Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive28

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | 213 (group) – Issue stale. – 15:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived Biographies of living persons incident concerning the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |


 * - This user seems to not understand or read the official guidelines of Wikipedia about citing reliable sources and living persons.

I have encountered this problem in not only this article, but in very few. This is the situation: I remove the unsourced material from the articles, the user spots this and somehow he doesn't like my action and revert it. He explain his action with something similar like "you can't remove the article because there are no source". Or "just put the unsourced template and let people find the references for their self."

I have warned the user and told to read the official guidelines, so this is really the last option I had because it seems he just won't get it. He made some type of statement of this problem in my talk page. I really did not understand what he wanted to say there.

Let me include just some of the articles: 213 (group), Young Noble, Raw Footage, B.G. Knocc Out.

I had another problem with this user, he created the article Westside Slaughterhouse that is a song from the rapper Mack 10, the song is in Mack 10's album. This artists is a member of a group which the other two members are featured guests in this song. I think that as being a song from a solo artists featuring two other guests it's not necessary to put the group's template. What I spoke with the user is that the three members are not in the song as the group, but he just keep adding the template. I don't know if the user may think he owns the article or what. It's getting into an edit war.

I know the above problem may have nothing to do with living persons, but I just don't know what to do and if any administrator takes action in both problem I would really appreciate it. Thanks.--Tasc0 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: searching around, I encountered with this two messages between two users: User_talk:Dead_Wrong and User_talk:Real_Compton_G. In the first one, it's clearly that the user Real Compton G it's ready to participate in an edit war no matter what are my true reasons of removing certain material.
 * I do add an explanation on the edit summary every time I remove unsourced material. In fact, I only have a few "empty edit summary" in my edit history.--Tasc0 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it me, or Dead Wrong is personal attacking me in User_talk:Real_Compton_G?--Tasc0 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I only said you made a stupid comment when it wasn't needed, I was talking about the DJ Pooh AfD. None of the other stuff was supposed to be a personal attack either (I was talking about editors in general), and if you think it is, too bad, shouldn't have posted that comment in the first place (I never even said anything to you, but you had to be a smart ass). --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, i don't think he is - Keep It Real - Real Compton  G  18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing when it is a group what u left out would be "NAME" is a group who was founded by bla bla and they released .... and a discography then end everything. For me your just a disgrace to edit in wiki rather than help u just keep removing stuff because doesent cite sources. Not a personal attack but that's what i think. U think u know the right edits but they are all annoying which adds nothing but just removes. West Coast Ryda 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not stupid or blind, i see the guidelines and understand. But you can't just remove all the biography because it doesent cite sources. What u left out is actually that this is Name Name and he is born this year and just a discography.


 * You're not only assuming bad faith and personal attacking me by saying I'm a disgrace. You are also saying what I'm not aloud to do according your point of view. If an article has no reliable sources and it happens to be the 90% of the article, then according to the official guidelines and policies this should be removed.
 * Basically, you're telling me what to do just because you think it's right. I do understand your point of view and I'm trying to have a NPOV here. But, sadly for you, there are certain guidelines you just have to follow and me too. If you don't like, and it appears that you have read and understood them, I guess your better choice is to leave Wikipedia. That's just what I think if someone does not agree with the rules and don't respect them.
 * You may find annoying my edits, but it's what the official guidelines say it's right.--Tasc0 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But "things" stating like the group appeared on this music video etc.. shouldn't be deleted. Because no sources is needed for such things and it is stated many times in the 213 article. West Coast Ryda 18:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that information is considered as encyclopedic content.--Tasc0 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: WP:REF, WP:BLP--Tasc0 20:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The user West Coast Ryda keeps adding unsourced material to the article as can be seen here. The user has been warned several times through the edit summary; also in his talk page.--Tasc0</b> 20:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The user removes the warnings diff.--<b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating me/my account
Please read this message. It is relevant and actions should be taken. What the hell is this?--<b style="color:#002BB8;">Tasc0</b> 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


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

Jim Bede
. Seeking additional help determining severity of the problems and as well as approaches to resolving them. Editors refuse to allow contentious material to be removed from the article per BLP, backed with threats of blocking. Making some progress at this point, but outside help would be appreciated. --Ronz 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

. Same content is being disputed here as well. --Ronz 18:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as a somewhat misleading telling of the events.
 * Ronz started clipping content for BLP without first contacting interested parties to see if his concerns were even real. One editor complained and provided a reference, but it was again removed because, in Ronz's estimation, it only supported some of the statement. Other clippings followed, along with similar comments by other editors, including one extremely well known aviation contributer and admin. I then received a note on my talk page by a 3rd party. Although some attempt at reaching consensus was made, Ronz became somewhat "non-responsive". All of this can be seen on the talk page.
 * Thankfully, Shot Info came in and was nice enough to go through the article and tag it. I immediately went in and followed it up by providing references, 17 no less. As it stood yesterday, there were only two statements left that were not directly referenced, and I am waiting for confirmation on these issues from third parties. I also posted back on the talk page, twice, asking for further examples so I could find references for them, or make sure the references I was providing were good enough.
 * Instead of responding, Ronz posted here saying we were "refusing" to work on the problem. This is obviously untrue. Nevertheless other editors, apparently credulous, immediately jumped in and started removing any content they thought was controversial. This included statements directly supported in the attached references. The edits have occurred so quickly and without proper oversight that the article now contains text that disagrees with the attached references, broken references, tags complaining about statements that have been removed, and contradictory statements. Nicely done everyone!
 * You will also note that Ronz did not bother to inform me that the post had been made here. Nor did any of the other editors. There isn't a single note by any of them here, in the article talk page, or in any related area. In fact, the only way I knew of this was due to an offhand reference in Lawrence Cohen's checkin notes which allowed me to find this.
 * Frankly I would have expected better. Ronz has been invited to reach consensus on several occasions by at least two editors, and has failed to do so, and has seemingly given up on that effort. Although all of this was recorded on the talk page, the other editors joined the fray also without attempting to address the issues. This flies in the face of everything the wikipedia is supposed to be. A single editor should not be able to avoid an attempt to reach consensus simply by posting on a noticeboard, but this is precisely what has happened here. You should not allowed to wield wiki rules as a weapon to win arguments!
 * Whatever. I don't have the energy to keep up. Clip away!
 * Maury 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Disputed biographies of living persons
→ In re BLPC template and WP:BLPC

I created this page as a simple category to flag BLP concerns quickly: WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. - Denny 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Watch it fill up. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it clears even faster. :) - Denny 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good idea. Nice one. -- ChrisO 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From template page: "Note - this used to use Category:BLP Check, but now shares blpdispute's category of Category:Disputed biographies of living persons." [ Update added here by Athaenara ✉ at 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC) ]
 * Update on BLPC

The template BLPC itself now redirects to blpdispute, and the category is now empty and no longer used. I've nominated it for deletion. --Darkwind (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further update