Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive241

diane martinez


this is not an encyclopedia article. It is a political rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.181.65 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed the contentious material about a living individual per WP:BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Game (rapper)
There is some content in the Early Life section on the The Game (rapper) page that is not sourced and is potentially sensitive, and without someone being able to back up the claims I think it should be removed. I've removed the content a few times and the other editor has reverted my edits but has not responded to questions about the source. Someone at the help desk board recommended that I seek assistance here. Is this something someone on this board can assist with? See the Early Life section, recent edits, and the Molestation section of the talk page. Thanks. -KaJunl (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This page is dreadful. All sorts of poorly sourced or unsourced info. Some of the worst stuff was sourced to IMDB.  I've taken a stab at cleaning up the Personal Life section, but I've only made a start. This needs a lot more work than I can do any time soon. I'll go back and do some more, as time allows, but won't come anywhere near completing the job. Attention from others would be most welcome. David in DC (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!! I will say, as someone moderately familiar with the subject, it is possible that some of the material could be potentially re-added with sources later on (albeit probably phrased better/more appropriately for an encyclopedia).  Only the one piece of information seemed completely made up to me, much of the rest is stuff I've seen the subject say in interviews multiple times.  I don't know off the top of my head how much of it is notable can be really backed up with good sources- but for example the fact that he was shot/in a coma etc. comes up frequently in interviews since that is supposedly the event that led him to start rapping for the first time.  Maybe I'll start something on the article's talk page to discuss.  I REALLY appreciate your assistance and taking the time to clean it up.  I don't usually get too involved in admin stuff here so figuring out the best course of action for the situation was tricky for me, I'm glad someone else is looking.  -KaJunl (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sam Mizrahi
Not really sure what's going on here but this edit summary is a bit fishy. Looking into it, 99.253.211.148, seems to be single purpose for removing content from this BLP. 204.197.185.98 splits their short history between the two BLPs mentioned in the edit summary. Same day F0430z is created to make content-removing edits to the same.

Maybe nothing. May not be the right place if it is something. Figured I'd put it out there in case anyone wanted a looks see. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Timothyjosephwood, this is a slow moving edit war that may involve coordinated editing. I have semi-protected for a month to slow down the several IPs and new accounts on both sides that have been going back and forth for a few days. I have also informed two accounts about the COI and sockpuppetry policies. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Jane Gazzo article
User:Satchett continues to remove sourced material from the Jane Gazzo article. Don't want to get into a 3RR situation. Help? --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob. I am User:Satchett aka Jane Gazzo. Would appreicate [sic] talking [sic] off wikipedia re my entry as the noting of my husband and child is causing major grief. --- User:Satchett, June 24, 2016
 * What is your particular objection to the material being included? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good question, Jane. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I hadn't known, but vaguely suspected, that the moniker "Satchett" was related to you, Jane, based on all the photo stuff submitted by Satchett. Online, of course, we can't prove it. :( Regardless, the WEEKLY REVIEW article cited is archived on the Internet Wayback Machine, and isn't dead on the internet. Actually, that doesn't matter if it's live or dead on the internet as a citation anyway, if it's already been published. That being said, if this addition to the article by me originally has unintentionally and unwittingly somehow caused you some issues, I can't easily remove it as there are other editors involved now. THE WEEKLY REVIEW (Melbourne) article by Sarah Marinos which was an interview with you seemed jolly enough, celebrating your husband and son and your new home and even the BBC 6 Music record box. Editor User:NorthBySouthBaranof has noted that if this information has caused you trouble, then please state it as such. There is a mechanism to contact the Wikimedia Foundation and get an OTRS "TICKET" for an issue and they investigate and then action is taken one way or the other -- removing it or leaving it in. See this article: Volunteer_Response_Team. See Contact us - Subjects for how to contact by email. (info-en-q@wikimedia.org). That way if they decide to remove it, then they likely will expunge all the history past articles which do still include the information and are accessible by anyone now. Let's get this fixed. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've taken the arguable step of removing the information, albeit sourced and in public magazines, since User:Satchett who says she's Jane Gazzo says it's causing her family problems and issues to have this published in WP. I've asked Satchett/Jane (we can't currently prove Satchett = Jane Gazzo) to write to the Wikimedia Foundation by email and ask to open an OTRS ticket to look into this issue. And if they decide it's to be removed, then they can expunge all old versions with the information. To be clear, I originally added the information as informational and as a jolly addition of a husband and son. Most notable people on Wikipedia have this information INCLUDED as a matter of public knowledge. But if it causes harm, we must relent. But I leave that to admins and OTRS volunteers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Craig Thomson (footballer born 1991) -
Article Craig Thomson (footballer born 1991) was pasted here, removed for ease of reading this noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.238.27 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the pasted-in article. The reason for the report is unclear, but this article includes sourced details of sexual offences that may be why. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Carolyn McCarthy & Wayne LaPierre
Carolyn McCarthy is a gun control advocate. Wayne LaPierre is a gun control opponent. This text has been removed repeatedly from the LaPierre article: "In January 2012, LaPierre testified to a U.S. Senate Committee against increased firearms regulation, including opposition to universal background checks for firearms purchases. He claimed that only 62 firearms offenses were prosecuted in the U.S. in 2012, a number that documents indicated was only 1/200 of the actual number, which has risen during the Obama administration."

This text has been added repeatedly the McCarthy article: "On the April 18, 2007, episode of MSNBC's program Tucker, Tucker Carlson interviewed McCarthy about the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He asked her to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions included in her bill. She did not directly respond, instead stating it was more important that the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" (sic) of the type used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen prohibited by the law were those used by gangs and killers of police officers. That statement was factually incorrect; Cho's largest magazines held fifteen rounds, thus making them illegal under the AWB. When Carlson pressed her twice more on the question about barrel shrouds, she admitted that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, and incorrectly stated, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up." Carlson replied with, "No, No it's not.""

See Talk:Carolyn_McCarthy (and elsewhere on that page) and Talk:Wayne LaPierre (and elsewhere on that page). These are almost directly comparable situations. One way or the other, they should be treated the same. So, should the information be deleted or added? Felsic2 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No strong opinion on the LaPierre item, but I will note that that is sourced to a WP:PRIMARY source, whereas there are multiple WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the McCarthy issue, who was a sitting congressperson who wrote legislation specifically dealing with this item that they did not have a basic understanding of. It spawned a rather popular meme. WP:WEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN both indicate inclusion on the McCarthy issue. How many sources discuss the LaPierre item? If its just the WP:PRIMARY I would say they argue against inclusion.

Additional sources for McCarthy.  Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * None of those secondary sources were in previous versions. If we add some secondary sources to the LaPierre article, is there any reason to exclude that material from his bio? Felsic2 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would obviously depend on the sources and what they say. But I thin the situations are not exactly analogous. As I said above, McCarthy was a congressperson, acting in their official capacity, and had actually written a law proposing to ban something that she had no idea what it was. LaPierre got a number wrong. McCarthy's thing has become an enuring part of her repuation, its brought up over a sustained period of time (3 year span at lest) from a wide variety of sources. If there are secondary sources regarding LaPierre's number, did anyone mention it again after the initial cycle?Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Controversial anti-LGBT statements in BLP could use some attention
Hi all, re: this edit at Kavita Radheshyam introduces content about some anti-LGBT statements made by the Indian actress. It could use a pass for neutrality and also some consideration as to whether WP:RECENTISM might apply. Any help you could provide would be appreciated. I've cross-posted this note at WikiProject LGBT. Thank you! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well its not really a BLP violation. Its sourced well enough, the actress concerned has defended her remarks and in fact expanded on them. Its more an undue/neutrality issue. Are this actress' comments notable enough to be in her biography? Had she not responded once it was taken down, I would say no, since she has actually defended them and expanded on them, then biographies serve to give insight into the subject - and her views on LGBT's are necessarily part of her character. Sadly WP:RECENTISM is shot down often when its brought up and has rarely been upheld as a good enough reason to remove sourced info. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe they need to be removed. It's essentially hate speech, and hate speech is not protected at all in the United States, where Wikipedia severs are hosted, further, it serves to polarize and inflame rather than educate and inform.   I'd say remove it, if nothing else under IAR as it doesn't improve Wikipedia by being here, and Wikipedia would be the better for it, it it weren't  here.  Kosh Vorlon   15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's hate speech, though. There's no obstacle to our having articles that inform our readers about the hate speech of public figures; I'd suggest that this is a reasonable function. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be  Wikipedia's hate speech. Hate speech by anyone is not protected in the U.S, therefore, even though it doesn't technically run afoul of anything I can think of, it doesn't improve the article by it's appearance, and it would, IMHO, improve the article by leaving it out, thus an argument for IAR removal.  Kosh Vorlon   19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to go full godwin this early, but documentating hate speech for educational purposes is not something that would fall foul of any law in most western law systems. Otherwise all nazi-related material would be unable to be documented. I dont disagree there is no real benefit to it in the article, but thats a terrible argument for it. There is also a fairly western-bias in BLP's in situations like this, No one would seriously suggest removing Mel Gibson's anti-semitic rants from his article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:KoshVorlon: I'm not sure where you got the idea that hate speech is unprotected in the U.S., but it is not true. For an overview of how exactly this is incorrect, see here. Neutralitytalk 22:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if there was and the comments were dreamed to be hate speech I doubt that the exemption would apply to third parties reporting one the speech and reactions to it. I don't know if this is appropriate for the article but the hate speech angle is not the way to go about arguing for removal.--67.68.29.34 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm arguing for removal based on IAR, as there's no Wikipedia policy on hate speech. Yes, I said it's hate speech, because it is, and yes it's common knowledge that Hate speech isn't protected under the first ammendment in the U.S where Wikipedia servers are - HOWEVER that's not my argument for removing it, it's merely an observation, my argument for removing it is WP:IAR.  It does nothing for the article to keep it there, and removing it definetly would improve the article.  Kosh Vorlon   15:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about hate speech - even KKK cross burning is protected under the First Amendment! Also, WP:IAR isn't an argument by itself; you need to explain why it's a good idea to ignore a rule. However, I think that your WP:RECENTISM argument might be correct. Unless she makes more anti-LGBT comments, it's difficult to say that the statements are that important. (Realistically, though, I think that this section reflects badly on Radheshyam, not the LGBT community. Not being an LGBT person, however, my privilege is possibly skewing my judgment.) Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems like a question of neutrality and of due weight. Based on the current structure of the article and the attention paid to these remarks, one would think that Radheshyam's career has been defined in large part by her comments on homosexuality. If this is the case, then it's appropriate. If not, it would appear there is an issue of balance. The Blue Canoe  01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "my argument for removing it is WP:IAR. It does nothing for the article to keep it there, and removing it definetly would improve the article. " My explanation followed my reason, that is, It does nothing to help or better the article by keeping it in, and removing it definetly improves the article, therefore I suggest removing it, per WP:IAR.   Sorry I wasn't clearer.  Kosh Vorlon   18:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it improves the encyclopedia to remove well-sourced and appropriately attributed hate speech. It gives the reader a more accurate picture of the subject of the article. I do think the current layout of the article gives undue weight to those comments and they shouldn't receive their own section. I have to think a little more on how to rearrange things so it fits in better, but other people might have suggestions. —PermStrump ( talk )  18:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

, WP:IAR means that you can ignore the rules if there is a good reason to do so. This is really, really, really hard to show, which is why I thought the recentism argument was better. If you want to make the WP:IAR argument, you'll need to explain why it does nothing for the article to keep it there and why removing it improves the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Iraj Zandi
Dr. Zandi is my father-in-law. He is 84 years old. He's asked me to help him update his wiki-pedia page. This page has become more and more important to him, the older he gets, as he wishes to preserve a permanent record of his life's work for his grandchildren (my children). I want to edit the page. Dr. Zandi has provided me with the following text to add to the page. Please advise on how I may proceed: Copyvio of U Penn profile removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjayrush (talk • contribs) 12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello User:Tjayrush. Thank you for being open about your association with the article subject Dr Zandi and for providing this proposed text. Please read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Some of this text may be useful, but 1) is any if the wording copied from elsewhere? If so, read WP:COPYVIO. If not, that's great; 2) Do you have any reliable sources such as newspapers, books, or magazines that write about Zandi? "Who's who" is not a good source and your proposed text is a bit too much like a resume. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Tjayrush's text was copied from his U Penn profile: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zandi/. I have deleted the draft I started based on the text. Wikipedia would need evidence that Penn is OK to release that text under the Creative Commons Sharealike licence. See WP:COPYVIO and Donating copyrighted materials. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Frigerio
This entry violates the biographies of living person policies on three counts: 1) It is not verifiable 2) It does not habe a NPOV 3) it has no and regard for the subject's privacy

In this paragraph, it links romantically the subject of the article with a third person Daniel Mendoza, with no sources, no verifiable claims, and no respect for her privacy

En 1989 comenzó a trabajar como presentadora de televisión, conduciendo Doce más uno. En 1992 tuvo un romance con su compañero en la conducción de un programa de noticias, el periodista Daniel Mendoza (1943-1992). En febrero de 1992 pasaron unas vacaciones en Buzios (Brasil), pero al retornar a Buenos Aires el vínculo empezó a deteriorarse porque Mendoza se negaba al pedido de Frigerio de que se separara de su esposa, María Cossio (productora de televisión). Frigerio se cansó de esperar hasta que se enamoró de su actual marido, Lucas Bocchino. El 13 de agosto de 1992, Frigerio se despidió del programa y partió hacia Nueva York junto con su novio Lucas Bocchino. Al día siguiente (14 de agosto), Mendoza concurrió por última vez a su noticiero, y avisó que el lunes 17 no iría. Ese lunes se disparó en el corazón con un arma calibre 32. Su cuerpo fue encontrado sin vida en su apartamento ubicado en barrio de Belgrano.1

In this paragraph, it says that the subject of the entry "althought she made public her regret for participating in these TV shows, it cannot be denied that it was these shows that made her famous" ("a pesar de hacer público su descontento por haber participado de este tipo de programas no se puede negar que fueron estos los que la lanzaron a la fama") this is 1) not verifible and 2) lacks sources.

Entre 1993 y 1995, Frigerio trabajó con Jorge Rial haciendo un programa de chimentos, primero llamado El periscopio (emitido por Canal 2) y luego El paparazzi (emitido por Telefé y producido por Marcelo Tinelli a través de TM Producciones). A pesar de hacer público su descontento por haber participado de este tipo de programas no se puede negar que fueron estos los que la lanzaron a la fama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelstein (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The entry for Andrea Frigerio on the English Wikipedia does not seem to contain the information you are concerned about. Are you reading this on a different Wikipedia which would have its own similar noticeboard to this one for biography problems? Eagleash (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , Your report appears to be about an article on the Spanish version of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you are probably going to have to address this there. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ven Karma Gelek Yuthok
Ven Karma Gelek Yuthok is a new member of Lobsang Sangay's cabinet(Kashag) responsible for the Department of Religion and Culture of the Central Tibetan Administration(CTA). He has a long career in the Tibetan exile polity having joined the administration in 1986. He worked as the Secratary of the Cabinet, refered to as Kashag Secretariot between 2012-2016. Ven Karma Gelek Yuthok was born in the year 1955 in Tibet. After completing his studies in Buddhist dialectics and Masters in Arts (MA) degree, he joined the Central Tibetan Administration in 1986. Since then, he has served in various capacities including as the Secretary of the Department of Religion and Culture, Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama at OOT Japan, Secretary of the Department of Education, and finally as Secretary of the Kashag Secretariat from 2012 until his nomination as a Kalon of the 15th Kashag by Sikyong Dr Lobsang Sangay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TibetFact (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ngodup Tsering(Politician)
Ngodup Tsering is the minister of Department for Education of Central Tibetan Administration of the 15th Cabinet. Kalon of Education department by Sikyong Dr Lobsang Sangay in September 2014. He was nominated again as Kalon by Sikyong Dr Lobsang Sangay in the 15th Kashag. He was appointed as the secratary of the same department in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TibetFact (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello TibetFact, this is not the place to write about living people - readers will not see this. You need to start an article at Ngodup Tsering. Please see Your first article, Articles for creation, and Teahouse for help with creating articles. Make sure you have reliable sources that are independent on the subjects, such as newspapers, books or magazines to reference, or these new biographies may be deleted. Make sure you don't copy wording from your sources.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Dan Wagner
The article has a lot of violations of wikipedia rules and is sort of WP:COATRACK and violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Please read my comment dated "06:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)" on the talkpage of article. This appears to be a defamation campaign against the individual. An experienced editor has told me not to directly edit the article so that I may not appear to violate a COI policy so I am soliciting help over here. I think the editor who is putting BLP violations in the article has a COI and an agenda. Various IPs (likely him logged out) are also supporting his point of view. This is sequence with the twitter based defamation campaign. The User:ol king col is cherry picking sources and is writing statements like "is best known for" which the person is not best known for. Using blogs as references and personal opinion as facts.

I request that multiple experienced editors in the subject of biographies of living persons help correct the violations from this article. It should neither sound like a sales pitch nor like a cherry picked victimization. I support a factual biography. ol king col has restored his preferred revision and is stalling now. --Techtrek (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * looking at the articles referred to in the paragraph I want to have removed, they are all speculation, there is no basis of fact for valuation discredit or China Union Pay deal discredit or the letters of intent. None of it is factual, just a blogger calling it into question. The BBC then refers to it. King Col's version is damaging and unrepresentative of actual WP:RS references. --Techtrek (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His role in Powa and its collapse seems well documented in reliable sources and a very prominent part of his notability, e.g. http://uk.businessinsider.com/inside-the-crash-of-londons-payment-unicorn-powa-technologies-2016-4. It seems you're proposing a whitewash rather than looking for other sources, which certainly exist. And news blogs are generally reliable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Tim Cook additions to be reviewed
I have written some suggestions for inclusion on the Tim Cook article that should be reviewed as they are fairly substantial. Thank you. The proposed additions may be found here. ♔ First Lord of Downing Street ♔ 03:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Stan Kroenke
Again, people using biased sources on Kroneke page to demonize him for Rams move to LA. Just has no page on a wikipedia biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.159.46 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected for three months, this bio has been vandalised for months. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Gal Costa
Needs better sourcing. Costa's mother listened to classical music during her pregnancy for example -- no source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.68.67 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Seasick Steve
I have inserted new and wholly verified information about this subject, in the section 2016 biography, but it has repeatedly been deleted. There are independent and authoritative sources for everything I have stated. This article as it stands is highly inaccurate and misleading. Date of birth, name, and discography are all inaccurate. Other editors are meddling with new material they do not understand, and have clearly not ready thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboLow (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been reverted since it's a clear case of promoting a brand new biography written by a, by Wikipedia's standards, non-notable author. Made by not only one but two single-purpose accounts plus an IP. And HoboLow's only contributions on en-WP so far are repeated attempts to add a large block of material about the biography and its author on Seasick Steve, plus the creation of an unsourced (as in not a single source to support the notability of the subject of the article, only a link to the publisher's page about the book, and links to articles about Seasick Steve) article about the author of the biography. Thomas.W talk 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's trying to promote this book, but it shouldn't be reveted in its entirety, some of the sources introduced would be considered reliable. GiantSnowman 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not under a heading saying "2016 Biography" promoting the book. The sources, and the material they support, should instead be added to more appropriate sections of the article. Thomas.W talk 20:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I have just (albeit quickly & poorly) done! GiantSnowman 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you guys think the page needs a semi-protection for a few days to discourage the re-addition of the material? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually just went ahead and protected it for a week. I figure that although it seems to have tapered off a little, it's extensive enough to where a semi would be warranted. On a side note, it looks like there are quite a few new accounts signing up and making comments about the book. It might be worthwhile to open up an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, some of them only look new. Still, it seems like some of them have only edited about this topic or have been away for an awfully long time, just to come back and try to add this information or argue for the inclusion of the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two accounts ( and ) and two IPs in the same small subnet (Special:Contributions/109.155.33.91 and Special:Contributions/109.155.33.106), all four of them obviously connected to each other (see this discussion on my talk page), but they haven't so far done anything that clearly constitutes "abusing multiple accounts", such as supporting each other in an AfD or RfC, and their tag-teaming on Seasick Steve could, if we AGF, be attributed to accidentally editing logged out. Which is why I haven't filed an SPI. Thomas.W talk 09:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually opened one before I saw this. What made me concerned was that the IP seemed to be editing in the same fashion as HoboLow and claimed that they were separate people. It's an awful lot of editing around the same point in time on the same topic. It's open now at Sockpuppet investigations/HoboLow and I've already notified the IPs and HoboLow (I didn't include THPB91), so might as well let it run its course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

maggie wheeler
Maggie Wheelers filmography is missing a 2016 credit for her appearance on the show Maron on IFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:401:DD4D:3058:430F:EB07:606A (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

T. V. John Langworthy
I am wondering if some others would mind taking a look at this article. I'm not sure if it's intended to be a hoax or if this person really exists, but the way it is written does not seem for the most part to comply with WP:BLP. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have undone some attack-style edits that were done today. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look . -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield
I have, at least twice in the past, corrected accounts and edits that have been entered in an order that does not support chronological sequences, nor do the misorderings aid comprehension. I have, once again, removed redundant statements when they repetition seems to confuse a reader into believing the same event, occurs on at least two separate times instead of the single occurrence those accounts represent. In fact, the misorderings does seem consistent with an intentional attempt (or more than one) to change the context of the representation, and using misrepresentation of the sequence of events to support that (or those) attempts.

I do believe Wikipedia garners an unfair negative reputation when such activities occur...I don't expect any kind of retribution against those who made the changes...but I simply can not serve as a watchdog all by myself in at the very least, this one single article. I suggest that all future edits are reviewed for accuracy, consistency, redundancy, correct citation, and so on; before permitting the saved edits to appear on Wikipedia; and the number of times that the defamatory changes have occurred in the past should be the reason for this escalation of normal Wikipedia policy.

I can not even be sure that the citations I used in my attempts to correct the wrongs in this article, are up to Wikipedia standards, and would be appreciative if Wikipedia reviewed the corrections I made to day to ask for whatever support I may have missed. I think that my most likely oversights would occur in areas that I had corrected so many times before, that I would have overlooked re-correcting some supporting information.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.20.116 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I just checked a few of your edits on Jeremy Mayfield and none of them were supported by the cited sources, in fact some were contradicted by the cited sources. Where are you getting your information? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Roosh V
Should something like this result in a revdel or block? In general what do I do when I see one of these? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Remove it stating in the edit summary its per the BLP policy (so people know its exempt from 3rr/edit warring rules) and report to ANI (in that case). For some edits leaving a warning on their talkpage is enough, but I dont think there would be any point with that editor. Block is warranted, but its not severe enough that an immediate WP:REVDEL is necessary, personally I think its just common insulting, although some may think it falls under "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." If an admin thinks it needs to be deleted after reporting to ANI they will do it. If you think it should be revision deleted when you spot something like it, follow procedures here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Snyderman
More eyes please. I removed some very promotional style and content, but the article still needs a lot of work. I suspected he was not notable due to the high level of peacocking, but it turns out he is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, which seems like a solid pass on WP:PROF. Delta13C (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jebamalai Vinanchiarachi
A standard issue; a new biography, probably written by COI accounts, that relies in part on copyright violations from the subject's Linkedin entry, resume-style listing of honors, and public relations prose. I've added templates, but wonder if this is eligible for speedy or something less draconian. At any rate, given that multiple accounts are puffing this up, this could probably use some attention. Thanks in advance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:68C6:2CD6:BBB7:7FB2 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Stevo Todorčević‎
I am having a dispute with on the BLP of mathematician Stevo Todorčević‎ over whether it is acceptable to list his research accomplishments without providing secondary sources for the claims that they are indeed accomplishments. Third opinions welcome. Probably the talk page of the article would be better than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Before this notice was posted here I've already asked Eppstein to address his concerns on the article talk pages. My contributions to this biography are fully supported by valid and online accessible references, earlier and now.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Page
An anonymous user behind a Time Warner account has been repeatedly vandalising the article over the last few days. Eg., , , , , , etc. 190.112.65.38 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Richard Stallman
I have attempted to add this content to the article. Before doing this, I expressed my intention to do so on the talk page. Since nobody objected, I added the material about a week later. Upon doing this, a user reverted it, claiming no consensus and violation of BLP. I left a message on their talk page asking for an explanation a few hours ago and then reinserted the material. Upon doing this, another user reverted it and left a message on my talk page saying that if I want the content to be included, I have to make a submission here.

I have read through the BLP policy and I cannot see how my addition violates it. The statements are on Stallman's personal website; it is evident that he does not think that the comments are anything private or negative. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPPRIMARY allows for self-published/primary sources where they are about the primary source. So Stallman's personal website would be reliable for his opinions. However the sources do not actually support the statement 'supportive'. They indicate he has commented on the subject, and he thinks it is exaggerated, but that is not 'supportive' absent reliable secondary sources that say as such. To include the statement as you have worded it in wikivoice, you would first need a reliable secondary source commenting on his opinions and describing them as supportive, and then you could use the primary sources. Absent secondary sourcing, what you have is someone saying on their website 'this is overblown' on a contentious subject. Generally this would heavily fail WP:UNDUE as well. BLPPRIMARY touches on this with "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will say there is a bit of a double standard that was brought up in 2013 on the talk page - whole paragraphs of the 'personal life' section are entirely sourced to his own website. If we dont have secondary sources to indicate his opinion on underage sex is notable, why are we including his opinion on Christmas? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)Accusations and imputations of paedophilia, support of child pornography, and the like are intrinsically "contentious claims."  Thus such require extremely strong sourcing.  By the way, a page which is not widely followed may mean that your "proposed edit" was not seen by anyone who recognised its  substantial problems in any BLP. (adding) Opinions about Christmas are not intrinsically contentious to the same extent at all. Really.  Collect (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as any sort of accusation or imputation -- rather, the subject's own words are being used to convey what he actually believes. I can imagine that if someone else accused him of holding these views and there was no evidence from Stallman himself that he does have those views, you'd object vociferously (and in my view rightly).  I suggest not trying to have it both ways...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity: Stallman explicitly comments on 'voluntary' rather than 'involuntary'. While legally there is no difference (underage cannot voluntarily yadda yadda) he is making a comment on the social difference between someone willingly participating and being an unwilling participant. His comments do not reflect a statement he is 'supportive' of 'pedophilia'. I personally dont think the information should be included, not because of the subject, but because its not relevant. Like almost all of the rest of the crap in the personal section sourced to his blog. Tempted to take it all out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really object to that -- I suppose the word "supportive" is a very slight interpolation. Anyway an even-handed approach, not focused on deletion only of "contentious" stuff, strikes me as fine.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just found this article, which makes things more confusing. Orthogonal1 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but a neutral wording of 'Stallman has also commented on ' absent any support/condemn commentary would not be contentious as such, because its clear he has done so on more than one occasion. As written, the OP's suggestion is obviously not going to happen, however the pushback appears to be 'we shouldnt include his comments on the subject because of the distastefulness of the subject' which isnt actually a violation of BLP. UNDUE/Neutrality yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This link contains the statement 'Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography"'. Unfortunately, the site he links to is down for me at the moment, so I can't confirm that Stallman is actually mentioned in the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * https://xifrat.pirata.cat/forum/discussion/277/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/p1 and http://syria-personally.beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/09/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade-2449306.html may be mirrors of that page (with the usual possibility that they may be an edited, later, or earlier version), --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've made some minor cuts to the article, along the lines of what User:Only in death suggested. The wording in the proposed (and rightfully reverted) edit was not adequately verified in the somewhat loosely strewn around comments in the subject's archive. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put some of the folk music stuff back in - although its tangential to what he's really all about, it is mentioned in book sources, so I feel it can stay. I am aware of some of the comments he has made about paedophilia in the past, and I think he was trying to say something like consenting paedophilia should be allowed - which doesn't really make sense. However, Stallman has a fearsome reputation for strong and blunt opinion that would make some gruelling Arbcom cases look like trivial nonsense, and might have been simply trying to justify an open mind and put his foot in it. He also doesn't like the Beatles and hates pictures of small children, which means we're not going to see eye to eye. Where was I? Oh yes, the trims look good - leave the controversial stuff out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually,, I don't see why you wanted to remove the selected publications. Many articles on academics have such a section, where people can find out more about their research and concepts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ritchie, it's part of my regular MO: we're not a resume bin. If scholars get their articles listed, the end is near. Books, typically, yes, but preferably only when sources (with secondary sources--reviews). Academics typically have web pages anyway for their resumes. But listing articles a. frequently turns into a kind of linkspam and b. invites the comparison with an article on a musician listing every song they ever wrote, for instance. That's poor article writing, and even without the links it gets spammy. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're getting at, but this isn't just any old academic, this is somebody who may well be one of the most important software programmers that ever lived, and things like "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" and "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource" I think would be genuinely interesting to the layman reader. (In particular I've heard this "free encyclopedia" thing is popular) Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for making those edits. I'm happy that the policy is being applied to non-contentious material as well as contentious material. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the question at hand, I reverted a claim that "On his personal website, he has made several comments supporting child pornography and pedophilia". Looking at the actual cited comments, I see Stallman commenting on a couple of different issues, none of which math the description given:


 * " Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist. The article does not mention that it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted."


 * "Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition. The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)."


 * "Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "

I find it interesting that wikiquote has four quotes by Stallman on pedophilia, but only three were used. The missing one is:


 * " There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. " In the original quote (but not in the wikiquote version), he hyperlinks to [ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light ].

So we have two issues here, one is the claim that the above are "comments supporting child pornography and pedophilia", which appears to be WP:OR and a BLP violation. The other is whether a more accurate and nuanced description of Stallman's views on this would be appropriate for his Wikipedia page.

Note: I have to rewrite the above a couple of times in an attempt to maintain WP:NPOV. Like many people, I have a visceral and emotional reaction to the subject but at the same time logic tells me that there are differences between, say, an adult having sex with a 16-year-old and a 6-year-old, that there are differences between statutory rape and forcible rape, and that pointing out that these differences exist is in no way the same thing as "supporting" statutory rape of 16-year-olds. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that last quote, and I think that it further justifies my position. In that case, it's clear that he's not talking exclusively about 16 year olds. As to the question of whether this is notable enough, it is similar to Jimmy Wales and Bomis. Bomis would not have been notable by itself, but given that Wales met notability guidelines on other bases, the company could be mentioned in his article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, as best I can find, no independent reliable source has written about his views on pedophilia. On such a topic, we should rely on outside commentary rather than our own interpretations of his writings. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSELFPUB states that self-published primary sources may be used as sources if the below conditions apply. All of the below conditions are satisfied, so a secondary source is unnecessary:

Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.
 * You appear to have misread what WP:BLPSELFPUB says. You claimed "...self-published primary sources may be used as sources if..." but the actual policy says "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (emphasis in original). The material in question is not Stallman talking about about Stallman. It is one of Stallman's many published opinions about various subjects. I see no reason to single out this particular opinion and not, say, his opinions on GMO or global warming -- especially when no reliable source has done so. In particular, I see no reason to post original research not supported by the sources as you did here: This was explained to you in detail at Talk:Richard Stallman. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "The material in question is not Stallman talking about Stallman": A person's opinion is definitely something about themselves. You could argue that "My favourite colour is yellow" is not a statement about me; it is a statement about the colour yellow, but I think that we can see that this would be unreasonable. "I see no reason to single out this particular opinion and not, say, his opinions on GMO or global warming" As I have also discussed on talk page, his opinions on GMOs and global warming are not unusual. We shouldn't say "Stallman has 10 fingers", if the only source discussing this is a personal webpage, but if he had 12 fingers, this would be something to include in the article, even if the only source was his personal webpage.  "In particular, I see no reason to post original research not supported by the sources as you did here" I agree that the wording might need to be changed for accuracy, as discussed in your previous messages. Fine. What about:"'On his personal website, he has made several comments supporting the legalisation of child pornography distribution, though he has stated that the creation of child pornography, if it involves sex with a child, is wrong. Despite this, he has expressed doubt that child sex is harmful, so long as it is voluntary.'" If you don't like this, will you at least tentatively agree to the first sentence? Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Please stop trying to think of different ways to sneak in original research that is not found in any reliable secondary source. The Wikipedia community will never allow that to happen.


 * Stallman has many unusual opinions, He thinks that Israeli is engaging in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, that we should impeach God, and that the "Obama regime" wants to kill 10 million people with HIV by pressuring India to stop making generic drugs, making Obama "literally worse than the Nazi leaders convicted at Nuremberg of crimes against humanity." Like his opinion on child pornography, we will only include information on those opinions if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read the policy on original research, and I can't see where it says that all content that does not have a secondary source is original research.


 * The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is way too controversial to be able to have a sensible discussion about. Suffice to say that there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the discussion, so whatever Stallman's opinion, it will not generally be notable.


 * His mock desire to impeach God is an expression of his atheism, and atheism isn't obscure.


 * The example you gave about the "Obama regime"'s supposed conspiracy to kill 10 million people was, as far as I can tell, something that he said once. Not repeatedly over the course of more than 10 years.


 * Anyway, regardless of all of this, if he has any other extremely strange opinions that he repeatedly writes about over a long time on his website, then yes, they should go in the article. I am by no means trying to make an exception just for this opinion. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There appears to be no consensus on this. On one side we have me, Only in death does duty end
 * ("Absent secondary sourcing, what you have is someone saying on their website 'this is overblown' on a contentious subject. Generally this would heavily fail WP:UNDUE as well. [...] I personally don't think the information should be included, not because of the subject, but because its not relevant. Like almost all of the rest of the crap in the personal section sourced to his blog. Tempted to take it all out."),'
 * and Collect
 * ("Accusations and imputations of paedophilia, support of child pornography, and the like are intrinsically 'contentious claims.' Thus such require extremely strong sourcing. By the way, a page which is not widely followed may mean that your 'proposed edit' was not seen by anyone who recognised its substantial problems in any BLP. (adding) Opinions about Christmas are not intrinsically contentious to the same extent at all. Really.")
 * and on the other side we have you, Nomoskedasticity and Ritchie333 This is, of course subject to my interpetation of the comments by those individuals, which may be flawed.
 * If you really want to keep trying to get it in, I am willing to post a neutrally-worded RfC so we can get a definitive answer on consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're probably going to need an RfC. Whatever the outcome is, everyone should accept it. Since that will be pseudo-precedent, do you think it would be a good idea to let Stallman know that an important decision involving him is going to be made, and giving him the opportunity to comment? I don't think that this would be against policy, but I might be wrong. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon's analysis of the issue is correct, and while anyone can start an RfC, it is not clear that an RfC should occur. The real point is that Stallman has extreme views about personal freedom and he would hate to condone governments interfering with such freedom unless it were to prevent infringements on others—that is what the article should be saying (if sourced). Stallman has not written anything extensive about sex—all he has done is to apply the principles I just mentioned to that topic. The only reason to highlight a few of Stallman's words is to wink at readers with the suggestion that his views are despicable, and a secondary source qualified to comment in that area should be found before such decorations are added to the article. A secondary source can comment on what else Stallman has said or done in the area in order to show what beliefs are involved. Stallman is known for campaigning regarding freedom, but I have not seen suggestions of campaigns related to sex. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While that may be so from a theoretical perspective, it's irresponsible to suggest that children actually voluntarily consent to these things in any ordinary circumstances. I'm not trying to take away children's agency. I am a supporter of the youth rights movement and believe that youth should be allowed to vote and drive, and not be subject to curfews, just to name a few things. But it's safe to say that practically all children don't want to have sex with old men. Talking about children voluntarily consenting to these things without explaining how extremely extremely extremely unlikely this is makes people imagine that there are a lot of children out there who really want to have sex with old men, and the government is taking away their freedom, when this is just ridiculous. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No one here is using those words, and indeed if any editor were to put those words on their user page they may very well be indeffed per WP:CHILDPROTECT. There are lots of worthy causes and your's is a particularly good one, but Wikipedia is not the right place to promote good things (see WP:RGW). When there is a secondary source with some encyclopedic information, it can be added to the article. Meanwhile, arguments about the ridiculous nature of what someone put on their website should not occur at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that Wikipedia isn't the place to talk politics or advocacy (if you look at my edit history, you'll see that my main areas of interest include world legislative bodies, Australian constitutional law and the island of Tokelau), and I'm sorry that my last comment ventured into the political. My purpose was to state that even if Stallman did support the libertarian principle that no person's liberty may be restricted except to prevent harm to others, as you suggested, then his position on this particular issue would not necessarily be a consequence of that. In any case, Stallman has a pro-State gland, and his website has many comments supporting government intervention, so the personal freedom argument is probably not worth having. Orthogonal1 (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Stallman until a few hours ago and as I've been reading this thread, I keep changing my mind to agree with whoever's comment I'm reading at that moment. I think everyone has made the valid arguments. : I would definitely support including it if/when it's addressed by a reliable third party source, because then presumably we'd be able to appropriately contextualize Stallman's statements. Right now, the only way it could included would be to directly quote and attribute Stallman's blog, which really just leaves it hanging, so I think pedophile apologists would perceive it as confirming their biases and I truly think it would have more of backfire effect than anything else. —PermStrump  ( talk )  10:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I've just written to Stallman and he explained that his views have changed significantly since the time he wrote these things. I have changed my opinion on this. It wouldn't be fair to include this in the article. I would like to recommend that this be closed now. Orthogonal1 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi
User:Smallbones and I disagree about whether the incident in which Matt Taibbi pied Michael Vines [edit: Wines] should be mentioned in Matt Taibbi. The first relevant edit was mine here; see the next few edits for his reversions and my addition. At this point, the disagreement (discussion on my talk page) boils down to whether this Vanity Fair article is sufficient citation for the event. Is it? —Kodiologist (t) 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This incident has been added, and rightfully removed, dozens of times from several articles going all the way back to 2006 see here. The original incident was obviously meant to humiliate the victim - there is no reason for us to perpetuate that victimization.  The Vanity Fair article - if you read one sentence rather naively - seems to confirm the contents of the pie.  But anybody reading the full article, or who notices the word "coveted" or "congratulation" in the sentence should realize that VF is joking.  Even just using common sense - how would VF or anybody other than Taibbi know the content of the pie? - we can conclude that that detail is simply unknown.
 * But reading the article as a whole casts the gravest doubts on the accuracy of the sentence (and Kodiologist's edit to the article) e.g.
 * editor1 "preferred the former, mixing powdered amphetamine into his drinks, while (editor2) in a committed relationship for much of his time in Moscow, snorted bumps of white Asian smack." Quoting editor1 on the pie throwing “We knew we went too far. That was the point, going too far." The VF writer "What The Exile lacked in resources it made up for in ritualistic public humiliation." "went after people ... with an ugly sadism." Critics "call Ames and Taibbi, singly or in combination, children, louts, misogynists, madmen, pigs, hypocrites, anarchists, fascists, racists, and fiends." Then there is the story about Taibbi throwing coffee on the VF writer then stalking him "Maybe there was horse sperm in the coffee," the VF writer comments.  Overall, anybody reading the whole article is going to have grave doubts about why Taibbi would throw a pie at the NY Times writer, and specifically about any statement he made about it - or that VF made relying on Taibbi.  It's just not a reliable source in this context.  We should remove this material once and for all from Wikipedia, wherever it shows up.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to Vanity Fair - NY Magazine, LA Weekly, Salon, The Christian Science Monitor, The Moscow Times, The Buffalo News, The Wire, Sputnik, The Russia Journal, C-SPAN interview, where Taibbi's WP article is mentioned.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Baconheimian/sandbox
This link has come up a few times in the last week while browsing files on Commons. I just checked it again and saw that it's being actively added to. I believe it has officially reached the point of containing an ass-ton of blatant BLP violations, most evident in "Donaldo Trumpez". It can be generally summed up as a fantasy football version of political biography. So far, I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Gabriel Caste
A couple weeks ago an IP made these edits regarding actor Gabriel Caste. I just assumed it was trolling from an anti-fan or something, since no reason was given why the citations are false and the actor is non notable. Today an IP again tried to (incorrectly) nominate the article of Gabriel Caste for deletion, but then on the article's talk page, the IP claims to be Gabriel Caste himself, insisting he is not notable for Wikipedia. I'm not sure what should be done. Sro23 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone is removing good content revert them. If someone nominates the article for deletion in good faith, comment at the deletion discussion. If someone claims to be the subject, treat them like any other editor, if for no other reason than we have no practical way of knowing if they really are who they say they are.- MrX 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for deletion. He has no significant roles in any notable films and there are no reliable sources to support biographical details, so fails WP:ACTOR and hurts a lot at WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lyrical wanzam
I have created an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrical_wanzam and another reader proposed deletion of the said page for ... Also I see this message on the page: this article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy.

I strongly believe due process has been followed but I am unable to move forward for some reason. Please assist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesaysshush (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has been proposed for deletion because the subject isn't covered in secondary reliable sources, thus lacking notability. If you can provide additional reliable sources to verify the page's content, then we can discuss keeping the page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated the page for WP:AfD here. Meatsgains (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Adam Milstein
I would appreciate eyes on this article and the one on his family foundation. Adam and Gila Milstein Family Foundation. There seems to be some difficulty in keeping them free from duplication and promotion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Michele Abeles
Could I get a few more eyes to look at this? The article was created by last week. I declined a CSD nomination by as I found some coverage in news sources that cleared the A7 barrier. I added some more sources to show the artists' work had been exhibited in several nationally important galleries, assuming that would be enough to save the article, and left it for the creator to improve. However, Michele Abeles, self-identified as has taken exception to having an article about themselves and wants it deleted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, leading to  filing an AfD request. Since the article is not at all negative and was started by somebody with no obvious conflict of interest, I think we should only honour this request if there is a strong enough consensus that the subject is of no importance to Wikipedia, and I really don't see that happening. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

John Bruce Wallace
Long, personal and poorly sourced hagiography, no doubt tended by a WP:COI account. A lot can be pared; any attention to this will be helpful. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:194D:F97C:7B39:6E83 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my, an intricate detail tag since 2012? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And that's the least of it. 2601:188:1:AEA0:194D:F97C:7B39:6E83 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed it to a more BLP-compliant and manageable size. So: don't think it needs all those images? And as I said in the edit-summary, the remaining 'facts' should be checked as to whether they are indeed backed by the sources given- I think. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. The article had for years been used as a personal web page. Bears watching. 2601:188:1:AEA0:194D:F97C:7B39:6E83 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check! <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  15:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone know Finnish?
Apparent attempt at self-promotion by author. Very likely non-notable, but I can't claim "basic due diligence" for AfD when the potential sources are all in Finnish.

ʍw 19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Shooting of Alton Sterling
An editor is keen on adding that Alton Sterling had a conviction for a sex offence from 2000. Sterling, being recently deceased, is covered by the BLP policy, and specifically WP:NPF. Is the fact that he was convicted on sex offenses in 2000 relevant to the subject's notability? Or is it, as I hold, simply being presented to portray the subject in a negative light, which is expressly forbidden by this policy? Please comment at Talk:Shooting of Alton Sterling. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Deepa Kumar
Is this comment from a new user at Talk:Deepa Kumar a WP:BLP problem? I have commented on the user's talk page but am not getting far. It's not a big deal, but taken with this it appears it may be useful to convince the user how things should be done. The latter comment was removed and not restored, but the former has been removed and restored four times. Should a minor issue of unsourced commentary on a talk page be pursued? Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone has an axe to grind for sure, especially on the first diff. Kosh Vorlon '''  17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Brad Wardell
Can interested editors please join the discussion here: Talk:Brad_Wardell? There's probably some COI editing and GamerGate issues to take into consideration. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh its a dropped lawsuit (two actually) between someone who is notable but low profile (you would need be a dedicated gamer to know who Brad Wardell is) and a non-notable person. As such I have removed it under WP:BLPCRIME. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Leadsom
Material containing non-factual opinion and comment is repeatedly being inserted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.249 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: This IP address has been reported for vandalism due to repeated section blanking on Andrea Leadsom page.Dingowasher (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit concerned here and think that temporary semi-protection might be the best option.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP is now blocked, (24 hours). Most of the material they removed seemed referenced to reliable sources and some less reliable content has been removed by more experienced editors. Are the controversial parts are being reported too quickly ...almost as they happen. WP:NOTNEWS? Eagleash (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The BLP did, alas, contain appreciable non-neutral wording and undue weight to claims about her. Emended a tad. Collect (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

People v. Turner
After being warned to re-read BLP, including the limits on primary sources and the fact that the pseudonymous victim was protected by BLP, proceeded to: This list is not exhaustive and I'd like some more eyes to keep defamatory and unsupported material off.--Carwil (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Create a new section of People v. Turner entirely devoted to summarizing the timeline presented in a primary source, the police report. Special:Diff/728557737
 * Use a police report to highlight a claim about a sexual assault victim's unrelated conduct earlier on the night of the assault. Special:Diff/728574706
 * Characterize that conduct by the name of a criminal misdemeanor Special:Diff/728718689 which I removed in this diff: Special:Diff/728764075
 * Insert an unsubstantiated characterization of the entire case as a "false accusation of rape" using a keyword in the info box. Special:Diff/728706201 I removed here:Special:Diff/728719211
 * From reviewing this, and the talk page, and Ranze's page I think you need to engage more rather than just voice complaints. From looking at Ranze's edit comment it appears to me he's saying the "false accusation of Rape" is coming from the media.  If that is the case, BLP does not apply to media organizations.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the actions that Turner was convicted for are considered rape by the FBI(https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/recent-program-updates/new-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions) Inicholson (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

What limits on primary sources are you referring to Carwil? Primaries are permitted to be used to establish basic facts, like a time stated by a witness to a police officer. Also I believe the initial complaint would be a secondary source: the witness statements themselves are primary sources, the paraphrasing of a witness statement by the interviewing officer must then be the secondary source.

A timeline seems like an acceptable thing to do by arranging the times given in the initial complaint which we include as a reference. Do you think I made any changes/errors to the data in quoting them? If so I welcome help in improving it. I did catch one mistake I made (officer surname began with same letter as Brock's, mistakenly put 'Taylor' in place of 'Turner' in 2 lines) and corrected it, but there could possibly be some others, which is why community editing is valuable.

One valuable improvement to the timeline I can think of would be color-coordination in regard to which officer's report the time is taken from. This would be more efficient than restating 'according to X's report' each line.

Another valuable thing would be if there were ways to link to the specific pages of the report, since at 53 pages (and not being OCRd to be text-searchable) finding the things is troublesome and I would like to make the verification for skeptics easier.

Is anyone aware of a text-converted version, or the PDF being split into its individual components? The best would actually be a one URL per page setup or if anchors could be linked to skip to the correct page. Hoping for links to the specific lines might be too extreme a hope.

The report mentions repeatedly from Emily, Tiffany, Julia, then the sisters again about the incident in your 2nd and 3rd bullet. I can quote the exact lines if you really need to. The sisters both specify urination. Police crossed out anything required to protect privacy, such as the sisters' surname and Emily's forename. The actual incident description was not redacted in any of the statements, and the incident report is referenced by us.

This is something that happens immediately before the 3 girls meet the 3 boys and Emily being left alone, and 3 statements of time are associated with it, so it is useful information to include in the timeline.

Your fourth bullet is misleading, I did not characterize the 'entire case' as a false accusation of rape. Template:Infobox_court_case describes keywords being about 'issues dealt with'. An issue being addressed by the case does not mean that it applies to the entire case or that the issue is actually what occurred in the case, merely that the issue is brought up in association with it. For example in the case TNA Entertainment, LLC v. Wittenstein an issue dealt with is 'violation of a non-disclosure agreement'. Since the suit was withdrawn we can't readily know if Wittenstein violated it or if he did not, but that is still an issue brought up by the case.

Kyohi has good insight: yes I'm talking about the media statements which say Brock raped Emily even after the rape charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor. That is certainly an issue associated with the case through it's media exposure. LA Times brings up 'rape accusation culture', by denying rape allegations Brock makes the idea of a false accusation an issue of the case. Ranze (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPPRIMARY says, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." A police report is just such a public document and the timeline you have posted is filled with assertions about living people.
 * No reliable sources discuss the urination incident you have addded to the article. On those grounds alone, we may not add it. Additionally, per WP:BLPCRIME we may not use (someone else's) arrest report alone to describe a misdemeanor offense like public urination. Further, a crime victim's earlier behavior just isn't relevant to the article's topic, a prosecution for sexual assault and attempted rape.
 * Characterizing a case as an example of "false accusation of rape" is a strong claim, directly implicating a BLP-protected individual, and requires strong evidence reported by reliable sources. A RS repeating a police report by a defendant denying his criminal activity is insufficient. Otherwise, all crime trials without a guilty plea would be classed as "false accusation" cases.
 * I also have major concerns with WP:BLPNAME as a series of third parties have been written into this article based on a primary source. In addition to violating these third parties' privacy, it endangers that of the crime victim. Police, courts, and the media have all showed deference to her right to anonymity, and publishing the name of her sister and her sister's friend compromises it to no useful purpose.
 * Kyohyi: Frankly, I was shocked that Ramze added an entire section built on one primary source just after I reminded him of BLPPRIMARY, and while I could pursue each detail through a separate discussion on the talk page, I think there's a clear editing trend here that goes way over the line in terms of policy.--Carwil (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Carwil when you contacted me about BLP concerns you didn't actually go into detail about what they were, this is the first I am getting specifics from you. BLPPRIMARY is only about public sources which are PRIMARY sources. The police report is clearly a public document which is a secondary source, because the primary source is the witness testimony so police paraphrasing of witness testimony is secondary.

Also BLPPRIMARY mentions "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". Even deferring to your claim that the report is primary, it should be acceptable to use the times from the primary source to construct a timeline for events which are discussed in the news articles.

In this case, when I include something in the timeline, would you like me to name a reference which mentions the event to justify citing the initial complaint to augment the article by providing the hours/minutes mentioned in the complaint?

This could get rather bulky and distracting, so an alternative could be to single out event times in the timeline section from the complaint which you do not think have been covered by any secondary sources.

To start things off, the urination example, the impact statement includes 3 questions which address this aspect of the trial: "When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside?" and this has been included in news articles about the case, such as this one.

You also objected to vomiting as lurid, and that is also mentioned in the March 21 article: "Doe vomited before being taken away in an ambulance but was able to spit or cough the vomit out of her throat without assistance."

So basically I want to know what in particular in the timeline (times aquired from the complaint, yes, as news articles haven't reprinted every time stated in the complaint) do you think is an event which has not been covered in news articles about the case? If you can point these out it would be simpler to just remove them from the timeline unless we find an article which mentions them.

Or are you going to ask for every single mundane event like 'the grad students noticed something while riding bikes' or 'police arrived' or 'an ambulance left' or 'blood was drawn' to be linked to an article? I'm thinking there are just some particular things you object to being included so I have addressed the 2 you've brought up so far.

Your assertion that Emily's earlier behavior isn't relevant is unsupported. When she was in company of others and why they left the party to go outdoors are very related to the case.

Bringing up the issue of false rape accusations is not a violation of BLP because it is not about Emily, it is about the media doing it, and they are not BLP-protected so long as they are not singled out.

There is also a difference between listing an issue a a key-word and characterizing the case by that keyword. For example 'freedom of expression' used as a keyword in McLibel case just means that is an associated issue. McDonalds won it so FoE actually got ruled against in this case, but it's still a related issue.

Police/courts/media have only shown deference in regard to the sisters' surname. 'Tiffany' was kept for the younger sister in the initial complaint and is also included in several news articles about the case. This has been done in October and March. The site Palo Alto Online which is cited heavily in the article is a local paper so if anyone was going to withdraw locally-known details it would be them, but they opted not to. Tiffany is a common name so I don't see any danger in using it, particularly since our sources make it readily viewable. A seven-letter name is more concise to use than 'her sister' which is 10 characters. Brevity and clarity are both very useful purposes.

The friend's full name is given in the complaint, if police considered it important to withhold they would have done so. Given that the sisters had multiple friends at the party, it is incredibly confusing to read 'a friend' in all of these case because there is no clarification on who is being talked about.

If you are very opposed to the inclusion of names readily available in the linked complaint, how about a compromise where we simply include their complaint code? Maggioncalda is O02, McCann is O05 and McElhon is O06. I think using the actual name is less confusing than this but using these numbers would at least be less confusing than absolutely no distinction whatsoever.

It appears has boldly decided to blank entire reliably sourced sections with the lie that it is a BLP violation when none of it has actually been proven to be.

Keep in mind that police redacted what was legally necessary: the sister's last name (presumably same as Emily's) and the full name of Emily Doe. Anything else we redact is pure preference on our side.

I have to question why you are only encouraging the redaction of their names though. If anyone is going to be in danger by the use of names it's obviously the 4 men who were pinning down Brock, the Turner family themselves (Brock and his dad in particular) and Brock's friends or companions, it's quite obvious who is the target of public scorn here and it is not the Doe family or their friends.

Prior to any trend speculation I think you should better clarify the particulars of the timeline you objected to. Ranze (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Incholson is right that the entire timeline as posted relied on primary sources without secondary interpretation. We should rebuild a brief timeline based on ample secondary RS.
 * The friend who invited the victims sister to a party and the two friends who shared drinks with them are immaterial to the case and their identities should be protected. So should Brock Turner's friends. Instead, you have written at length about their vodka preferences. I strongly advise you to take a break from this article. You're delving in far more deeply than is warranted to produce encyclopedic content. --Carwil (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

John Safer
Please allow me to edit this article and retrieve some of the content that was previously deleted. We also want to improve the article to meet wikipedia guidelines/requirements. We have sent permissions for the content and pictures several years back and a lot of them have been deleted now. I would like to wait for a response before I make any changes. Also wondering if there's any way to protect this article from editing as the subject (93 years old a renowned sculptor) doesn't have the ability to monitor it any more. Please advise.Pilot03 (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Pilot03

Khadem al-Qubaisi
I came to be aware of this article as a result of a series of emails sent to Wikimedia (ticket:2016031610005984)

Because of my involvement, I think it would be best if others made a determination on the appropriateness of the inclusion of the section "Removal from IPIC and subsequent corruption allegations".

I'll note that the main source is the Financial Times, one of the highest quality reliable sources in existence. However, I'll also note that the statements are negative and we take special care in such situations.

I recently applied semi-protection, but that hasn't stopped the edit warring.

I am specifically pinging as one of the experienced editors involved.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The material seems quite carefully and conservatively written, with impeccable sources. I genuinely don't see a problem.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Much of the material is clearly verging on UNDUE to say the least, and it is reasonable to keep an eye on it. Collect (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Matt Taibbi
User:Smallbones and I disagree about whether the incident in which Matt Taibbi pied Michael Vines [edit: Wines] should be mentioned in Matt Taibbi. The first relevant edit was mine here; see the next few edits for his reversions and my addition. At this point, the disagreement (discussion on my talk page) boils down to whether this Vanity Fair article is sufficient citation for the event. Is it? —Kodiologist (t) 17:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This incident has been added, and rightfully removed, dozens of times from several articles going all the way back to 2006 see here. The original incident was obviously meant to humiliate the victim - there is no reason for us to perpetuate that victimization.  The Vanity Fair article - if you read one sentence rather naively - seems to confirm the contents of the pie.  But anybody reading the full article, or who notices the word "coveted" or "congratulation" in the sentence should realize that VF is joking.  Even just using common sense - how would VF or anybody other than Taibbi know the content of the pie? - we can conclude that that detail is simply unknown.
 * But reading the article as a whole casts the gravest doubts on the accuracy of the sentence (and Kodiologist's edit to the article) e.g.
 * editor1 "preferred the former, mixing powdered amphetamine into his drinks, while (editor2) in a committed relationship for much of his time in Moscow, snorted bumps of white Asian smack." Quoting editor1 on the pie throwing “We knew we went too far. That was the point, going too far." The VF writer "What The Exile lacked in resources it made up for in ritualistic public humiliation." "went after people ... with an ugly sadism." Critics "call Ames and Taibbi, singly or in combination, children, louts, misogynists, madmen, pigs, hypocrites, anarchists, fascists, racists, and fiends." Then there is the story about Taibbi throwing coffee on the VF writer then stalking him "Maybe there was horse sperm in the coffee," the VF writer comments.  Overall, anybody reading the whole article is going to have grave doubts about why Taibbi would throw a pie at the NY Times writer, and specifically about any statement he made about it - or that VF made relying on Taibbi.  It's just not a reliable source in this context.  We should remove this material once and for all from Wikipedia, wherever it shows up.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to Vanity Fair - NY Magazine, LA Weekly, Salon, The Christian Science Monitor, The Moscow Times, The Buffalo News, The Wire, Sputnik, The Russia Journal, C-SPAN interview, where Taibbi's WP article is mentioned.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  16:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back from before the holiday to get further feedback

Thanks for all the sources on this. If you read them you'll see how they note that Taibbi's purpose was to humiliate Wines. The CSM summarizes it best in a passing comment

"The tactic (pie throwing) probably reached its low point in Moscow in 1999, when writer Matt Taibbi threw a pie in the face of New York Times Moscow editor Michael Wines. The pie was reportedly made with horse semen."

Note the "reportedly" - it's clear that nobody knows for sure what was in the pie except Taibbi.

Taibbi's explanation of what he was doing and why lacks a great deal, e.g. in the C-SPAN interview transcript, Brian Lamb asks directly what he was doing, citing our Wikipedia article, and Taibbi's answer was "I was definitely younger then and I was doing a lot of drugs at the time, and that was Russia and, you know, it was â€¦" That explains it all IMHO, there was no point except to humiliate Wines.

WP:BLP says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

I take that to mean that we don't go around intentionally trying to humiliate people, which is the only thing naming Wines accomplishes. I don't think including the section anywhere, with or without the name, accomplishes anything so it should be removed.

The arguments I've seen for including this material say essentially "we can do it because there are reliable sources." While I think these folks are missing most of what the sources say, it is just not enough to say "it's in an RS" for a BLP. There has to be an encyclopedic purpose, and humiliating a BLP is just not an encyclopedic purpose. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You say above that "it should be removed", but it has already been removed by you as a BLP violation, so in order for it to be added back, it would need consensus. I also think the 2nd paragraph in the Controversy section (Taibbi cursed and threw a coffee at him) should go as well. If this incident was truly a controversy in his career, I would expect to see more sourcing there describing the incident as controversial.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  23:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've removed the same material in two other articles. It is not a case of putting it back by consensus however.  It is a case of permanently removing it and never letting it back in.  Consensus cannot over-ride policy, especially on an obvious BLP violation such as this one.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * strongly agree to keep this material out on the grounds that it has no overriding encyclopedic purpose. That goes for whether or not it is a verifiable incident and notable or not. We should have standards, and repeating an incident meant to humiliate a victim, unless that incident has some kind of clear and widespread significance to the public profile of that individual, is simply unnecessary and serves no purpose.
 * the case would be different if, let us say, some public person was raped or sexually abused, and this issue became an important part of the public persona of that person, and they wrote a book about it... etc. If it's just some gratuitous humiliation, then I say we cut it.
 * as to whether the characterizations of Taibbi, as an individual who is recorded in RS doing violence and actively humiliating individuals he sees as adversaries, pass BLP muster and should be on his page.... I suppose is another conversation. Happy   monsoon  day  20:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Shankarananda (Shiva Yoga)
Recently an editor (or many editors) using IP addresses have been repeatedly adding unsourced information to this article and removing sourced information. It violates verifiability, and potentially neutral point of view as these editors seem to be trying to make the article excessively positive. I have tried to discuss this with them but they will not respond to me/Elephanteyes21 (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this needs an admin. IP editors have removed all of the sources and completely whitewashed the article. —PermStrump  ( talk )  07:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

priest west
Dear Sir or Madam,

Wikipedia page: Priest West

I´m Priest West. I have seen that somebody changed my Wikipedia entry. This person written fals claims about my person and reputational damage. In view history i could see, that the page was changed on 24th of june 2016. I cleared this fals claims on 8th of july 2016. it is possible to protect my Wikipedia entry? it is also possible to find out who written this reputational damage about my person, or to block out this user?

You can contact me via e-mail: priestwest@web.de

Thank´s for your help.

Kind regards,

Priest Tyron Thomas West — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.205.254.64 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the trouble. Since the unreferenced information was added by someone who has not logged in, we cannot block that user specifically, but the article is now protected (since July 8, by User:Yamaguchi先生) so only registered users may edit it, for a fairly long time. Hopefully that will reduce the problem. --GRuban (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarence McClendon
The information on this page is inaccurate. Please allow for our ministry to edit and update the page so it reflects who Bishop McClendon and the Assignment on his life truly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.87.59 (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Given your WP:COI, you should take your suggested changes to the article's talk page where users can discuss and make the appropriate edits for you. Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone through and made several changes to cleanup the page. It was a mess. Again, feel free to post on the article's talk page to discuss any additional edits. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Taraji P. Henson
Please look at the article's recent history. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like the request is pertaining to repeated attempts to add content about a comment Henson made while drunk during the Super Bowl. It received a small flurry of coverage, but only over a period of 1-2 days. I can't really see the merit in adding it at all, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It also didn't help that the addition was written in a tabloid-esque manner. That might have been unintentional, but the incident is fairly minor, all things considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Seph Lawless
Currently has an infobox. The query here is not about the accuracy of that infobox, but the general usefulness of an infobox for a BLP which is barely past a stub, and which uses the person's own website as a reliable source. Right now, the article is primarily an advert for the artist's works, and might not even be "notable" but, that aside, at what point does using an infobox for a very short BLP (it is essentially a list of his books, sourced to media where he has been asked about the books being promoted)  of actual significant usefulness for readers? Collect (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion about infoboxes, but why is an infobox in a very short BLP different from an infobox in a very short article about, say, a company, band, or publication? More metadata in the latter maybe? Do you mention it on BLPN vs. an MOS page or the article talk page because there's the potential for a BLP concern for a short infobox? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 13:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Lewis
A hater has set this page (Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer)) up about me and needs to be removed immediately.

I am NOT an adult entertainer.

I am Lisa Lewis

Who ever set this page up has used tabloid journalism,

An investigation needs to be investigated as into who set this defamatory wikipedia page up about me = Lisa Lewis

There is MANY wrong facts on this wikipedia.

How do we shut it down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Lewis_(adult_entertainer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzealander838 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to make a report here, an editor will shortly look into this. In the meantime, please could you refrain from removing content from the article in question? -- samtar talk or stalk 07:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * you note that you find this page "defamatory" - could you please elaborate? What parts in particular do you find defamatory, and what could be done to the article to make it less so? -- samtar talk or stalk 07:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * With no prior knowledge of the topic, anything which gives someone's profession as "escort" (as this does) without an extremely solid reference is on very shaky ground. That said, "adult entertainer" is a direct quote from the Waikato Times. I agree that the article shouldn't be titled "Lisa Lewis (adult entertainer)" as it gives undue weight to a single aspect of her career, and ought to be moved to a more neutral title like Lisa Lewis (born 1981). &#8209; Iridescent 07:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would support renaming the page. What do you think ? Please take part in the conversation here - we really do want to help you, but if you continue removing information from the page you may be blocked -- samtar talk or stalk 08:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor has been blocked -- samtar talk or stalk 08:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hah, if we want to help ease this person into eternal obscurity, then sure, use Lisa Lewis (born 1981). No-one but no-one would search Wiki for her under that title. But, Lisa Lewis (self promoter) would surely be different, She's widely known for that as Google clearly demonstrates.. Moriori (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In fairness, this article doesn't appear to have been created as any kind of self-promotion; the creator has written quite a lot about New Zealand boxing. I'm going to nominate it for deletion; some sporadic coverage in the local press for minor publicity stunts and "first bisexual New Zealander to be a boxing promoter" does not equate to notability or significance. &#8209; Iridescent 08:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh! I didn't suggest the article was created as a self promotion, but that that is what Lewis is best known for. Nominate for delete. Moriori (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Deleted by User:Newyorkbrad. --GRuban (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I agree with Moriori's sentiment, neither title would be appropriate. Still deletion was best. (I'm not sure of the sourcing of the article, but Lewis's career history seems to be mentioned in nearly every article about her here in NZ so it could definitely be sourced.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Page
Anonymous user with the same Time/Warner account has returned after the page block was lifted, and has continued to make accusations. Since Page has never been charged with any of this alleged crime, and Wikipedia is not judge or jury, the section is problematic and in violation of BLP and NPOV. ,, ,. 190.112.65.38 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rolling stone is a reliable source, and rolling stone even states he didn't get charged for it. Looks like it's okay to stay to me.  Kosh Vorlon '''  14:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I question the reliability of Rolling Stone, considering the accusation is based entirely on hearsay. There is also the issue of the false rape claims made against a UVA fraternity . RS is not infallible. 190.112.65.38 (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have two Led Zep biographies (including one written by the band's tour manager) on my bookshelf that go into this in far more explicit detail. Jimmy Page's involvement with under-age girls/groupies has been documented in quite a few places. Saying that, I have removed the word 'illegal' as source does not use that word, and using the states laws to imply it was illegal due to the age of consent would be OR. (On a related note, as age of consent varies wildly by country, what is illegal in one place may not be elsewhere). Only in death does duty end (talk)
 * Yes, everyone knows Rolling Stone screwed the pooch on the frat rape story. That doesn't mean it's a total piece of garbage and unfit as a verifiable source. Kosh Vorlon '''  18:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Alan Major
I noticed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous&diff=prev&oldid=729607546] where someone claiming to be Alan Major, I presume they mean Alan Major has asked for help although as I pointed out in reply, I'm not sure if we can actually help. Nil Einne (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC) Copied relevant parts Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello - my name is Alan Major. I have a current wiki page and wanted to know how to eliminate pictures and images. Thank you for your assistance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.183.98 (talk) 10:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Presuming you mean Alan Major, the answer may be that you can't as it sounds like you were in a job where public appearance were common, so photos to be expected and the photo itself doesn't seem to have been a significant privacy violation. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reading the article more carefully, it sounds like you've had recent medical problems so I hope you are doing well. One additional comment, if you feel the current photo doesn't represent how you look now, you may be able to contribute a new one. Note that in doing so, you or whoever the copyright holder is will need to agree to allow the photo to be used for most purposes including commercial usage and derivatives from a copyright standpoint. Unfortunately if there is no replacement, it'll probably be difficult to get the photo off the page, however feel free to explain why you want the image removed in more detail so we can better understand what's wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine I believe that the entry for the Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine is very flawed.Among other things there seems to be disproportionate weight given to those who view the group's actions negatively versus the parts of the entry that show them in a neutral or positive manner. From the first paragraph, where it is stated that "The field of anti-aging medicine is not recognized by established medical organizations, such as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the American Medical Association (AMA)." Now, this may be important and/or factual, but to have it in the third sentence tends, I think, to give it disproportionate weight. The second paragraph is far worse. It starts and ends with statements that put the organization in a negative light. The opening sentence of the second paragraph, starts positively, but ends with " such as hormone treatments, do not have support from a consensus of the wider medical community". This is followed by the second sentence, which states, "Many scientists studying aging dissociate themselves from the claims of A4M,[4][5] and critics have accused the group of using misleading marketing to sell expensive and ineffective products" After a slightly more positive sentence following that - which still has the stigma of saying " Academy sees itself as acting within science, stating that it bases its ideas on mainstream scientific research, and arguing that its ideas challenge current medical practice", meaning it is something the Academy is saying, versus something that is taken to be empirically true - the paragraph ends with more negativity toward the organization, "The A4M's founders and merchants who promote products through the organization have been involved in several legal and professional disputes." That the paragraph ends with such a damning statement gives it disproportionate weight. The last paragraph of the opening summary is almost nothing but negativity. The first sentence is, "The activities of the A4M are controversial: in 2003 a commentary on the response of the scientific community to the promotion of anti-aging medicine noted that the activities of the A4M were seen as a threat to the credibility of serious scientific research on aging.[8]" Words like "controversial" and "threat" give huge negative weight to this entry. It would have been just as easy to talk about what the group does in a positive way, no? Plus, those buzzwords are guaranteed to elicit a negative response. The paragraph ends by giving huge prominence to Thomas Perls, " Thomas Perls of the Boston University School of Medicine, a prominent critic of the organization, has stated that claims of censorship and suppression are a common theme in what he calls "anti-aging quackery".[10]"..Look at all that. This is just in the opening, and already there is vastly disproportionate weight given to negative things said about the organization. There are many other examples, but I would like to start with this. can someone please explain why so much weight is given to the negative comments and critics? In what is supposed to be a summary? In contrast, the entry on Britney Spears lists her controversies, particularly in 2007, but they are given fair weight to the rest of the impact her career has had, and NOWHERE do i see a mention of the controversy over her lip syncing, which had nothing to do with her personal life and everything to do with her credibility as a singer. Why is that? Thanks, Jerome Maida Jerome Maida (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Douglas R. Docker
Hello everyone, this article has been the focus of increasingly aggressive disruptive editing, vandalizing and lately libelous edits by a small but determined group of IP addresses, which I believe are all the same person. The situation has gone from frustrating to unacceptable, with a reference to Docker being Saddam Hussein's son's piano teacher in Iraq complete with fake manufactured references. Please somebody do something, I am getting to the point where I'd rather see the article deleted rather than spend my days doing damage control instead of working on constructive editing. Thank you!87.13.43.72 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested temporary semi-protection; it appears to be a long-term abuse issue related to the "Weather Channel vandal"... sigh. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am one of the early editors for the Docker article. I gave up years ago precisely because of this kind of stuff, and I am appalled to see what is going on. I see a few brave editors have tried to move the article forward with legitimate well referenced edit. I find it curious though that the same day the article was semi-locked a never before seen editor called AFJP FAN 420 oepns a profile right after the lock and begins to "constructively" tear down many well referenced edits. From the history which I read in-depth, this is the same pattern as these other IPs since March 2016 (107.77.194.97 161.113.20.135 161.113.11.16 Mystic Technocrat 5.101.65.94): 1. a few random cosmetic changes on several articles both Docker related and not. 2, shortly after, weaselly additions to other articles totally unrelated to Docker (Papoose, Mark Boals, Autograph, Guthrie Govan and many more), then disruptive, vandalizing or lately libelous edits, from fake references, fake dates, nonsense dates, things that never happened, all with fake references. I can't believe no one has done anything until now. Please DO SOMETHING! I will close with the following points: following extensive research in Italian libraries I am in possession of all scans from the printed sources and references cited in the articles. I am willing to release them to any ADMIN but certainly not to this troll as he has demanded. 2. If the situation doesn't get solved, I will nominate the articel for deletion. It breaks my heart because I put much effort into it, But the libel has just become unacceptable, and I feel it's best to have no article than this surreal situation. I apologize for the emotional tone, but it's very sad for me to see so much work gone to waste... Thank you for helping if you can.Janthana (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas
There are a few concerns regarding this article. Some I share, some I disagree with completely. In my opinion the problem is that 2 POV editors try to censor this article, while they claim I am adding information in violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. An attempt to resolve this at Dispute resolution noticeboard failed. The conflicts all regard these two paragraphs:. There is extensive discussion on the talkpage in several sections.

Regarding the first paragraph it is claimed that part of the sources is not reliable. I can agree with that, but don't know which should be removed. As an additional consideration, the claims made are not large at all. As I have explained on the talkpage, the claim regards the question, what is the content of a book.

Regarding the second paragraph it is claimed that this is recentism and undue attention. I counter that the section is well-sourced and neutrally worded, and at most should be shortened, but not completely removed. In my opinion the paragraph is not recentism, and even if were, that claim is not in and of itself sufficient reason for removal, since recentism can be useful to Wikipedia as well (see WP:RECENTISM). I disagree with the undue attention claim as well, and counter the claim that this one incident makes up 10% of the article, that that is because of the many sources, but the text is not that much at all, and not undue. I hold that the paragraph describes an incident which is typical of this politicians views, which give rise to a notable controversy, and as such is not undue in its present size. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelli Ward (Politician)
I have been updating the content on this page and other pages relevant to the upcoming election in Arizona on both August 30th and November 8th and over the past several weeks another individual has been repeatedly deleting the information I have been adding. Presumably this is because they work for Ward and do not like to see any unfavorable content. However it is factual, cited and I believe relevant to anyone who would use Wikipedia to learn more about a politician before voting for them. I have worked repeatedly to mediate the issue in the page's Talk board. To prevent any further edit waring, I was hoping to find some advice from the community. It is getting to the point where it is less of a hassle and more of just vandalism in an attempt to save face. I don't know what to do at this point. Tsudeck (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Herman Cornejo
User:MajoLavandera, a good-faith newbie and friend of Argentine-American ballet dancer Herman Cornejo, has indicated that Cornejo would prefer his article not to discuss his marriage, to a fellow dancer and sister of the director of a company Cornejo worked with as a result of the marriage. User:Oshwah reverted, saying that that's insufficient reason to remove the material. Lavandera redeleted it, and I restored a tweaked version.

I'm not used to interpreting and applying WP:NPF. Cornejo has given many interviews to the media, including some discussing his wife, including one mentioning their separation; their marriage was noted in very reliable sources including the NYT (as well as the NY Post, more in-depth but less professional), and its end referenced in a La Nación article about the wife and her brother. The material is somewhat relevant to his career, and is currently neutral and tactful IMO.

What's the verdict? Does the presumption in favor of privacy hold, or does his status as an international performer and interview-giver make it fair game to report politely on something he'd rather we didn't? FourViolas (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In my view, a comprehensive biography will include neutral, well-referenced information about the person's marriages and divorces. When a notable person discusses their spouse in detail with the media, then they abandon a realistic claim of privacy if the marriage ends. Of course, the article should not give undue weight to all the details of how the marriage ended. In this specific case, his career was intertwined with that of his spouse and brother-in-law, and that is an additional reason to discuss it. Also, we have no way of verifying that the anonymous editor is accurately conveying Cornejo's wishes. I say keep it in. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  03:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Carl Yankowski
The article says, "Today he has a problem laying off the sweets"

and

"Yankowski is a pathological liar..."

Seems that all info should be double-checked, including the reference to Wellesley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam6135 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . I removed the obvious vandalism. You could have done it yourself. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions about these two edits to Louise Mensch would be appreciated
--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Content is WP:UNDUE so I agree with your edit. Meatsgains (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The content related to her selection as a candidate probably needs to stay (likewise the comments when she retired) the main issue at the time was that she was selected over local constituency objections, then when she quit early, they claimed it justified their position. She was (unfortunately for her) the most visible/high profile of the candidates involved in the selection arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Meatsgains and Only in death, I don't know this woman. I saw a tweet from her that made me curious. She comes across in our article as a callous, foolish, hypocritical, vain, mentally-unstable, drug-abusing opportunist. Perhaps she is, but we haven't really made that case, in the article. Presently it seems to be just a collection of any shit people have said about her. It really reads like a cherry-picked, undue hatchet-job. But perhaps I'm missing some context, knowing nothing about her but what I've read in our article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Zakir Naik


This article has been a magnet for problems for a long time. However, lately it's gotten worse. I'm having trouble with dealing with it and may just bow out entirely. Perhaps others could take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up. After I posted this I found out that 1RR has been applied to the article per discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Edward Group (2nd nomination)
Was previously deleted for not being notable, and then the single-purpose that created the article revived it with the same problems. An extensive search did not turn up enough to pass WP:BIO. Delta13C (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

James Watson
Seems to be an attempt to hide discredited racist comments made by a scientist which directly led to his resignation. Diff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We are writing an encyclopedia here, not student protest placards. Watson's comments in 2007 were hugely controversial, but the previous wording was better.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly this is a living encyclopedia made more accurate by sourced material and facts. I am confused with the above reference to student protest placards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording should be as accurate and neutral as possible. At no point did Watson say that skin colour was linked to IQ.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments are unambiguously racist, and this description is brought up by numerous RS (e.g.,, ). Prior arguments to the contrary on the talk page have rested on the blog post of Jason Malloy, identified in a New York Times article as: "Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression." Malloy is neither an expert on the psychology of intelligence, nor on what constitutes a racist remark, but he is an avid amateur researcher in the fringe viewpoint of "human biodiversity," and runs a blog called humanvarieties.org.
 * Since the remarks have become something of a turning point in Watson's life, precipitating his retirement, damaging his speaking career, and invoked by him to explain his later move to sell his Nobel Prize medal, it seems due to describe them in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not just describe the fact that many sources called it racist? Attribute the "racist" part to the sources.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * When there are conflicting viewpoints, we attribute the opinions. But here the speaker himself acknowledged the implications of the remarks and apologized: "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
 * It's perfectly true that we can cite Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Mayor Ken Livingstone, the Science Museum [of London] and others as condemning the remarks, and Henry Louis Gates, the Guardian, the Atlantic, and Slate as describing them as racist. Or even say they were "widely described as racist," and honestly it's an improvement over "controversial," but it seems wordy and unnecessary evasive, IMHO. Racism is a political position, among other things, and it's completely possible for a statement to be objective racist, just as a remark can be pro-abolition or anti-clerical.--Carwil (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Get To Know The Candidates!
As America heads into the election season, lots of blp stubs are popping up for candidates. Many times, the only sources are the blurbs in the papers stating the candidates position on various issues, which may be in a flat list, or in a Q&A type format. To what extent do these type of pieces count towards establishing notability? I'm thinking specifically of this narrow type of media coverage, understanding that the normal coverage requirements are in force for all other sources. Crow Caw  00:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Edgar Schoen


This is a biography on a former chairperson of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. User:Cirflow, fresh off a block for edit warring on the Circumcision article, is making some (in my view) highly POV edits, including some loaded language and some synthesis to make it appear that Schoen only supports Circumcision because he is Jewish. More eyes on this would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the POV! All you are accomplishing now is putting salt in my wound and causing more problems by putting an already settled conflict up for debate, and just so you know I made the original admittedly POV edit PRIOR to their block, and since you reverted my edit DURING the block I obviously was going to come back to fix it!Cirflow (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If the above statement isn't enough to consider a topic ban, I am at a loss for what would be. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever the cause, that article is a BLP mess. I just excised a batch of sources that didn't mention him that were being used in order to criticize his stance on circumcision, but there is more to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Halil Kayikci
It appears that this bio has been subject to a lot of recent messing about with birth date and age. Some extra eyes would be appreciated, and perhaps page protection will eventually be necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the page but I'm not finding his DOB in the page's current references. Meatsgains (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (2601, editing as 73 now) I've no problem removing it altogether. The sourced article gives his age as 23 in May of this year, and the only source I've found for a July 4 birthday is the subject's Facebook page. Perhaps someone else can turn up better sourcing. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing DOB until an RS can confirm. Meatsgains (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added his age into the lead and removed DOB from lead and infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An elegant solution. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Douglas R. Docker
I am trying to begin the process of editing this page to adhere to Wikipedia standards. It currently has many issues; almost none of the citations meet WP:RELY or WP:VER standards, and indeed the entire page is probably a violation of WP:SOAP standards. There are further issues with the amount of irrelevant material violating WP:REL stanards, and ultimately a large issue with meeting WP:GNG criteria. Unfortunately, any and all constructive edits are almost immediately reverted by the page's creator or anonymous IPs that have only ever edited this page. I attempted to address this through the talk page of the disruptive editor Janthana (talk), but he/she refuses to engage in communication and instead responds only with hostile accusations. The article is already protected due to so-called "vandalism" which appears to be good-faith edits that are trying to improve the page. I have given up on trying to improve the page for now as it appears my edits will be continuously reverted but would ask that some action be taken so that this page can be edited to meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your time! AFJP FAN 420 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Xtian Dela
I have remove the unsourced Awards and honors section on Xtian Dela only to be reverted several times. The content has been restored back to the page without reliable sources for verification. To avoid edit warring, I am bringing the issue here and would appreciate some help. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * About the same time you were filing the report, the other editor was adding sources. Some of them are written by the awarding agencies, but for the purpose of determining who they made the award to, that should suffice. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The references were added immediately after I posted here. Looks like my post was a bit premature. Thanks anyway! Meatsgains (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Kory Tarpenning


For several years Mr. Tarpenning has himself or through his friends sought to distance himself from his doping conviction. Despite this it is listed on every relevant doping website on the planet. There are no sources in existence that mitigate this. Furthermore Mr. Tarpenning himself has been reversing postings to the Wikipedia page in recent days, all cited by publications. Most recently claiming not to have been an executive of worldsports.com, involved in supplying substances to athletes while at Redbull, being an executive with Red Bull in Monaco when it was banned in France or a failed Arabian Gulf business Initiative. All of these matters are published on the internet on numerous respected websites. In fact the only website that is no longer functioning is that of his own marketing company which until not long ago also referred to several of these business ventures! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.11.248 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added pagelinks for an IP above whose edit summaries suggest they might be the article subject, Kory Tarpenning. User:Bbb23 has just put ten days of semiprotection on the article. The subject's point of view might be OK on the talk page, but reverting the article itself looks bad. Judging from the Talk page, the issue has been going on since fall of 2014 so it seems unlikely the editor who is possibly the article subject will start following our policies any time soon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel
This issue came up on Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel. Not a report, just a question, because guidance doesn't seem exceedingly clear. If you mention someone connected with a recently deceased individual, but don't mention them by name, can that be construed as a BLP vio? In this case, the person is referenced as a 73 year old male. Neither the article nor the source mentioned a name or any identifiable information other than age and gender. Timothy Joseph Wood 22:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see how it could violate any part of Wikipedia policy. What makes you think it could be a BLP vio? Jim Michael (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be considered that the individual is probably alive and may at some point be identified in the media, at which point it certainly falls under BLP. As it stands I would not call it a vio, but we should exercise some caution and stick closely to what is reported in reliable sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not identified, so there's no vio. Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not saying it's a vio, but the chances are high that at some point he will be identified in the media then it will become apparent who we're referring to. We should be careful therefore to avoid any vios. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * zzuuzz Thanks, I was fairly certain this interpretation was the right one, but wanted to get it from someone not involved. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Reinsertion of Kip Noll's alleged death


Someone used the source Dailyxtra to verify the porn star's alleged. However it is poorly sourced. So is some source verifying the dates of birth and death. This has been discussed before. I was unaware of the changes until now. Right now the alleged death shall be challenged. --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I re-reverted the change. Perhaps Pichpich would explain the reinsertion of the unverifiable connection between the dead guy in Utah and the porn star. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Delano
I accidentally deleted the biographical information that was contain in the sidebar of this person article, and don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.19.76 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Tiya Gandwani
Hi Team,

Please remove the birth year as it is showing incorrect.

Kindly do the needful on priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehagandwani (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am not sure, what you mean. Tiya Gandwani didn't include a birth year in recent versions. However, I have trimmed and cleaned up a few instances of informal language and unsourced personal information (see WP:BLP). Nevertheless the article could use a few more independent reliable sources to establish the topic's notability (see WP:GNG). Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol move vote.svg Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. The same feedback facility is also provided on Bing and some other search engines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Rosalind (Fox) Solomon
Should the article Rosalind Solomon be retitled Rosalind Fox Solomon?

No, nobody's arguing over it. Instead, I'm just wondering. Please see the talk page, and comment there. Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump
This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate) to the lede of the article. The body of the article currently states (with reliable sourcing):

Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. Clear BLP violation. The restoring editor's arguably "accurate depiction" has been sourced (elsewhere) only to outdated publications or to "unclear or inconsistent passages". (See WP:STICKTOSOURCE, incorporated by reference in WP:BLPREMOVE.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Balochistan Liberation Army
Is it a BLP violation to state that Hyrbyair Marri is the leader of a designated terrorist organization, whe nhe has denied any involvement with the group? Please see these versions of the article. 2A00:11C0:5:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends on the sourcing. Reliable sources that confirm them as the leader of an organisation would be enough to say so (usually atrributed to the source rather than in wikivoice), but you would still include their denial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Christian Maldini
Can it create this page?--John95 (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul Johnson (ice hockey)
My dad was born in 1935 not 1936. He was 81. Jeri Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:446:C202:1990:9905:2B4:7309:9EFF (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for your loss - I have made this change in the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

James Watson
Seems to be an attempt to harass editors of this page. The word racist is not inherently controversial. In the case of James Watson's comments it is a simple fact that they were racist. There is zero credible scientific evidence to back any controversy over this matter. James Watson himself has admitted they were and his views have been widely condemned as being racist. To say otherwise or to hide this does a disservice to our Wikipedia readers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alas, WP:NPOV seems to argue otherwise. The matter is currently reasonably covered, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gershon Baskin
Material that was posted referencing Gershon Baskin's own personal webpage was removed. The material provides background information about Baskin's education authenticated elsewhere in the Wikipedia article on "Greenwich University." This material is significant because Baskin lists as his alma mater a university that the refences show was not an accredited educational institution and that institution was closed down by the Australian government. There is no legitimate reason to remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC source (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are multiple reasons to undo your edits there, both WP:SYNTH and WP:ARBPIA3. Oh, and throw in use of copyright violation in a reference link. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Check again. not my edits 2A02:20B0:32:100:0:0:0:5 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming that this IP posting is from the same user I was responding to, I am indeed referring to your edits. Like this one. And this one. And this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Isabelle M. Germano
needs attention. Largely unsourced except for a list of subject's publications. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of trimming the page of unsourced content. I've also added a few references but there isn't much out there. A second set of eyes would be appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Society of Boston - section heading & use of a now sealed list of "unindicted co-conspirators"
I hope someone can help me here with a suggestion as to what to do about Islamic Society of Boston. The problem is that these almost all seem to be people who "have been investigated for alleged ties to extremist and terrorist groups." So adding people to this list who haven't been investigated can tar them. Plus, one of the sources is the anti-Muslim Clarion Project. This is the article used as a source. Ironic that it asks why the Boston Police Chief visited them when I want to add to the article the name of Boston's first Muslim captain, Haseeb Hosein, who belongs to the Mosque - who may of course be one of the reasons the police chief visited.

I'm also concerned that several people are called Unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development trial. This is a label that we should not be using, and indeed U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis stated that the list should not have been made public and ordered it sealed, although by then 3 years had passed and it's been widely circulate. This has been used at Talk:Jamal Badawi, one of the people named in this article, to defame him. It occurs to me that it might be used elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See also WP:RSN. After I posted the above it occurred to me to look at the website which was hosting pdfs of the now sealed file calling people unindicted co-conspirators. Doug Weller  talk 15:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Jewel De'Nyle
A POV editor appears to be using this article as a WP:COATRACK for derogatory info about this pornographic actress' purported adoptive father. The editor is also trying to insert the actress' purported birth name, in contravention of WP:BLPNAME. Additional eyes on the article would be a big help. David in DC (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not WP:COATRACK since it explains how she came to be the co-owner of the company. All names mentioned in the article have been mentioned in public and official documents (all sourced), hence it is not a contravention of WP:BLPNAME.Holanthony (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, this is getting worse. Not only has my effort to discuss this on the editor's talk page been rebuffed and my citation to WP:BRD been ignored, now the name is being sourced to Free Republic. Help! David in DC (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The source is still valid in content. Plus, the site is not blacklisted from Wikipedia. Think what you will about the site as such, but the article sourced fulfills the BLP criteria. But you know what, since you don't like Free Republic, I've added a source to the original article from Rocky Mountain News. I trust you won't have the same problem with that trusted source? Holanthony (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I recently took a crack at editing the article in question here. If there's an actual weblink to the Rocky Mountain News article that's currently mentioned in this Wikipedia article right now, then it should be added as soon as possible. I honestly don't know what to make of the Prison Legal News or Colorado Legislative Directory citations (which also don't have weblinks as of yet). I also agree that the Free Republic is not a reliable source for pretty much anything. Guy1890 (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, great job! The thing is, the article appeared in the physical version of Rocky Mountain Press, BUT an online version of it appeared cited in Free Republic, which is why the source was linked. It is not so much a case of citing Free Republic, but rather adding a co-reference so that the reader could see online what was written in the newspaper article. A question though, why did you remove the page reference from the newspaper source? In regards to Prison Legal News, Colorado Legislative Directory, these are public, official documents and as such they should be considered reliable.Holanthony (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you were trying to do with the Free Republic forum link, but anyone can post just about anything in that kind of online forum and make it look like just about anything that they'd like to. An actual link to the actual story is what's needed in the Wikipedia article in question here. The same goes for the Prison Legal News and the Colorado Legislative Director...I don't think that we can just trust that the information actually cited this way in a BLP like this is actually contained in those supposed articles without seeing them in some form or another. "why did you remove the page reference from the newspaper source?" Honestly, it looked like a typo to me...what does "page=x" mean in a publication like Rocky Mountain News...was it supposed to be page 10 instead? Guy1890 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

john cain carter
FALSE INFORMATION: now owns an 8,100 hectare (20,000 acre) ranch = this statement is false, and should be edited to depict the truth. The land mentioned belongs to me and my sisters. Ana Francisca is married to Mr. Carter, and he was invited by my parents to work on the land in 1996, when they moved to Brasil. In 2012 his wife (my sister) sold her share of the land and they moved back to Nashville. The remaining land still belongs to me and my sisters. Divinacid (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)camila cid

John Cain Carter From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia John Cain Carter (born 1966 in San Antonio, Texas) is a cattle rancher and environmentalist who started the Brazilian rainforest conservation organization, Aliança da Terra.[1][2][3] Carter moved to Brazil from Texas in 1996, and now owns an 8,100 hectare (20,000 acre) ranch near the Xingu and Amazon rivers in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso.[4] Shocked by the rapid deforestation occurring in the Amazon Rainforest, Carter started Aliança da Terra to provide economic incentives for farmers and ranchers to preserve the forest land.[2]


 * Hello, . That claim is cited to a 2005 article in The Economist, a very reliable source, so the word "now" would inartfully describe the situation in 2005. Can you provide another reliable source that can be used to update the article? We can't simply take your word on the matter, because otherwise, we have no way to verify that what you say is true. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  05:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)