.

So please clarify this confusion so that users will abide by the rules and will save time for administrators.

Thanks Wikizen07 22:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Sada Abe – Material in question is well-sourced. – 16:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Sada Abe


Two editors keep adding that she was a rape victim as a child and putting her in the rape victims category. Respecting her privacy and for BLP concerns this should not be here, can someone investigate and if approriate block anyone knowingly restopring what seems a very obvious BLP violation as we arent here to out victims of rape, SqueakBox 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I happened to notice the edit warring on the article. (As a matter of fact, I warned the above user for 3RR.) The article subject is unknown to be living and would be over 100 if still alive. That aside, the alleged rape would have been in the 1920s, and the information being added seems to be correctly cited from a reliable source. Videmus Omnia Talk  22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The person in question seems to be nationally famous as a murderer who carried her victim's and lover's genitals around in her handbag. I'd say being raped as a child, is, first, basically irreplaceable in our article, having a strong bearing on her main item of notability; and, second, highly unlikely to be the main BLP issue of concern, concerning her main reason for notability. We aren't here to "out" victims of rape, but that's hardly the case here. Surely the sex murder is more important than the rape. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's unknown if the person is alive, we assume they are as most things with BLP are slanted in favor of the living person's privacy. (This is of course excepting the rediculous, or the faith based. If a man was born in 1730, I think we can assume death; and we don't want a BLP entry for Jesus suggesting the cleansing of the temple is libelous BLP violation.) 102 is not unheard of. Also 3rr do not apply to potential BLP violations. As to the sourcing, that is the crux and meat of your argument, and it depends on how good the source is. From my reading, there are barely any sources at all, and she is being accused of really foul behavior. Basejumper 22:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Columbia University Press - a book from a university-affiliated scholarly press. That's the best possible source under Verifiability, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Romantic friendship – Material removed. – 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Oprah Winfrey and Gayle King in the Romantic friendship article
There are accusations of a closeted homosexual relationship which violate BLP considering both are in relationships with men and that it is denied by both. Basejumper 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. I don't know what it was doing in the middle of a section about fictional relations. -- R OGER  TALK 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Sara Gilbert – Material sourced; user warned to provide sources first – 02:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Sara Gilbert
An editor keeps reinstating material about Gilbert's being in a lesbian relationship and that they are expecting a second child. No references are being provided, however. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I recall running across this. If you need references, here are a few: Sara's bio on IMDB, her partner Allison's bio on IMDB, bio on About.com, Bio on saragilbert.net, Celebrity Baby Tracker at ivillage.com, Celebrity Baby Scoop, and bio on TV.com to name just the first page of a google search. Ariel ♥ Gold 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not one of those sources, with the exception of possibly the saragilbert.net link (if it can be verified that Sara Gilbert controls that site), is usable to source sexual orientation information like this in the biography of a living person. - Crockspot 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Was not sure what links are allowed. Thanks for the info! (I actually didn't even know about her pregnancy until reading this and looking it up, lol.) Ariel ♥ Gold 20:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User warned. If user persists, please drop a line here or on my talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on I can't find anything reliable on them having a second child, but is whether or not she's a lesbian in question? Because, I thought it was common knowledge she is.--Sethacus 20:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable source: Curve (magazine) openly lesbian Sara Gilbert --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And this cites a People magazine article from February stating Sara is pregnant with the couple's second child.--Sethacus 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | British Center for Scientific Education – Resolved. – 23:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Ian Lowe


Ian Lowe, one of the people from British Center for Scientific Education has been trying to help us on the article avoid some wrong statements and potentially libellous statements from editors who might be on the other side of some disputes. Some of this material appears in blogs, which might not be particularly reliable, by those who oppose the BCSE. While I have no problem with using this information as examples of how vehemently the BCSE is being attacked, I feel uncomfortable with characterizing these "rumors" as "fact", particularly when the person involved is strongly objecting. Can someone offer some assistance and/or advice in this matter? Thank you.--Filll 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like the problem stuff has been removed. Actually we WP editors do get along well, considering that we are all really chimpanzees. :-)  Steve Dufour 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Richard Rossi – Material removed. – 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Richard Rossi
The article on Richard Rossi is being sabotoged by posters obsessed with slandering him and adding content of a defamatory nature, including old poorly sourced articles legally proven false. Rev. Rossi has won legal judgements and financial compensation for these very reports. Respectfully, Wikipedia must investigate such posters and editors and their identities as they are potentially legally libel for defamation of character in Rev. Rossi's future legal actions against those engaged in slander of a malicious nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksbernstein (talk • contribs)
 * The "attack" section is pretty bad. Mostly poor sources, and some of the more reliable looking ones are obscure. I'm putting a BLPC template on it. - Crockspot 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the unacceptable sources from the "Attack" section, but it will still need to be rewritten to bring it in line with the remaining sources. I tagged the section as totally disputed. All I have time for now. - Crockspot 03:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious material moved to talk for better sourcing and re-write. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Don Murphy – Inactive. – 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Don Murphy


I would like to add to Don's article about how he consulted with Transformers fans in many elements of making the movie, current an unknown practice. The only parallel is Snakes on a Plane, where fans essentially yelled loud enough to get more snakes, and to get a particular line of dialog added. To actually want such input from the get go, much to the anger (it seems) of the studios is very notable in my opinion. Shouldn't this bold, "Moviemaking 2.0" move be recorded in his article?

Murphy is the originating producer of the Transformers film released in summer 2007, creating the original treatment with Tom DeSanto in 2003. His website, started in June 2003, included descriptions of studio meetings, and allowed fans to debate the merits of whether Megatron should be a tank or a gun, that Arcee should be excluded, and that Peter Cullen should reprise as the voice of Optimus Prime. The site, as of film release, included nearly 950,000 posts, many of which are said to have caused tension between Murphy and other members of the crew.

This was written about in the New York Times, and republished in the International Herald Tribune, c|net, and likely others. -- Zanimum 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. However, some people might say that the information should be in the movie's article not in Mr. Murphy's. Steve Dufour 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this really a BLP issue? It's more like a content question, as it seems unlikely Murphy would be harmed by such a mention.  Nor would such a brief mention create an "undue weight to controversy".  --C S (Talk) 16:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a BLP issue in the sense that Murphy strongly objects to the existence of his article altogether nor does he appear to want any changes made to the article. I agree with Steve's comment that the place to put this info is in the Transformers (film) article, SqueakBox 16:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was unaware that Murphy had raised objections to his article.  --C S (Talk) 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are much more than objections. Murphy has pointed out that the inclusion of an article that he does not approve which may or may not contain slanderous material is completely illegal under US right to privacy laws.  Who will protect us if the madman sues?FoolsRushIn 05:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing, while Murphy is determined in his ways, he has shown some signs of restraint on his message board, I'll give him that. But as a person who chose to pursue a career in the film industry, he should have gone into things fully aware that he would have somewhat of a public profile. By starting a website and writing a book, he has acknowledged that the public has an interest in his career, and he is welcoming their interest, thus acknowledging he is a public figure.


 * As long as we do not publish anything invasive or elsewise unjust, we are fully protected by the US Constitution and the laws of whatever industrialised country we live in for our right to free speech.


 * Should this text about the movie be in his his article, or Transformers? Frankly, it deserves a space in both. He was the one who decided to pursue such measures, and thus it is completely relevant to him, while it is also relevant enough to the movie, to deserve mention there.


 * Do I have any objection against re-adding this content about his usage of the web, to his article? --  Zanimum 14:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to be accurate so when he sues you you don't come crying to me. First off, the guy NEVER wrote a book.  So you are wrong.  And the test that the courts use to determine whether you are a public figure are quite rigid- otherwise every cop could be considered one.  And Free Speech does NOT apply to publicly posting things about people on the world wide web. "Somewhat of a public profile" does not equate with being a public figure under the law and hence we have less protection than you would think.FoolsRushIn 14:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, whatever. I really couldn't care less about this biography, if it weren't for the fact one of the people on his message board, whom went to school with me, dragged me in to police the whole thing. I have not read up about him, and so I admit my mistake about the book, he didn't write it. By free speech, I meant that it wasn't libel.


 * But does this content harm him in any way, shape, or form? Can anyone else jump in? --  Zanimum 13:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jews for Jesus – Resolved. – 00:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jews for Jesus
As you might know, this is a group that wants Jewish people to become Christian. Many people, of course, think this is a bad thing. It might be. However the article on the group borders on being an attack article. About 10% is on the group itself and about 90% is about how evil their goals are. I put a neutrality tag on the article itself and since they are living persons I thought it would be ok to mention the article here. Steve Dufour 11:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has been much improved. Steve Dufour 02:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice spot, but I'm not sure it's a BLP problem. Basejumper 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Amir Khan (boxer) – Resolved. – 00:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Amir Khan (boxer)
Lots of unreferenced material:

He went to Devonshire Road Primary School, Smithills High School and Bolton Community College in Bolton. He was a hyperactive child and a born fighter, according to his father, who encouraged him to take up boxing. His hero is Muhammad Ali. He drives a car round Bolton thinking he is hard, girls hate him as Bolton birds dont like Muslims. The whole white community of Bolton is praying for the day he gets knocked out in the ring.

Needs a whole rewrite.-- Wolf  talk 14:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is indeed lots of unreferenced stuff there. I spotted one uncited negative claim, so I took it out and explained why on the talk page.
 * Lots of anons are editing there. added that "drives a car ... praying for the day" stuff,  took it out. 82.28.127.3 has vandalised another article, so I left uw-vand2 and uw-biog2 warnings on user talk:82.28.127.3.
 * Cheers, CWC 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Timothy J. Boham – Resolved. – 00:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Timothy J. Boham


A little concerned that this article (on a former gay porn actor accused of murder) has quite a few unreferenced claims, and seems to be attracting single-issue editors and socks. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, I am also concerned about some of the material visible on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed that, and one of the editors of the page restored it. I have re-deleted the questionable talk page content. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He also restored the content I removed from the article itself. I removed it again and let the editor know about the BLP policy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Pretty Tony – Resolved. – 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Pretty Tony
Has been the subject of an edit war involving User:Prettytonyinc (presumably the subject of the article) getting indefinitely blocked for vandalism blanking the page and replacing it with other material several times. User:Jettgy and some anon IP addresses continue the affair. However, the article as it was prior to the edit war contained potentially defamatory unsourced statements, which I have now removed. &mdash;Stormie 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Moshe Aryeh Friedman – Resolved. – 00:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Moshe Aryeh Friedman


The article is extremely derogatory, and the sources are partisan. The talk pages and the deletion discusssion also contain slurs like "nutcase," etc. Basejumper 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blanked the AfD discussion so the derogatory remarks won't been seen by search engines any longer. The other issues still need addressing, obviously. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master)
 * The blanking of the AfD has been reverted. Specific issues with the article have been raised on the talk page and addressed in the article. The article is thoroughly-documented using reliable and verifiable sources, with no evidence of a partisan bias provided. While the article would benefit from a more-balanced presentation, I have had great difficulty finding such material in reliable sources. Alansohn 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my note in the edit summary when I reverted your restoration of the AfD, I should have come here first. The AfD was blanked because it had derogatory comments about the subject of the article and thus violated WP:BLP. Such blankings are routine.  You have given no reason that this discussion should be restored and it is easily available by accessing the article history. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting the entire content of an AfD because of alleged concerns of some comments included therein seems rather Orwellian, to say the least. If there are specific issues, they should be specified and addressed. Blanket removal of the documentation of an entire process is censorship in its most insidious form. Alansohn 23:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As Jimbo says (see below), it's no big deal. Any user can go to the edit history and read the full version at any time. If Gamaliel had deleted the page, banned you indefinitely, deleted your user and talk page, and then meticulously scrubbed wikipedia of all traces of your edits, THEN you could claim Orwellian censorship. Currently, you are only inconvenienced by two extra mouse clicks. - Crockspot 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that no one has specified what constitutes a personal attack and that no consideration has been given to addressing the specific issues, if they really do exist, is censorship. The fact that it only takes a few clicks to get to material that is so patently offensive emphasizes the reality that absolutely nothing has been accomplished. I would have no objection to redacting any genuinely offensive material, but we haven't even be told what it is in this AfD that should offend our delicate sensibilities. This whole exercise looks like an Orwellian crock to me. Alansohn 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's crap like this that makes Wikipedia so unpleasant for me of late. Taking a routine act perfectly in line with established policy and hysterically turning it into an affont to intellectual freedom is unproductive, offensive, and absurd. It's quite simple: Personal attacks against living people are prohibited on Wikipedia.  No one should have to "specify" that outright namecalling is a personal attack.  And in the face of patently obvious personal attacks, I took the action that had the least impact on information availablity that was possible given WP policy against such attacks.  Anyone can still access it with a couple of clicks. If that is Orwellian than you have no idea what the word means.  Wikipedia is under no obligation to permanently preserve the personal attacks of every random person on the internet. If you think adding two extra mouse clicks to access this material is a loss to the intellectual history of the world, then put it on your blog and preserve it there.  Enjoy the libel suits. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would defer to Jimbo if there was any support for the actions taken here, but the reference provided stating that "When an article is deleted and there have been some harsh comments (and the truth or untruth of those comments seems to me not very important) it is often a good way to let someone walk away with dignity." is rather explicit that this would be the case only When an article is deleted and there is no notability for the individual involved, which is clearly not the case here; it's an interesting quote from our leader, but is not at all relevant here. What is relevant to this article is that wiping away the most visible traces and leaving the history available to anyone on the internet isn't even a fig leaf. If the issue is exposure to libel suits due to personal attacks (which is a canard in and of itself), you've accomplished absolutely nothing; The information is still there, it's just two clicks away. The action that would have the least impact would be to identify the offensive information and redact it out permanently. What has been chosen here is an answer that leaves all of the libel suit risk without actually solving any of the alleged underlying problem. Alansohn 02:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The principle of the statement clearly applies to this case. If you're arguing that we should take further action to remove the attacks, then great.  But it would be incredibly difficult to selectively remove the attacks from the public history without taking out the sense of the commentary or violating the history requirements of the GFDL.  Putting them behind a blanking is about as good as it's going to get with the current technical tools, and doing so is just plain good courtesy.  Regardless of whether someone's notable enough for an article, personal attacks have no place here.  Arguing to make them more visible is pretty much a non-starter. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who we're being courteous to, as there is no indication that the article's subject has expressed any opinion on the content of the AfD in question, negative or otherwise. If there is libelous information, hiding it in history still leaves it accessible to the public and exposes Wikipedia to risk of a law suit. I am entirely in favor of specifying what is offensive and refactoring it to removing those personal attacks that would expose Wikipedia to a libel lawsuit and leave the 99.9% of the text as is. It's harder, but it would actually address the issue, rather than hide the libelous statements in plain sight. Alansohn 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the blanking is so that when someone Google's their name, they don't get a hit on a personal attack from an old AfD. The solution that you suggest would be very difficult to execute, and would result in ACTUAL censorship. Wikipedia does not censor. - Crockspot 04:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't wait until the subject of the article complains about personal attacks, we remove them when we find them. This prevents another potential Seigenthaler controversy and it is the right thing to do.  Blanking the article preserves the AfD discussion for Wikipedians while hiding the libel from search engines, which I think, given the technological limitations of the database, is a good compromise between the desire to preserve information and the desire to eliminate libel.  But you complain that is "Orwellian" while demanding an even more Orwellian solution - making those negative edits disappear.  If current, established WP policy does not please you, then campaign to change that policy, don't attack the people enforcing it.  If that still isn't enough for you, then you can do something about it yourself.  Instead of complaining, go through the AfD discussion, identify each personal attack and libelous remark, identify which edit it comes from, then send a list of those edits to a Wikipedian with Oversight power who can individually delete each of those edits from the article history. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No one has ever specified what is offensive in this AfD discussion. All we have is the Big Brotherish statement that these are things in there that are so patently libelous that Wikipedia is at risk of another Seigenthaler controversy by leaving them available to the public. I have no issue whatsoever with the discussion in the AfD. The fact that those who are demanding that the "offensive" text be removed have done so with a sledgehammer not a scalpel, and have never specified any specific item that should be removed. Rather than using the existing refactoring techniques to excise those specified issues that would supposedly expose Wikipedia to risk (a standard practice that is anything but "censorship"), we are told that all the text must be deleted, but that it will still be just two clicks away.  This seems to be another classic example of "we destroyed the village to save it". Nothing has been accomplished, no risk of libel has been mitigated and a dangerous and disruptive precedent has been set that far surpasses either the Jimbo Wales prcedent cited below (which only applies to case where an article was deleted) or the Siegenthaler Controversy (where the specificly false information was removed). Alansohn 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read the AfD at all? You might not think the namecalling in there is offensive, but you aren't the subject of the article. It doesn't matter what you think of it, even if it does not meet the legal standard of libel or your personal threshold for offense, it's prohibited by Wikipedia policy and it's just plain wrong. No "disruptive precedent" has been set here; blankings are routine and unobtrusive. Your proposed solution of refactoring wouldn't add any further protection from libel suits.  But if you want to refactor the page yourself and remove all personal attacks, go for it. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In my review of the AfD, I have found a number of scurrilous terms used to describe the article's subject that could well expose Wikipedia to libel charges. My survey has found the following offensive terms in descending order of frequency: "wacko" (3 times), "nut" (or "nutcase" - 3), "crackpot" (2), "lunatic" (2),  "ass" (1) and "rather strange dude" (1). By means of full disclosure, I used the term "crackpot lunatic" to describe the individual in question. If there are any other libelous terms please list them here, so that we can begin the effort of refactoring to make the AfD contents available, defend the subject from libelous claims made in the AfD AND protect Wikipedia from libel suits. Alansohn 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo made some recent comments about blanking AfD discussions (link is to multi-diffs, so there are comments of others mixed in). Gamaliel's action seems proper to me. - Crockspot 22:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this looks like a textbook case of what Jimbo meant by an AfD discussion that should be blanked to prevent search engine indexing. Nothing is lost or censored here, the full discussion is immediately available via the history link. --Stormie 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong support for Gamaliel's correct action here. Certain comments should never have been made by editors in the first place. Tyrenius 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we work on some of the other issues regarding a biography of a living person as well:

Regarding sources. I am not sure they all are up to the standards of a Living person's biography. For that purpose, partisan sources are not allowed.

Jewish Tribune is the Agudath Israel paper in England. Agudath Israel is an ultra-Orthodox organization which has a very hostile relationship to the organizations the gentleman the article is about is affiliated with. They openly accuse each other of idolatry, heresy and bloodshed. It is no more appropriate for Jewish Tribune to be used on his biography than it is for the paper of his groups to be used in the article about Rav Shteineman.

Note 9 is from YnetNews, which follows the tradition of many fvery good European and Israeli papers by being openly partisan. One can argue, and I would, that this is actually much better journalistically because it is full disclosure of bias, which always exists inherently. This paper is Revisionist Zionist, pro-settler and pro-settlement paper. This means that it cannot be used on an article on a living person who is very opposite in the other direction.

Also there remain guilt by association and POV problems.

"May 2006 Friedman met with Atef Adwan of Hamas and an acting Palestinian Cabinet Minister in Stockholm, Sweden - where Adwan was attending a conference.[6]" Seems an attempt at "Guilt by assosciation" and was left without context. The article sited mentions this meeting was in order to arrange humanitarian food aid to the West Bank. This, I think, could be fixed just by expanding the description.

"Friedman also is known to have an association with the far right Freedom Party of Austria. A far right politician and Holocaust Denier attended his son's Bar Mitzvah.[7]" This is guilt by association, which is not permitted on a Biography of a Living Person.

The section on the attack against him seems to lionize the attacker, and the attack is portrayed as justified. It needs to be more neutral and to portray the event similarly to the way any other similar attack on an unpopular person would be discussed on Wikipedia. It also has a statement that the man removed himself from Orthodox Judaism by denying the holocaust. None of the sources in the article make the claim he denied the holocaust, only that he attended a conference where many denied it. He himself seems to have defended the historical record at that conference. (That is beside the obvious point that even if he said the holocaust didn't happen he would be a poor historian, but Judaism does not require one to believe in the holocaust to be a member of the faith.)

In general the article also needs to have a tone change. It reads like a hit piece, and could be better organized into sections. Basejumper 11:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the blanking of the AFD, but can somebody fix the template so that its link goes to the correct article's history... at the moment, it goes to the history of the log page, which is useless. JulesH 17:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In any AFD, if, hypothetically, someone calls the subject of a biographical article, or even another editor in the AFD a nutcase, crazy, a crackpot, or an ass, wouldn't it be proper for any other editor (especially admins or those who are living people patrollers) to delete the violation of WP:BLP or WP:NPA, post a warning on the offender's talk page with a diff, and post a statement of the action of the discussion page of the AFD, again with a diff? The AFD can be left with (WP:BLP violation removed) or (WP:NPA violation removed) to explain the lacuna or lack of continuity in the discussion. The appropriate discussion would be left unimpaired. I see no evidence on the discussion page for the AFD that NPA or BLP was referred to by any participants in the subject AFD, although there might have been postings on participants' talk pages. This failure to act in an appropriate and timely way led directly to the after-the-fact need to blank the entire AFD discussion, which is a result to be avoided. Taking appropriate action during the AFD would have immediately improved the tone and prevented BLP violations from being left on the page. The persistence of personal attacks and derogatory comments during an AFD only serves to inflame passions and potentially get posted on blogs to bring in a posse of vigilantes to further spam the AFD. Then there would be no need for such a cumbersome process for looking at the AFD the next time the article is put up for deletion. Does this seem like a process that living persons patrollers could follow in future AFDs? Edison 15:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Kirsten Powers – Resolved. – 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Kirsten Powers
Another case in which I have been contacted by the article subject. She objects to the fact that statements are repeatedly being placed in the article labelling her a "conservative" and "Democrat in name only". These statements, if referenced at all, are attributed to self-published sources and use weasel words. I, and a couple other editors, have reverted these edits and attempted to keep the article neutral, but they are repeatedly put back in, apparently by someone with a POV to push. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous argument, you yourself have entered POV edits into the article, claiming that Powers is "very left-wing". That is a direct quote. You also claimed that the The Fairness Doctrine impedes on free speech. That is also POV. Edits I have maintained are not POV. I do not say, "She is this", I say, "She has been criticized" and then cite a source. That's not POV or weasel words. It follows the rules precisely.--69.249.195.232 20:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that term in the revert (I just restored a previous version I thought was neutral) but it is POV and should go. However, undue weight is being given to criticism by self-published sources, in my opinion. Videmus Omnia Talk  20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments about someone's political position in salon.com are no more reliable than any other blog, represent the views of one individual only, and are not a sufficient source. It is possible than a better source might be found, such as a well-known commentator in an established publication, in which case they could be quoted as that person''s view. DGG (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This morning I received another complaint from the article subject, objecting to the accuracy and neutrality of the article. I've boldly removed the disputed sections until they can be written in a more neutral and well-sourced form. (I'll do this myself later, just pressed for time right now.) Videmus Omnia Talk  15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Richard Lindzen – Inactive. – 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Richard Lindzen

 * - In the James Annan wager section, blog entries by James Annon describing his side of the story keep getting inserted despite the "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article." rule. There is a decent secondary source that has similar, though not exactly the same, views, yet the blog keeps getting linked cited and the information used.  // Theblog 01:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to Annan's blog seems reasonable, as he is one of the two parties in the episode being discussed. The material is clearly attributed to Annan so any sensible person would recognize that they're getting one of the two sides in the debate. Note also that the "decent secondary source" described here is an opinion piece written by a prominent skeptic of human-induced influence on climate, not an item of objective reporting by a disinterested party. Raymond Arritt 04:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The blog contains information about the article subject which was/is used in the article, a clear violation of WP:BLP. The secondary source is reason magazine, which I assumed was not self published, but if I'm wrong, then I obviously recommend it and any information it provides be removed too.  You are incorrect about the author's GW stance, however it does not matter as Wikipedia focuses on the source (ie self published = not good for BLP, not self published = better), not the author.  --Theblog 05:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Edward McSweegan – Issues resolved; offending history deleted. – 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Edward McSweegan

 * I don't think there really is a BLP issue here but this does seem appropriate to raise here where those familiar with similar issues can help address it. An editor claiming to be the subject of the Edward McSweegan article is not only objecting to its very presence but insists on adding a disclaimed to the article.  There is also an ongoing AFD.  --ElKevbo 19:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a major rewrite to the article, as the original version was cut down to a stub (heavily plagiarized, and borderline slander), but despite attempts by myself and Studerby to get this article up to snuff, McSweegan is still ranting about how it isn't accurate. However, it includes actual interviews from the Washington Post and CBS News.  I came very close to reporting him to AIV, but given the sensitivity of the matter, I decided against it.  Dunno what more we can do ... Blueboy96 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems per Dr. McSweegan's post at the AfD, he claims the article was originally intended as an attack page. It's hard not to come to that conclusion, based on the article history.  The author, , subscribes to the fringe theory that Lyme disease is a biological weapon.  As mentioned above, it was heavily plagiarized.  I see the best way out of this is oversighting all versions prior to ThuranX's edit today.  I also think that Freyfaxi should be subjected to some sort of sanction as well. Blueboy96 23:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (As I posted at ANI) : The article has now been oversighted, but I want to bring a quote left by Dr. McSweegan at the AfD to the attention of administrators: "I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors." Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If we have an acceptable version now, perhaps deletion of the past history is in order? - Crockspot 16:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | V. T. Rajshekar – Inactive. – 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

V.T. Rajshekar


Serious difficulties in handling article on this very controversial writer. How to split material between the article on the subject and that on the Dalit Voice magazine he edits. Whether the article should go in multiple categories such as Pseudohistory, Conspiracy theorists, Antisemitism. Not many good secondary sources available. Itsmejudith 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Tyria Moore – Redirected to Aileen Wuornos. – 00:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Tyria Moore


Article is unsourced and contains potentialy libelous and sensitive material about her AND her parents. I suggest delete for now, but to alow the article to be recreated if sources are found. Basejumper 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blanked it, pending sourcing. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed it to a redirect, since there seems to be no notability outside her connection to Aileen Wuornos. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Amy Mihaljevic – Suspect list removed; editor has agreed not to add it again. – 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Amy Mihaljevic
persistently adds information about alleged suspects of the crime, claiming that "This information cites reliable sources and should not be removed". In fact, I don't see any, at least not inline referenced, which should be a must for this kind of thing. I'm reluctant to sprotect the article and/or block the user, as I'm not too well versed with handling of BLP issues. Can someone lean a hand? Duja ► 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Update: I was forced to semi-protect the article and instructed the anon to defend his case here. . Duja ► 16:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: Here is the section of the article that has been removed.


 * [long bit of material removed, the article history (esp. this diff) is sufficient if anyone needs to see it -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]


 * As you can see, this information has already been reported in the Cleveland media, as well as nationally released books by FBI agents assigned to the case. It is indisputable. Just because a fact makes certain readers uncomfortable, that doesn't mean it should be deleted. That is a dangerous slippery slope. This information is already available to anyone who takes the time to do a simple google search. There is also precident for naming suspects in other wiki articles. Please see [Zodiac Killer].


 * Further, since this is an unsolved homicide, it is very dangerous to keep this article protected. New information is coming out on this case every month and the more information provided to readers here may help find this young girl's killer.


 * Please undo protection immediately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.58.222.242 (talk • contribs).

This entire article looks like a promotional for Renner's book. The book, and other writings by Renner including his blog, seem to be almost the sole source for the article. The article seems to be a result of this man's obsessive interest in this long cold case. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, this isn't a BLP discussion. If he's written bios on those suspects, it would be a BLP case - as it stands it is a dicussion about the content of the article.  Did we really need the article discussed in 3 different forums (4 if you count that his bio is up for deletion as punishment).
 * When I read comments like "seem to be almost the sole source for the article", I have to think "am I really so smart that I can find 20 articles, and TV interviews about the case in 3 minutes? Well, apparently so. When you do a Google News search, for example, you have to check the archives - not just look at the first page of what comes up for past first month.  I have about 7 This case was on Americas_most_wanted - it was one of the first cases John Walsh detailed.  I heard about it on the other side of the country.  Renner doesn't need publicity to sell his book - he was interviewed on TV and there were many articles about the book.  He's also been in the news a lot (as an interview subject - not as a reporter or investigator) as he's directed a movie of a Steven King short story that was an official choice in the Montereal Film Festival, as well as having acted and worked in production in various films and TV shows. He didn't know the BLP rules (if there are any for suspects).
 * Back to the BLP point, since you mention it, people didn't say a BLP-word when Crystal Gayle Magnum was written about (finally taken down) or when the Duke guys accused of raping her were being written about on Wikipedia. I'm just saying - he's getting really attacked and he's a newbie.  He needs information, not labelling.  Nominating all his articles for deletion (and his bio) was a vindictive gesture from Videmus Omnia, which he did to respond to Renner's constestation of the image deletion of Amy.  I find that to make 4 deletions and to have such a huge grilling of an expert newbie very, very harsh.


 * Until someone is at least charged, we shouldn't be naming names of suspects. Particularly people like Bound who the police feel are uninvolved. What is the point? At most there should be a short sentence saying "Over the years, there have been a number of suspects.", with citations to the news articles covering those suspects (if they exist) that people can go read further if they care to. - Crockspot 04:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the material again and re-protected the article. It turned out that the sources are written by himself, apparently based from leak(s) from at lest one investigator; no one else was indecent enough to publish them. I'm at loss whether to AfD or CSD the article, block the author or what; why should we tolerate BLP COI SPAs? Assuming good faith is one thing, but when the good faith is combined with utterly bad taste... Duja ► 15:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion - see Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazingly excessive Yes, and you also marked up for all the world to see - happy now? Just to teach him a lesson for the crime of wanting to keep an image for which it can be argued there is fair use (or it can be easily obtained)?  This was completely unnecessary.
 * Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
 * Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Mihaljevic
 * [Image:Amyphoto.jpg for deletion]
 * Articles_for_deletion/James_Renner BlueSapphires 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oversight needed - This diff] is probably going to have to be oversighted from this noticeboard's edit history. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are aware of the oversight policy on such things. They usually aren't lept upon with great speed and vigor.  In any event, the mention of the names has already transpired in the news. And one of the names is a pseudonym.


 * Comment: If the removal of those names is crucial, then you'd better get up and nominate: Arthur_Leigh_Allen for oversight (he has a full BLP as a Zodical killer suspect - the Zodiac killer killed about 19 people in the SFO Bay area in the 1960s and 1970s), as well as asking to remove the information from this section of the Zodiac_killer case. Personally, I find it odd that only one of the 4-5 suspects are named on that article.  It is as if we'd convicted him ourselves.  Maybe because the Zodiac Movie did, Wikipedia feels it is ok.
 * What all of you are forgetting is that Renner is a professional journalist, and he's written a book about this, naming those names already, and those names are already in the news - in print. That is the legal standard in the U.S. for defamation and libel, that it is already out in the public domain.  As a professional, he's pretty careful about writing libel.  What you should have done is educated him as to your views on Wikipedia's position, and learned from him.  He's probably a really interesting person.  He's directed movies, he knows Steven King, he hobnobs in Hollywood, and he gets enough media attention to not seek cheap status on Wikipedia. Instead you clamped him down, called him names and treated him like a criminal.
 * See here a comment on Viredus Omnia's behavior towards James Renner
 * Videmus Omnia attacks people who disagree with his image edits, he is starting to get a reputation for harassing people by deleting all their images. He is blocked at present for deleting every image that Alkivar, Mike Halterman and NeoCoronis made.  He started an WP:RFC on Alkivar, for a fairly minor comment Alkivar made to Videmus Omnia's friend Abu badali, Viredus Omnia committed WP:CANVASS, by asking Abu_badali to certify the RFC. after Abu badali was pestering and provoking Alkivar.  Abu badali has been subject to an RFC and an Arbcom for such behavor.
 * If you look at the history, Abu badali was provocing Alkivar - and he's continuing to do it on his talk page. Abu
 * As I'm referencing links to this comment, I see that Videmus Omnia is deleting every image that Alkivar has ever made. I'm getting the idea that Videmus Omnia likes to fight more than he cares about the content of the encyclopedia, becase normally the same person doesn't call an RFC on a person, then delete all their images.  That goes *beyond* petty, to something far darker.
 * 'Therefore I contend that the fact that Videmus Omnia has targeted all items related to James Renner to be a sort of pattern. An excessive pattern.  It is true that Renner didn't understand the BLP policy (and the people there weren't open to discussion either), but Videmus Omnia just jumped in, after the image dispute, and propagated 4 forums worth of discussions on the works of this one man, rather than educate or cope with him, is excessive.  Notce that all of them happened in one day, and right after the disagreement between Videmus Omnia and James Renner, at which point Renner became the subject of multi-modal attack.  Videmus doesn't cope well with anyone who contests him.BlueSapphires 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Paige Patterson – Offending material removed; article tagged for further cleanup. – 00:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Paige Patterson

 * - User 24.107.53.58 repeatedly accuses a living person of criminal or illegal activity. July 11,20,21,26 (Unsourced of course) They also added a copyrighted photo that had previously been removed. July 20  They also repeatedly add the same unsourced POV material, and remove sourced material from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary article. Paige Patterson is president of this school.


 * Tagged the article accordingly, as many aspects are unsupported by reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Joseph C. Wilson – Resolved. – 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Joseph C. Wilson


Massive deletions of properly-sourced information by recently-blocked user -- User talk:Tim Osman and User talk:Tim Osman -- have resulted in damage to the integrity of this article's previously-properly-formatted citations and loss of the article's integrity overall. While inserting obviously-biased information into the article, including biased headings, violating Neutral point of view, the user has interfered with the coding of citations. Please see Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and the editing history of the article. Despite being warned by previous administrators, the user has made these changes today without prior discussion on the talk page, violating tagged notices on the talk page, including Talk page guidelines, WP:BLP, and internally-linked policies and guidelines. I believe that this user needs to be blocked from editing Wikipedia and the article protected or semi-protected so that its integrity can be restored. I have tagged the article with a "missing citations" template and a "neutrality" template to alert other readers to these problems, but I am reluctant to make any corrections reverting the user's changes due my having been blocked for warning of (what I regard as) his Vandalism to the article before and having been blocked myself for having reverted it before. See WP:3RR for the policies that I think related to such changes in relation to WP:BLP. I have other work to do and do not have time to monitor ongoing problems with this article or to get involved in administrative arbitrations relating to it or other articles in Wikipedia. I am alerting administrators to the problems caused by that user, which appear to me to be doing major damage to Wikipedia and its reputation as a source. The article is not now credible. (I have just discovered a message that the user posted on his own talk page (which would not be accessed by readers of the article per se) instead of posting anything on the talk page of the article. The explanation of what he is doing contains falsehoods about the previous version of the article.  I myself was in the midst of shortening it considerably (as my editorial interpolation in a section indicated) when he deleted my previous work and the previous work of others in it. When I attempted to save my shorter version of a section, I ran into an "editing conflict" since he had changed the article in the interim.   The user has clearly not consulted Wikipedia guidelines and policies and still does not abide by them. --NYScholar 01:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)] [This is not a personal attack on the user; it is a bonafide notice on the BLP Noticeboard of violations of WP:BLP.  Corrected a typographical error in it found later. --NYScholar 11:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]
 * Since I first posted this notice, an administrator undid the changes to the article by the other user. After that, I resumed editing the article, which took a lot more time, and I posted an explanation re: my subsequent editing of the article on its talk page.  [Updated.] --NYScholar 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

'''This is a personal attack on me and I ask that the user NYScholar be blocked for at least one week for such an attack, which I was told was against Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Administrators? Tim Osman'''

To uninvolved and neutral administrators: Please assist: Please consult Talk:Joseph C. Wilson and the editing history. Unnecessary persistent edit warring is affecting the integrity of this article. Unnecessary removal of image of the subject and other pertinent and reliably- and verifiably-sourced information. Could use neutral, uninvolved administrative assistance. Unable to communicate with user removing well-sourced notable information from article. Thank you for assistance. --NYScholar 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

has been blocked for one month. Closing. - Crockspot 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib – Inactive. – 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib
Arun Shourie is a prominent journalist, former minister in the Indian government and a prominent commentator of the "Hindu right". His book Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud is strongly critical of mainstream Indian academic historians. Fairly serious allegations have been sought to be introduced in the biographies of Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib (possibly others), sourced to this book.

The book appears to be self-published (ISBN points to ASA Publications, New Delhi). The material being added to the biographies are not fully cited - no page numbers, requests for a quote unanswered, and make broad negative assertions (and sometimes more) about the work of these academics.

Shourie's work has attracted close to no attention in the academic world, but appears to be popular, not least among fellow Hindutva adherents.

What weight, if any, needs to be given to Shourie's assertions in biographies of those mentioned in this work? What is to be done with the frequent insertion of material that fails to cite page numbers or supporting quotes from the book? what is to be done with the numbers (and some more) of SPAs (and this longstanding editor) who repeatedly reinsert the same patently non-neutral material ignoring the issues involved despite repeated messages? Doldrums 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | John Favalora – Protected and in mediation (WP:RfM/John Favalora) – 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

John Favalora
- Material which fails to be neutral and unsourced continues to be added even though repeated reverts by numerous users has taken place. An appropriate section dealing with the legal issues was also added, but this act is being ignored and the page continues to have the same unsourced material posted. Proper placement of some material is also in question. Aafm 15:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Help us out here? What material? Who is inserting it? Links to the edits in question would be helpful. Thanks. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 16:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See | plus article history from 12/July/2007 thru current and additions by which have been repeatedly undone by numerous users but is daily re-added. Aafm 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As this is continuing, could I ask for another glance at this situation? Again, has added material in the following edit  which is not appropriately placed, sourced and neutral. Aafm 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jeffrey Peterson – Inactive. – 14:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jeffrey Peterson
and here is the personal page written is a third-person business news page style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janelvi (talk • contribs) 9:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jared Taylor – Article protected, pending resolution of issues on Talk:Jared Taylor. – 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jared Taylor

 * – Jared Taylor is one of the most influential thinkers/writers within the white nationalist community. He has sometimes been criticized within that community for not taking a harder line against Jews and Asians. Apparently someone within that community has now started making accusations that Mr. Taylor has been having an affair with a Japanese woman (Taylor was born in Japan and lived there until he was 16, and still has ties to that country). Material concerning that allegation has been repeatedly added into the article, only to be removed, and then reinserted by User:Alabamawhiteman. Mr. Taylor has used the talk page to responded to the allegation and ask for its removal. The allegation is currently sourced to the Talk:Jared Taylor page of Wikipedia based upon Mr. Taylor's comments. All of this is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Alabamawhiteman seems to be an account created strictly to facilitate this editwar, and I would suspect that it is a sockpuppet. I am far from being a supporter or admirer of Jared Taylor; However, I do believe that policy should be uniformly applied, even when we ourselves may have strong difference with the subject of the article. Brimba 19:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I took off 3 bits of uncited or semi-cited material. It is kind of weird that he is being attacked for not being racist enough. Steve Dufour 01:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There now seems to be a major edit war going on. Steve Dufour 18:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's now even worse. Please check out the article's edit history. Steve Dufour 16:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for intervening. Recent activity on that page has been pretty odd, and seems to be a case of someone using Wikipedia for making unsourced accusations, for unknown reasons. Eeaee 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I scared 'em with my threat to delete it as an attack article. :-) Steve Dufour 17:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to have worked, I can't believe the Wiki discussion page was being used as an article source Eeaee 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The personal material has been re-added. I took it off and am waiting to see what happens. Steve Dufour 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Taylor asked on the talk page that the article be locked or deleted. Steve Dufour 01:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * much too notable to delete. DGG (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll protect it for now. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Haroon Rashid Aswat – Resolved. – 15:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Haroon Rashid Aswat
Concerns have been expressed about my interpretation of policy and approach to enforcement at Talk:Haroon Rashid Aswat. Review appreciated. Tom Harrison Talk 02:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Several editors have commented there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

List of Scientologist celebrities (closed)
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | List of Scientologists – Inactive. – 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

List of Scientologists
Sorry to bring up another Scientology article, but this one has even worse problems than the other. I took out some names from the section on "Former Scientologists" because they were only cited by Internet rumor sites. But they were put right back in. Steve Dufour 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With no discussion (and evidently no review of previous discussions), and removal of others that were well referenced, all in bulk. AndroidCat 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should WP include a list of former Scientologists in the first place? A lot of people on the list (for instance Christopher Reeve and Jerry Seinfeld) just took some courses and decided it wasn't for them. Is that encyclopedic type information? Steve Dufour 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Good question. I don't have an answer. Perhaps this is something for the article's talk page, or AfD? As to WP:BLP: Does the list still contain any unsourced/poorly sourced entries? Avb 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There seem to be differences of opinion about what is a good source, and what the sources are saying. Steve Dufour 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Chris Langham – Inactive. – 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Chris Langham page protection

 * - Chris Langham is a well-known British actor/comedian who is currently on trial for a number of offences of a sexual nature involving young people. The trial is high profile and the evidence is explicit. Perhaps this page could be fully protected until the trial is over as it will probably became the target for vandalism. Some inappropriate stuff has already appeared. // -- R OGER  TALK 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement and Kenneth Kronberg – Inactive. – 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement and Kenneth Kronberg
Some users have expressed concerns. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Tom Harrison Talk 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These two articles include the claim that LaRouche somehow caused the suicide of one of his close associates. The claim is sourced soley to a small weekly paper owned and edited by Nicholas Benton, a disaffected former member of the LaRouche organization. Benton is also the author of the article which is used to source the claim. --MaplePorter 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither article makes that claim. Neither article blaims any living person for his suicide. Benton has linked a memo to the suicide, but we only mention he has made the allegation. Could MaplePorter specify which living person is at issue? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A source that does make the claim, but is not cited on the Kronberg page--although perhaps it should be--is Dennis King's latest (July 30 last update) article, "Lyndon LaRouche and the Art of Induced Suicide." LaRouche has responded to that with a press release, "Is Dennis King Contemplating Suicide?" King's article is to be found at www.dennisking.org, and LaRouche's response at www.larouchepac.com. I am considering adding this material to the Kronberg page, but am mentioning it in advance to elicit discussion, so we can all be clear on the approach. Both of these items are newsworthy--neither would be cited for the truth of the matter, but for their mere existence.-- Hexham 11:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Fletcher Brothers – Challenged material removed. – 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Fletcher Brothers

 * - Lots of accusations being flung there that don't seem to be supported by sources. // Corvus cornix 20:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted an edit that appeared to be mass blanking but, on further review, it looks like it might be in line with WP:BLP to get rid of a good portion of this. -- Kinu t /c  21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Every last bit of it unless it is sourced. Basejumper 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Carlos Slim Helú – Resolved. – 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Carlos Slim Helu
There are repeated changes to his family background which repeatedly keep removing the fact that his father was a Lebanese Maronite Catholic. He hails from a predominantly Maronite village, yet Wikipedia users such as EliasAlucard and many randoms repeatedly keep saying that he is Assyrian and quoting a website that is completely unreliable, poorly written in terms of English grammar and based on propaganda. Most sources say that he is a Maronite and it is really unlikely he is an Assyrian. It's becoming ridiculous to keep changing it back. He is by no means Assyrian and this keeps getting changed each time. Should the page have a protection template? Prince Cadmus II 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The repeated changes from different IPs do suggest the need for semi-protection. No reliable source has ever been added to support the claim of his Assyrian descent. It appears that some Maronites do have this descent, but it would take a very strong secondary source to establish it in his case. You see this matter discussed out on the web, but never with adequate documentation. EdJohnston 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable secondary sources clarifying this issue either way, it should not be addressed at all in the article. - Crockspot 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Rein Lang – Inactive. – 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Rein Lang

 * ''Roughly translated excerpts from a Postimees article (original here) --Ghirla-трёп- 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

An advisor to Estonia's Minister of Justice Rein Lang edited the Wikipedia page about her boss in connection with information about his scandalous birthday party. An Estonian wikipedian, Sander Säde, writes in his blog that several officers from the Ministry of Justice attempted to delete from the article a report about the controversial birthday party. Säde discovered that the passage had been targeted from an IP affiliated with the Estonian Information Centre, a partner of several Estonian state institutions. Then the passage was deleted by User:Kairioun and User:Gerog112. Säde states in his blog that Kairi Õun is the name of the minister's advisor.

User:Gerog112 has made legal threats against the Estonian editors of Wikipedia, responsible for restoring the deleted passage, and, presumably, contacted the Wikipedia office in Florida in order to vent his complaints. Wikipedia has blocked Gerog112 from editing for three months. The minister's advisor Kairi Õun told the Postimees that she had altered the Wikipedia coverage of her boss, because it was misleading. "I attempted to change the text, but it was restored. Then I called their headquarters in Florida and pointed out that a large passage about the birthday party, set against two sentences about the minister's entire curriculum vitae, gives the impression of undue weight". She claims to have received a message from the senior administrators (sic!) of Wikipedia endorsing her edits.

The Press Service of the Ministry of Justice was unable to name their officials that were involved in the editing of the Rein Lang article. <...> In an interview with the Kuku radiostation, Peter Marvet, a well-known Estonian expert on information services, recalled that Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the current President of Estonia, had expanded the Wikipedia article about himself.


 * It's amazing that the editors of Wikipedia include presidents of European countries, is not it? --Ghirla-трёп- 11:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Kashish Das Shrestha – Inactive. – 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Kashish Das Shrestha


I noticed that the entire article on Kashish Das Shrestha violates NPV principle of Wikipedia. It is nothing more than a publicity stunt of the part of the biographer, this article I suspect is written by the individual named Kashish Das Shrestha. Is there any chances to suspend this article unless it cites more resources and back up what the author has to say on the part of his/her subject? 202.52.243.123 12:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }