Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive82

Vic Mignogna fandom problems

 * - The page on Vic Mignogna seems to suffer from "fandom problems" as fans (and anonymous IP addys) see it fit to just randomly add info without properly sourcing the statements. I found this comment by abit troubling and had to revert the page back to a section of text that at least had some suitable and "stable references." Unfortunately, i'm thinking that the whole article cannot function without being in direct violation of BLP policies time and time again when people continuously edit the article adding in unreferenced material. I'm willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt, but it's not looking too good.... //--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As stated on your Talk Page, you are mis-representing the changes you reverted. Please learn how to use the edit history. I did NOT make the changes you reverted. The Vampire Knight stuff (which is all I have removed) is a RUMOR, and is not citable (nor was it ever cited any time any anon included it). My intent was as follows... ask Vic... if it was true, I was going to find a reference so others would also stop reverting it. Since it is not true, there shouldnt be any references to find. My post was an explanation to those who heard the false online rumor so they would understand what it was they were adding. They are still free to find an acceptable reference that states otherwise, but it should be very difficult for them to find an acceptable reference for an untruth.


 * I also do not approve of the slew of recent, uncited changes to the page, and am in full support of you over it.


 * You may wish to revise your statement above to indicate the correct person you are having problems with, as it should not be me. I have made none of the edits you are complaining about, and have created NO content for that page.


 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't quite appreciate the fact that you made a joke of the situation.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't quite appreciate the fact you accused me (directly or through implication, intentionally or accidentally) of edits I did not make. Nor do I appreciate the fact that (as I stated, and my edit history proves) you still ignore the fact that I had no intentions of allowing uncited information of that sort being added to the article. The "joke" part was do I really need to call him to get info instead of others simply researching him themselves, especially since I'm big on things such as the info wanted needing Wiki-valid references. So, you still misunderstand the "joke" - but that may be my fault, as "joke" is probably the wrong word.


 * As I stated, getting info from Vic for others to include only if valid references are attached is in no way against any Wikipedia rule or guideline. I am fully against simply getting info and dropping it in because someone said so. And as stated, this is not a page I actively edit, because even though other's may not find my additions COI, I think, being a personal friend of Vic's that my direct additions to the page would be. I'd rather err on the side of caution.


 * Really, do we have to argue about it? You seemingly made a mistake in attributing content additions to me (or worded the above in an ambiguous way implying it - at least to me). I have never made content addition that isn't ref'd using Wikipedia valid references. I have even (unlike you in Vic's article) went in and found & added citations for other people's additions when they've added content without them. You could have either done the same or added a "citation needed" tag - or did what you did (revert). I'm happy with any of the three... but the fact is, you will not find a single content addition by me that does not properly have a reference attached to it. A habit I never intend to break for any type of addition that requires one.


 * And just so you can verify my "track record" yourself...


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI


 * As I said above to you...


 * I also do not approve of the slew of recent, uncited changes to the page, and am in full support of you over it.


 * Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahum Galmor
(moved from ANI) This showed up as a new article created by a new user. It's well-written and referenced, but there are allegations of selling chemical weapons and some other stuff. Would a more experienced editor be able to look it over for possible WP:BLP violations? I'm going to mark it as patrolled. TreacherousWays (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Created in one edit by a new user with one edit. Lots of primary documents, clearly requires a good checking over. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Value Line
People associated with this company has been subject to apparently well-founded accusation of fraud. A considerable amount of material on them, including some apparently duplicative articles relying upon both the legal facts and unsubstantiated gossip have been contributed by User:Vlanalyst, a name with obvious COI problems. I think this material deserves wider notice, and I bring it to attention here. I apologize for not going into the details, but this is not my usual subject. Two articles have been deleted; even though one was deleted by me under G10, attack page, any other admin who would like to restore it and remove the unsubstantiated part is welcome to do so--I would consider it proper attention, not a violation of our BLP provisions. I acted quickly to remove the page, without taking the responsibility to sort out the material. It is very possible that this and the other deleted page would stand, if properly written. Whether the editor mentioned should continue to edit on this topic at all is another matter entirely. I have not blocked him, just issued a warning. Any other admin should do whatever they think appropriate in this.  DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Lindzen
We have a problem with an editor attempting to add original research to the Lindzen article.

Talk:Richard_Lindzen

Quotes by Lindzen are being mined from their original context in order to present Lindzen as a believer in the view that "global warming stopped in 1998" which he is, of course, not. The editor, John Quiggin, has taken the same quotes out of context at his blog, here.

An example of the original context for one of Lindzen's remarks is here:

"According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008)." (emphasis added)

A few similar, scattered quotes have been used to justify a new section as follows:

View that recent period of warming ran from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, and has since stopped.

Lindzen has argued that data since the mid-1990s show that global warming has ceased.

Writing in Newsweek in 2007, he stated "warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy." [19] In a paper presented to the Competitive Enterprise Institute Lindzen referred to the "warming episode from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s" and the "fact that the global temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties" as evidence against climate models. [1].

An open letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, signed by Lindzen includes the statement "there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."[20]

More recently, he has stated that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and restated this as "warming has ceased for the past fourteen years".[21][22] This claim has played a significant role in recent controversy about climate change.

There is, by my reading, a majority opposing Mr. Quiggin but now he has a supporter who also wants the material in the article so I guess I'll have to bring it here. Clearly, there is no effort being made to faithfully present Lindzen's views here so could we have some help to stop this?

Alex Harvey (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a BLP issue. Lindzen clearly said it. The fact that Lindzen keeps saying nonsense is his own decision. -Atmoz (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to point out that it doesn't automatically follow it's not a BLP issue because Lindzen clearly said it. Also undue weight is a BLP concern. However none of this means it's necessarily a good idea to use immediate removal of material that's existed in the article for a long time nor that you should argue for a 3RR exemption in such cases Nil Einne (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Name list at WCAV
I removed a long list of names from the WCAV article, and  restored them. We then got into this discussion at my talk page, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'm asking for more input here.

I argued that the list of people connected with the television station should not be included because of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPSPS—these people are not public figures and their names are unsupported by third-party reliable sources.

Neutralhomer argues that they should be included because they are also on the site of the television station, because that site is a non-self-published source, and because such lists are also included in other similar pages. Ucucha 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ucucha obviously hasn't even read the page as he would quickly notice the page is that of a television station and not a radio station. More so, each time Ucucha has raised a concern, he is WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPSPS, I have met it (see the user's talk page) and knocked it down as something that doesn't meet what is going on here.  Ucucha has not come to any consensus on the page, not taken it to talk, not taken the whole issue to WP:TVS or ANI, just "drive-by removed" the list and went on.  When questioned, did he list policy after policy (which, like I said, were rebuffed). -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion regarding television/radio; I have corrected that. It was late when I read the page yesterday. We obviously disagree on whether aspects of BLP policy allow the list in the article; what I am hoping will happen here is that uninvolved editors will have their say. They may agree with you, they may agree with me—that remains to be seen. Ucucha 18:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let's start with this: I think that by the nature of the job, there is no expectation that their names and roles at the station would remain private. They each appear on TV at least weekly, identified by name and station role, and so that information is very much public. Whether they should be listed is another question, but I think they can be listed. cmadler (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As to whether they should be listed, the list of names as presently constructed serves very little purpose. I can imagine the article being expanded in a manner in which the names would be purposeful, see for example WXYT-FM (which has issues of its own) for an example of presenting the names of on-air talent in a more meaningful way. cmadler (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I draw attention to TV3 Winchester, a sister station to WCAV. Take a look at their "Personalities" section.  This is linked to their bios on the website of the station.  These people show up on the station on a daily basis, are identified by graphics on screen with name and title.  That is the way I would like to see the WCAV list, linked by bio.  To be honest, I would like to see all "personalities" sections like this, but that is neither here nor there.  Having the names linked back to the respective bios would be good to confirming and immediately referencing the names listed. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting to do this now? Presently it looks like a long valueless list of not notable living people. On the website they don't appear to have bios, there is this meet the team . Personally I am against adding valueless data especially when that data is the names of living people.Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I think a single link to the station's bio index (in the case of TV3 Winchester, ) is preferable than linking each person individually; the individual links don't serve much purpose. Again, I think the real goal should be to replace a simple list of names and jobs with a more meaningful prose description. cmadler (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the "Meet The Team" page, ya gotta click on the pictures of the reporters/anchors/meteorologists/etc. to get to their bios....and yes, I am suggesting we do this now. Hell, I will do it right after getting a Pepsi from downstairs if ya like.  Also, what is it with "names of living people" that sets people wild around here?  Keith Olbermann, living person, got an article...what's the big deal?  Jim Hanchett, News Director for WCAV, living person, doesn't have an article just a link (or soon to be one)...again, what's the big deal?
 * I will add those links in a moment. Pepsi time :) -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, thanks, I missed that, duh, at least if there is a link to something like that it has some value. As regards long list of meaningless names, you could put micky mouse there for what value it would have except for a few local people, but the wiki is supposed to be written for the wider audience, if you live and watch the show the bare name is known to you but to anyone else is is of no value at all. As in, and these are the twenty meaningless names of the faceless not notable people that work in the weather department. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL says, "Long lists of links are not acceptable" and "Choose the minimum number of links that provides readers with the maximum amount of information." Is it really that hard to click the person's picture (heck, you don't even need to be literate!) to get the bio? Since the station has thoughtfully grouped links to the bios together all on one page, we should just link there. If they are "faceless not notable people" then what is the value to listing and linking them at all? cmadler (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it would be better to just say and there are staff that work there or something and a link to the bio page. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Took me about 5 minutes (after Pepsi time) and if you direct your attention here you will see a great looking page. Now, the "Former Personalities" section, I am not going to fight over.  There are more and more people who say these aren't needed and I am starting to become part of that group.  If you look at pages like KABC-TV, the former personalities section is insanely long.  But let's stick with the first and then go to the second.  Current Personalities section is up and linked. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I continue to think that's excessive linking, but that's more a WP:MOS and WP:EL issue than a BLP issue. cmadler (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it was either that or remove them entirely and that would be an entire section of information lost. So if there is some excessive linking, it is a good trade for potential lost information. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Happened to be here on another matter, but I saw this. I don't know what the practice is with television stations specifically, but on most other article we would remove the list of people other than those that hold key executive or creative positions. I think it's absurd to include a complete list of reports, let alone a list of the former ones. For the ones that do get included, we do not need to link to their bios at the station website--just to the station website that gives the evidence they work there and what their positions are. We're not removing information--the information is on the station site, which is where it belongs. Anyone would know to go there if they wanted to find it.   DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the main bio page as the reference or link directly as I have done, either one works for me...but removing them from the page entirely shouldn't be an option as it would be lost information. Yeah, it is on the site, but not everyone knows where to click on those sites.  Hell, even I have trouble sometimes looking for the bio sections, they are buried under a whole bunch of other links.  So to say that people could find it there (as in on the station's site) is kind of a mis-statement.  I think having the information on Wikipedia, referenced in one way or another is a good thing.  We have numerous people within WP:TVS and just working on their own who constantly update these pages as new people arrive and old people leave.  It is a constant process.  So there is never out-of-date information listed. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of times where 'information' is lost, when it was never suitable for inclusion on wikipedia (I can thinking of plenty of article on computer & video games as well as TV series and the like where people have tried to turn them into some sort of game guide or episode guide where this has been removed, sometimes to some wikia site if some exist but ultimately whether or not some other site exists to take up this information is not our concern). Also whether or not the information is widely available on other sites should only be of minor concern, the key point is whether the information meets wikipedia policies and expectations. As for this specific case, I'm undecided but what I've seen so far has not been particularly convincing, any I mostly agree with DGG that any thing which includes a bunch of names of non notable people without really imparting any additional information other then they work for some company and perhaps a link to the official biography is always going to have problems like this. To put it a different way, whether it's Joe Smo or John Doe that currently works as a reporter for the station doesn't seem particularly useful or interesting information to the reader?Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is ours to say what is useful or interesting to the reader. We are just supposed to supply the information and let them make that decision. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't ours to say what is useful or interesting to the reader, but we do and should have standards for what is included in an article. That's why we have policies like verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. We don't just vomit out all the possible information on a subject, we organize and present it in a meaningful way to allow readers to gain an understanding of the subject, and give them sources and external links if they want to dig further. There are issues worth discussing about this, but I don't think there is a BLP problem. cmadler (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's MOS and EL as someone said a bit earlier, funny that what is valueless rubbish to one user is apparent gold to another? At the end of the day if you take away the internal views and  the bots and perhaps  the people who are named in the article no one looking at or reading the article  anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dennis James (musician)
It looks like someone is turning parts of Dennis James (musician) into a hatchet job. I can't easily sort out the history, because there has been tons of addition & reversion, and probably some effort to add CV-ish stuff by James or someone close to him, which has really confused the matter. I believe that, in the confusion, usually good editors User:Kevin and User:Brambleclawx have accidentally restored material that had BLP issues. I don't have time to sort it all out right now, but someone certainly should. I've also mentioned the issue on Kevin's and Brambleclawx's user talk pages. - Jmabel | Talk 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed my bad revert. Oh, and blocked the editor responsible for the hatchet job. Kevin (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to do something with this article a couple of days ago, but not only was my removal of controversial material reverted, my warning to the editor who inserted the material was removed by the editor who reverted me. I won't waste my time trying to fix this any further.  Woogee (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa - ANI discussion FYI


Questions about sourcing were raised in an AfD discussion of the BLP of gay porn performer Vladimir Correa. The AfD closer opened a discussion here, but the concerns raised were never addressed. The original BLPN discussion is now being discussed at ANI in the larger context of BLP sourcing by a particular user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

James Lipton
I just removed some material from James Lipton (the host of Inside the Actors Studio, that was clearly vandalism. One of the statements even had a citation. Now that I look at the article, I see a lot of potentially incorrect information which is sourced to "Stated on Inside the Actors Studio, 2008" and suchlike. Could people check this article over? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not correct these days to say I heard him say it on the telly or such as ..^ a b  c  d  e  f  g  h  Stated on Inside  the Actors Studio, 2008, but looking at it quickly there is nothing controversial or with BLP issues left there that needs immediate removal, if you are interested in the topic, take a little time and move to talkpage discussion, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Garn
The recently revealed hot-tub incident seems to be gaining weight and attracting she-said and he-said editing (to which I plead guilty, in an attempt to keep balance). --CliffC (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try and keep it to the basic simple reports, void of the disputed titillating details, a limited link to an enlarged speculative commentary will suffice.Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Arcuri
The Mike Arcuri article is getting hit with a lot of egregious BLP violations. Woogee (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill McNutt III
Could someone with more time than myself take a look at Bill McNutt III? It's a complete mess right now, and needs attention pretty badly. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Meyer
Can we do something about the biasness against religious leaders on Wiki?? On Joyce Meyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Meyer and many other pages of religous leaders on wiki there seems to be a lot of talk about their controversy and not enough about their good. On the other hand it seems that every atheist page on here from Ellen Johnson on down paints a positive picture of them. Even Madalyn Murray O'hair's board has been re-edited and a lot of her controversies have been deleted. I went to erase Meyers' controversies and it was re-added. There are some real nasty stuff written about her on there while very little good is discussed of her. It makes her out to be some monster. Can we do something about this?? I know a lot of the hate is coming from atheists going on there and editing the pages. Bjoh249 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Controversy is the bane of this site and negative content about people users do not like is what some editors come here to add, we have policy and discussion as a chance to remove such additions, it is not easy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Can somebody please take a look at the last thread on Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica? There is an issue concerning the usage of the name Joseph Evers, who is purported to be a shadow owner of the website. One source mentions his name in passing (saying that he was not available for comment) and a few others, including ninemsn, seem to be based on his personal blog post. Several editors, including myself, have doubts as to whether he exists or not, and since he has clearly gone out of his way to be a non-public figure, even if he does exist I believe his name should be kept out of the article. Hoping that several experienced BLP editors can look at it with an objective eye. The Wordsmith Communicate 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Mottola
This article was full of claims which were potentially defamatory or of little obvious relevance, all without references. I have deleted a significant amount and some entire sections. Not being an expert on this I thought it a good idea to bring this article to the attention of others who pay attention to such things. Wrotesolid (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS some of the matterial, if true, is of obvious interest, but I have no sources for such claims and so have removed them to err on the side of innocence.Wrotesolid (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill
There's a lot of POV and BLP violations in this article. I've removed "mobbed up" and "ex-con", but it needs more work. Woogee (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Hanrahan
This is just a heads-up. An edit war at this article led me to block new user for 3 hours and point him to WP:BLP/H. I then looked at the article, found it had been heavily vandalised, restored the last good version and semi-protected it for a day. Meanwhile new user had been editing it; I have explained on his talk page what had happened, and also given him , because Peter Carter-Ruck is a famous libel lawyer in the UK, and I doubt if the real one's first action would be to edit his client's article. Longer semi-protection may be needed if the vandals return. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dexter McCluster/Ole Miss
Could someone fix this page? on the right hand side box it says Dexter's date of birth is August 7th yet in the first paragraph it says his birth date is August 25th. Could someone please fix this so his propper birth date is posted. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.130.92.185 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis
Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Wikipedia that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Yusuf Ali
Muhammad Yusuf Ali

I am concerned that this article contains negative assertions, and has only one source (RS or not, I do not know).  Chzz  ►  08:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy deleted, G10.  Chzz  ►  08:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

Jesse_Ventura
User V7-sport adds content that does respect wikipedia policies especially in the section about the early life of Mr. Jesse Ventura. His "sources" are not reliable. One link is to a personal site that shows a "does not exist" message. The other does not mention at all that Mr. Ventura was part of an "organized crime syndicate".

Another paragraph that has problems is the one mentioning a certain military officer personal opinions as "accusing" Mr. Ventura of lying about being a navy seal. Clearly the wikipedia users who added these two paragraphs are adding content that seeks to damage the image of Mr Ventura by attacking his character. This goes against wikipedia's neutral point of view

Please look at the article and help protect it against these kind of edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Ventura&action=history

--Grandscribe (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you and am watching the article. A refutation should only be included if a claim can be reliably documented. I see no such claim on the part of Ventura documented. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive semiprotection of vulnerable BLPs - proposal
A proposal to tweak semiprotection policy to include preemptive protection of vulnerable BLPs is here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What happens when it is the administrators and the logged-in users who are trying to push the libel and violations of POV, and it is anonymous users who are trying to remove them? It happens... 97.120.254.36 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then they could get it semi-protected anyway. Your point is somewhat irrelevant. &mdash;ShadowRanger (talk 18:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations on 'jim bell'
The article 'Jim Bell' was entered as a hatchet-job by editor Skomorokh in late 2007, and he repeatedly tried to obstruct corrections, even from multiple editors. Eventually, the subject of the article (James Dalton Bell) showed up December 26, 2009, and he was set upon and repeatedly reverted by an editor (Gogo Dodo) who had never edited on 'Jim Bell' before, and subsequently has never done so afterwards. Bell was set upon by a number of persons who tried to maintain the biased POV in the article, and eventually they blocked Bell for specious and malicious reasons, indefinitely. They violated the WP rules on 'protection', by 'protecting' both the main article and the talk page simultaneously. When violations of BLP were removed, the Cabal repeatedly showed up to revert those violations of BLP. In a very recent incident, NeilN reverted someone else's corrections to the existing violations of BLP: NeilN simply said, "whitewash" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=350526886&oldid=350515803, with no comment on the talk: page. There has been repeated 'meat-puppetry', with daedalus969 asking Eyeserene to 'protect' both the article and the talk page simultaneously, an obvious violation of semiprotect policy. Astonishingly, Eyeserene's actions actually helped protect those violations of BLP from being corrected by others, yet claimed that there had been 'excessive violations of BLP'. In one case, a series of edits removing material specifically identified as being libelous were reverted, with no attempt to determine why the edits were so labelled. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=350526886&oldid=350515803 Many (but far from all) of these violations of BLP are being removed by another editor, Keystroke: His edits may provoke consternation among the Cabal, but infrequently are his edits reverted, except by clueless folk (Skomorokh and NeilN). This establishes that there were, and still are, violations of BLP in the article, violations that persons like Skomorokh, Daedalus969, NeilN, Explicit, Eyeserene, Woogee, Department of Redundancy Department, THF, and Gogo Dodo have been trying to keep for months. This is the 'intractable' problem referred to in this article: When a critical mass of POV-pushers inhabit an article, it is difficult to dislodge them. 71.36.125.149 (talk) 04:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell would seem to suggest you are JDB. If so, is there any particular reason you're talking about yourself in the third person? In any case, while I can't comment on the way users have treated JDB, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive591 and a quick look at the contrib history suggests he's very far from blameless and the block was appropriate. The protection of the article talk page, while unfortunate, is not unprecedented and appears to have been necessary in this case because of sockpuppetry by JDB. If JDB would agree to stop this (either by reforming his behaviour and successfully applying for an an unban via an appropriate means or by stopping the sockpuppetry), unprotection may be possible but I'm not holding my breathe given the problems so far. Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "seem to suggest..."? IOW, you're using a hunch to justify your position. Evidence, please.  "Very far from blameless"?  Could you be much more specific, rather than deliberately vague. Sounds like you're trying to justify the abuse of other editors and even administrators, without actually admitting that abuse.   "is  not unprecedented"?  In other words, you try to justify an obvious violation of WP:ban (protecting both an article and the talk page) AND maintaining violations of WP:BLP seemingly based merely on the fact that such violations of WP policy have happened before.  Are you sure that JDB is able to agree to "stop this"?  It appears he has been blocked, at least at one point, from even posting on his own talk page. (all the pages dealing with unblock assume that a person is able to post on his talk page.)  What's up with that?  And, notice that you have totally ignored the allegations of violation of BLP above:  It is as if you had said, "Because of those other things, I've decided it's okay for plenty of violations of WP:BLP to remain."  Is that the official policy of WP?  Instead of trying to blame the victim, as is typical for Admins, first determine if the person posting has a valid complaint.  If so, fix the problem.  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.   And so far, it very much sounds like you're part of the problem.   71.36.113.36 (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to tell the truth, eh? -- Neil N    talk to me  19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that your posts are so short. On the history page of article "Jim Bell", all you said was "Whitewash" to a substantial set of edits that must have taken a while to add.  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Bell&action=history     You didn't identify the reason for the "whitewash" claim, nor did you apologize for acting like a troll.  Previously, you had also trolled the same guy, Keystroke,  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJim_Bell&action=historysubmit&diff=346837778&oldid=346617880  but he parried you.  I see that while Keystroke identified many examples of violations of WP:BLP then (and others, before and after), neither you nor almost anyone else engaged in any sort of similar removals of these BLP violations.  It's obviously because you didn't want those violations removed, right?  Yes, you're the master of the quick, ineffective retort.  Why are you so quick?  It's because you have to be.  I just checked your "contributions" list (in this context, that's quite an Orwellian label), and you've made 98 edits so far on 3/22/2010.  You're obviously crazed.  (OCD=Obsessive Compulsive disorder.)  You make edits that revert and disrupt.  You engage in no serious debate.  Anybody who you disagree with, who makes reasoned criticisms of you, you call them "rants".  You're a sorry excuse for a Wikipedian.   71.36.113.36 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to check each of the alleged "sock puppet" IP addresses, since there didn't seem to be too many,and I noticed an odd thing: All of them were of material posted at articles somehow concerning Jim Bell.  Yet, if it were "JDB" posting, wouldn't you think that he'd be posting at other articles having nothing at all to do with "Jim Bell"?  And if somebody is so good as to be able to identify his postings, and to actually prove they originated with Bell, ("It has been established that this IP address has been used by James dalton bell. Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks").  then that same somebody should be able to dig up a substantial series of edits in articles and talk: pages that have no obvious, overt connection to "Jim Bell".  And that same somebody should be able to explain how he or she knows that these unconnected postings were also the product of "JDB".  Why has not even a single IP address, posting to an article not connected with "JDB", been claimed ("It has been established") to be identified?  The answer is quite simple:  The "it has been established" wording, which sounds so authoritative, is merely a guess.  Sounds like the people in malicious control of the article "Jim Bell' are simply hostile to any IP posting in that article.  In order to be labelled a sock puppet of "JDB", a person need merely post something in "Jim Bell" under an IP, and do so in a way which contradicts the desires of the persons in control of that article. Removing violations of WP:BLP is one form of IP editing which will automatically label a person a sock-puppet of Bell in the article "Jim Bell".   WP policy officially allows posting under an IP address.  Obviously, there are gangs of editors and administrators that want to less-than-formally enforce a ban on IP posting.    71.36.113.36 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A long time ago, my sister had a poster which said, "If it is the truth, what does it matter who said it? Nil Einne (I wonder if he could be a sock-puppet of "NeilN", also above!!!!)  never learned the truth of that statement.  If somebody claims that there are violations of BLP in an article, it should be considered utterly irrelevant as to who made the complaint:  People should study the article, and find out if those violations exist.  If so, they should be fixed.  IMMEDIATELY.  It is utterly wrong and abusive to ignore such allegations, based solely on the unproven claim as to the identify of the person making claim.  71.36.120.162 (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to report this exchange to WP:SPI (Sock-puppet investigations). Are the names "Nil Einne" and "NealN" phonetic homonyms, or aren't they? And, what is the probability of an editor being automatically hostile to an unknown IP editor who just shows up on WP:BLPN? And what is the probability of the only two responses both being hostile, and being phonetically identical? Sounds like they made a mistake. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The probability of two editors both being standoffish to an obvious sockpuppet of a banned editor? Pretty good, I'd think. Dayewalker (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Test succeeded. I reported, here, that I would initiate a sockpuppet investigation of NeilN and Nil Einne. I then reported to their talk: pages that I would do so. Within about a minute, I got a new message. Naturally, one of the two NeilN or Nil Einne decided to deflect the accusation, by making a counter accusation. Looks like I was right about "NeilN" and "Nil Einne" being sockpuppets of each other. (actually, I suspect the arrangement is a bit of a combination betweenn "sock puppet" and a "meat puppet": There have long been "boiler-room" operations, right? On WP, there are POV-pushers.  So, why not "boiler-room POV-pushers"?) Notice, also, that neither "NeilN" nor "Nil Einne" has done anything (even rhetorically) about the WP:BLP violations still present in the article "Jim Bell". First, I pointed out the BLP violations, and Nil Einne (who seems to have more time to waste) entirely disregarded that allegation, being more concerned about who I am, and is still entirely unconcerned about BLP violations. Isn't that curious? Even now, neither NeilN nor Nil Einne have tried to cover up their lack of concern about BLP violations: The least they could do would be to start pretending to be concerned. Evidently, they realize they've been caught. The reason WP is corrupt to the core is that it doesn't actually enforce the BLP rules, and allows thugs like NeilN to troll articles to push POV, and to prevent others from removing WP:BLP violations. 71.36.120.162 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense. Either file the SPI in the correct place, or please stop talking about it. An SPI claim has no business on this page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an extensive history of advocating on BLP issues, including in the noticeboard, as a simple search in the archives or even on this page where I count about 3 posts from me in other matters. To suggest I don't care about BLP is clearly nonsense as I suspect several people on this noticeboard can tell you. I also find it somewhat ironic that you suggest I'm a sockpuppet of NeilN then complain about his? posts being too short, again anyone who is familiar with me on wikipedia would probably agree my posts being too short is not a problem. Perhaps a quick check of my several paragraph long comment on the recent RFC BLP would dispel both notions for you. Regardless, I made it clear from the beginning that I had not looked into the alleged BLP problems, I started to in particular wondering why the talk page was protected but once it became clear why and the similarity of your IP and geolocation with other sockpuppets of JDB I stopped also considering there is already another editor, Keystroke, who it looks like is likely to stop any excesses if they exist and who would be capable of seeking help on their own if necessary. (Of course I'll freely admit I'm automatically sceptical when someone makes far ranging complaints about several established editors including admins and admin abuse at least one editor of which I recognised and also when I looked into the case, one of the admins involved. Particularly sceptical whenever the word 'cabal' comes up.) Given the way you've responded, it's clear I've made the right decision as even if I accept in good faith that you're not a sockpuppet of Jim Bell, I don't think your judgement that there are problems is worth my time investigating. Anyway this is my last post on this matter, if you want to file a SPI be my guest. (Incidentally looking at NeilN's contrib history reminded me of at least one place I'd seen him? before that was at Talk:Justin Bieber which coincidentally is also one of the pages I was thinking of but couldn't rememeber the name of above when I mentioned semiprotecting talk pages not being unprecedented although in that case primarily because of the large number of young fans who can't resist declaring their undying love or desire to marry the subject of the article. I also do remember Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident which was also semiprotected for a time, that one for similar reasons to this, i.e. persistent sockpuppetry.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as advice to the IP, the best place for your concerns are on the talkpage of the article, just bring then up calmly one by one and discuss the actual issue with the editors there, that is the only way to deal with an issue like this, I don't really know the big picture but it just seems to be that the subject feels the article is a bit opinionated and a negative portrayal of the situation, sometimes this happens and to stop the disruption personally I would take a little bit of weight out of the article, but that is just me, the talkpage is the place for this, one specific issue at a time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This IP range has been blocked (was a banned editor) and the article talk page was semi-protected (mentioned above) due to severe disruption. If you check the history, Bell wasn't interested in having a constructive discussion. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, another sock of the upset subject, great, sorted, he looks like a smart person to me, more than able of simple discussion. Being banned is not a final call, he keeps coming back and trying to talk about it, repeatedly blocking him is a poor show. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of James dalton bell you can say, oh look at the disruptive sock or you can talk to the user who could well just be the upset subject of the BLP and see what his problem is and see if it can be sorted by editing and end the disruption.Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the article talk page history, the user's talk page, and the various ANI threads? Discussion was tried, repeatedly. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I had a fair look, otherwise I would not have bothered commenting, he is not that bad. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not up to us to judge whether or not he's "that bad," based on one sockpuppet interaction. This guy was banned for good reason, so the less said about him the better. Dayewalker (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very surprised that you would advocate not blocking the socks of a banned editor that, rather than calmly pointing out article flaws, continue the attacks on other editors that got them banned in the first place. -- Neil N   talk to me  22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Socking and being upset is not a big issue that the wheels drop off, the ip is clearly upset and likely has his good reasons. Anyway he is blocked again so don't worry, all is sorted. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Video evidence enough?
Would it be enough proof of 5 videos that this woman has appeared in some phone sex commercials? Here are the links to some commercials she has starred in:
 * 1) Hot Talk at 800-333-6969. Starring Marina from Hot for Words
 * 2) Free Partyline - VI-ENG-60
 * 3) Free Talk Line- VI-ENG-30
 * 4) Hot Chat 876.538.5869-starring Marina from Hot for Words
 * 5) Hot LiveGirls- Featruing Marina from Hot for Words

The appearance and accents match perfectly, and seeing as this person has already been broadcasting their cleavage across the internet every week for the last over 2 years, it would not seem out of the ordinary that they would have done work like this. Yet people on the talk page say multiple youtube videos aren't enough and it "isn't notable enough" despite the article already being barely a page long.--Sinistrial (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Youtube uploads are not a reliable source (anyone can upload and doctor) - and interpretations of youtube material is certainly original research. If the information cannot be verified from a secondary source, it should be excluded.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Information must be from reliable third-party sources, this is especially important when dealing with WP:BLP. Youtube videos are primary sources and are not reliable. The relevent policies and guidelines are: WP:BLP, WP:YOUTUBE and WP:OR. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition, even if we were to accept that she really has been in such commercials, the absence of coverage in reliable secondary sources generally means the subject matter is not significant enough for mention in the article Nil Einne (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Larry Squire
I am a bit new on editing wikipedia, so I am confused on how to edit this.

Larry Squire's advisor/mentor is incorrectly listed as Eric Kandel. Larry Squire's advisor was Hans-Lukas Teuber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanagnos (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Derek Smart
Derek Smart is back in the news this week and so the warring factions are at it again on his Derek Smart

Once again, a website that has already been deemed to be libelous and defamatory, thus violating BLP has been entered into the page along with the usual material that was already removed (see page history) over the years.

The offending material needs to be removed.

I think this page needs to be fully protected because obviously the semi-protection just does not seem to be effective.

Wildcard999 (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: who are you? You're obviously not a new editor, but the above is the first edit for that account. Rd232 talk 13:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what does who I am or whether I'm a new editor or not have to do with anything? Even the guy who posted that text and link is a new editor. I saw and reported a violation. I see that you made the edit but failed to remove the offending link he also posted and which has been removed many times before after extensive discussions because it fails WP:BLP and WP:RS. Apart from the fact that Bill Huffman, the Derek Smart detractor and supposed net stalker is the author of the page. In fact that issue went to mediation before the link was removed and deemed to be in violation. Please remove it.Wildcard999 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, this article has a history of disruption from pro-Derek SPAs. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's the link I was looking for. And just to be fair the page history shows clearly that it is not just pro-Derek SPAs. So if you're going to cite that, please be accurate. Also is there any reason why you guys have still not removed the offending link?Wildcard999 (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

fred shuttlesworth
this information is incorrect in the first paragraph at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Des11041987 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor)
There has been an accusation from a fellow cast member of the Australian television show, Hey Dad..! regarding alleged indecent assault by this person. It has had quite a bit of media coverage in Australia. Articles that need to be watched are Robert Hughes (Australian actor) (now semi-protected), Sarah Monahan, Ben Oxenbould and Hey Dad..!. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris Hardwick
This article has gotten hit by lots of IP vandals over the last two days, adding a lot of nonsense. Woogee (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been semi-protected. Woogee (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kathryn Bonella


There seems to be a consensus that the page creator is directly related to the subject, see talk page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise Purple


Formerly a one paragraph stub which explained fairly clearly why this strain of medical marijuana might have what Wikipedia terms notability (July 2009 version link), its less than one kb of content was expanded to over 11kb by Cirt last week. I was struck by its coat rack aspect today when I saw it for the first time, and I tagged it (diff). Cirt removed the tag three minutes later (diff). I posted on the talk page and restored the tag (diff). After some brief discussion, NuclearWarfare removed it again (diff).

Far over half of the article's content relates to the celebrity for whom the strain was named without his consent. The section blockquoted below [ version link ] seems particularly unwarranted:
 * See also
 * Being Tom Cruise
 * Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes
 * Tom Cruise: Unauthorized (1998)
 * Tom Cruise: All the World's a Stage (2006)
 * Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography (2008)
 * Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

The Medicine portal link may be appropriate, though I'm not familiar with how portals are commonly linked in articles. The Psychology portal link is possibly less appropriate, and the Scientology portal link seems as tangential and gratuitous as the article links.

Please note that I'm neither an advocate nor a critic of Scientology. I have no desire to be involved in the controversies about it on Wikipedia, and I have no hidden agenda. – Athaenara ✉  01:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave my opinions on the validity of most of the article content on the talk page. However, I would agree with you that the see also section does seem a bit unnecessary. Those links would better placed in the Tom Cruise article, and probably should be removed. NW ( Talk ) 01:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I significantly trimmed down the See also section, leaving only those related to Tom Cruise that are similarly forms of parody. I also trimmed down the Portals section, leaving Medicine and removing the two that were suggested for removal, above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems quite fine, in my opinion. NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't post here merely to move the discussion from the article talk page but to ask for input from uninvolved editors. Other opinions incoming, I hope?  – Athaenara  ✉  06:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Between the changes NW suggested and the ones Cirt made from your comments, it looks like the problem is mostly resolved. Being named after Tom Cruise and the reaction to that is a large part of the story, so it's going to be a large part of the article. Shell   babelfish 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Gary Reilly
- addition of unreferenced, and possibly BLP-infringing, material by account with unacceptable name. I've indefblocked the user, and semi-protected the article for 3 months. -- The Anome (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan Trustman
ALAN TRUSTMAN

Here is my RESUMÉ. It has been posted twice and both times it has been removed without notice to me or any explanation, and replaced with the single comment that I was once married to my wife who died nearly four years ago. Among other disappointments and embarrassments, I remarried another lady two years ago. Here is what I implore you to post:

Movie and Television Writing: THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, United Artists; BULLITT, Steve McQueen, Jacqueline Bisset, Warner Bros.; THEY CALL ME MR. TIBBS, Sidney Poitier, United Artists; LADY ICE, Donald Sutherland, Jennifer O’Neill, Allied Artists; HIT!, Richard Pryor, Billy Dee Williams, Paramount; CRIME AND PASSION, Omar Sharif, Karen Black, American International Pictures; THE NEXT MAN, Sean Connery, Allied Artists; THE TRACKER (executive producer), Chris Kristofferson, Home Box Office; GLITZ, NBC Television; THE LOST CAPONE, Turner Television; RED WIND, Showtime; THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR remake, Pierce Brosnan, Renee Russo, United Artists. Five other movies and two other television dramas, uncredited.

Articles: WHO KILLED HOLLYWOOD?, 1978, Atlantic Monthly; THE SILVER SCAM - HOW THE HUNTS WERE OUTFOXED, 1980, Atlantic Monthly. THE FINER POINTS OF FINIS, 3/21/2002, Washington POST.

Novels: FATHER’S DAY, 1992, U.S. ,Carol Publishing, Birch Lane Press, Fawcett; Germany, Eichborn Verlag, Heyne Taschenbuchverlag; Bulgaria, Atika; Japan, Fukutake Shoten. OUR MAN HO, 1998, Fisher Island Press. PRIMAL ACTION, 2006, iUniverse. THE JUDAS PROPHECY, 2009, BookSurge.

Book: THE SCREENPLAY SELL, 2005, iUniverse.

Industry Honors: Member, American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; Mystery Writers of America; International Association of Crime Writers; Mystery Writers of America Edgar Allen Poe award for best screenplay; MWA Chairman of 1994 Best Picture Edgar Committee.

Other Industry Activities: Member, Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. Negotiating Committee, 1988. Toronto Film Festival panelist, 1995. Austin, Texas Film Festival panelist, 1999.

Legal Experience: 1955-1977: Nutter, McClennen & Fish, Boston, Massachusetts. Associate, 1955-1959; junior partner, 1959-1961; senior partner, 1961-1969; retired partner, 1969-1977. Admitted to Massachusetts, United States District Court and First Circuit bars. Admitted to New York bar.

Business Experience: 1961-1969: Founder and Director of Damon Corporation; frequency and medical equipment. 1973-1977: Director and member of Executive Committee of World Jai-Alai, Inc., parimutuel jai-alai. 1969-1977: Many years as a  private investor, currency trading, now retired.

Education: The Phillips Exeter Academy, Cum Laude Society, cum studiis,; Harvard College, Senior 16 Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude; Harvard Law School, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, winning oralist Ames Competition, magna cum laude.

Teaching Experience: Screenwriting: 1979, Harvard College; 1989-1993, NYU Graduate School of Film and Television; The Phillips Exeter Academy, 1994; Escuela Internationale de Cinema y TV, Havana, 2001. University of Miami School of Communications, 2007, 2008, 2010..

Family Status: Married to Dr. Barbara Buchwald, three children by a prior marriage, four grandchildren, four stepchildren,. seven stepgranddaughters.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.255.180.4 (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. If you can meet our notability guidelines and wish to have an article created please Articles for creation. -- Neil N   <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Rd232 has wikilinked to your article. The reason why the text was removed was because it was unsourced. If you wish to work on it please read our conflict of interest guidelines and our sourcing guidelines. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help changing an article about myself!
This article is about me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_(wrestler) I have had several issues in the past with people posting incorrect/defamatory information about me. I am not a regular user of this site and I only come on here to make sure nothing defamatory is listed on my page. I have complained in the past and now I am locked out of editing my own page. I absolutely need the name Larissa Vados to be removed from my page. If anyone can help with this I would be very grateful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLacey (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The name is sourced to . Are you saying it's incorrect? -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You can also contact volunteer response team with specific concerns. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Fasano (politician)

 * - Some really vitriolic material was posted here by an apparent constituent; I removed that, but at the same time removed some really smarmy glurge about what a tough time he had as a boy and how he made birdhouses for old people; as well as some really partisan pro-Fasano stuff, including links to YouTubes of his favorite ads. The vitriol, somewhat toned down but still partisan, has been re-added once; I cautioned User:PHVoter about NPOV and the like. Orange Mike   |   Talk  21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

POV and sourcing problems with Nahum Shahaf
George, RomaC and I have been attempting to resolve sourcing problems with the article on Nahum Shahaf, a BLP on an Israeli physicist. However, the article is experiencing problematic edits by Jaakobou which violate both the BLP and NPOV policies. The issues are as follows:


 * 1) Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version of the article that includes a series of claims that are either unsourced or are based on unreliable sources.


 * 1.1) Much of the background section of the article in Jaakobou's version is sourced to a curriculum vitae published here (in Hebrew; Google translation to English. It's on a user-generated group blog or wiki (see ). A discussion at WP:RSN unanimously concluded that this was not a reliable source. Jaakobou does not accept this and rejects the unanimous consensus of other editors.


 * 1.2) Jaakobou is repeatedly adding a citation which reads in full "Israeli Census - Verified March 23, 2010". This was discussed at WP:RSN, which unanimously concluded that it was not a proper citation; as one uninvolved editor said, it is "not substantially different from adding a footnote that says "I read it somewhere"." Jaakobou does not accept this and rejects the unanimous consensus of other editors.


 * 2) Jaakobou is repeatedly, on overt POV grounds, deleting material cited from reliable mainstream sources.


 * 2.1) A mainstream newspaper report, "Truth is sometimes caught in crossfire", written by Ed O'Loughlin and published by the Sydney Morning Herald. Jaakobou rejects this source because he views Ed O'Loughlin as "an anti-Israeli" and "a Hamas supporter" . (These accusations are, needless to say, BLP violations in their own right.)


 * 2.2) Rejection of quotes from Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper. The article's subject sued Haaretz for defamation two years ago, though it's unclear whether any proceedings are actually ongoing. Jaakobou has repeatedly argued that this makes Haaretz an unreliable source for any facts concerning Nahum Shahaf. None of the Haaretz articles cited post-date the defamation suit. The underlying factor appears to be a POV rejection of the newspaper; Jaakobou has denounced Haaretz (despite it being an Israeli newspaper!) as "an anti-Zionist publication", hence unreliable.


 * 3) Addition of uncited material. Jaakobou is repeatedly reverting to a version which includes an uncited paragraph (see from "Shahaf's investigation" onwards) as well as other uncited claims, as well as peacock quotes of no obvious relevance to the article's subject. This has been pointed out repeatedly on the talk page to no effect.

Discussions on the talk page are going nowhere; Jaakobou is simply not responding to many of the points about sourcing that have been made by myself, George and RomaC.

It's worth noting that as well as being covered by BLP, the article is under article probation (imposed in Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, in which Jaakobou was a party). I'd appreciate some advice on what can be done to resolve these problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just trying to get to the nub of the dispute, so forgive me if I misunderstand: Nahum Shahaf is one of the main figures involved in the Muhammad al-Durrah incident investigations, and this page is by extension part of the dispute concerning that. On the face of it the main 'battle' regarding the Shahaf article is on how favourably we should look upon Shahaf, and his expertise. As such, the 'George/Chriso/RomaC version' contains details such as Shahaf's conspiracy theories regarding Yitzhak Rabin, and presents Shahaf's conclusions regarding Muhammed al-Durrah in a far less positive way.
 * It doesn't seem to be particularly a BLP problem, as Jaakobou appears to want to portray Shahaf in a more positive way (and this board is usually concerned about derogatory information). However, given the manner of the dispute it is obviously important that the article is neutral, doesn't give undue weight etc etc. If Jaakobou continues to insert unsourced material or reverts against consensus then that is obviously problematic but I would have thought the place to raise that would be WP:AE rather than here. Other options would be to start an RFC to determine if the Yitzhak Rabin stuff is pertinent, or if it gives undue weight (as Jaakobou appears to be contending), and whether the media award is relevent etc. Quantpole (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Having said all that, I do agree that the census and CV info should not be included. As it appears this has previously been discussed and agreed, sanctions should be applied if Jaakobou continues to insert those sources. Quantpole (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. The BLP issue is essentially to do with the repeated addition of unsourced or unreliably sourced information in defiance of a unanimous consensus of editors. You're right that derogatory information is usually the source of concern on this noticeboard, but it's bad practice to include any unsourced or poorly sourced material; as the lead of WP:BLP says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I'm open to an RFC on the Rabin material and/or the media award, but that's a side issue - the main issue is the repeated reversion to an unsourced or poorly sourced version. As you say, AE may be the most appropriate way of resolving that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, my goal isn't to present Shahaf (or his investigations and conclusions) either positively, or negatively, but neutrally, based on reliable, verifiable sources. I haven't inserted anything with regards to his Rabin assassination conspiracy theories, because other editors opposed it on BLP grounds, and while I may think it's sufficiently sourced, the proper course for its inclusion is probably dispute resolution.
 * I have, however, removed biographical information I view as unsourced, or poorly sourced. A lot of information was being added, cited to sources that don't exist, or don't mention the information they were being cited for. Other times, completely unverifiable sources were being used, and some things were being cited to websites that editors claimed were documents published by Shahaf himself, but were hosted on the user-generated group blog ChrisO mentioned. Unfortunately, Jaakobou was inserting (or re-inserting) much of this poorly sourced material, even after I had run several of the sources (the curriculum vitae & Israeli census) past the reliable sources noticeboard, where they were found to be unreliable. Some of this information is not negative, but given the contentious aspects of the topic itself (as well as the Muhammad al-Durrah incident, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general), I tend to take a more narrow view on what is acceptable sourcing. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 21:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou: The issue really isn't if he was born in 1946 (as was verified by an easy census examination) or to present him in a "favourable light" but rather to give basic details such as where he got his Physics masters, or the name of the company he worked for when he was doing his CT related research. Other sources already note him as a Physicist and a developer of CT technology. His CV is just used for small details that he did his masters at Bar-Ilan University and the he worked for Elscint. This doesn't compare to the Rabin conspiracy theory RomaC/ChrisO have been pushing into the article. They can't tell you any of the details of this thing and, certainly, Shahaf has not been making a campaign to free anyone from prison. If Shahaf is indeed on a campaign to free Yigal Amir, then we'd have dozens of Hebrew sources on the matter and they just don't exist.

P.S. If there is a language issue here, I am sure there are dozens of Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians, including administrators, who can verify the information in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)


 * Just to be clear, as I mentioned in the talk page discussion, there's nothing wrong with Hebrew sources if English equivalents can't be found. However, they still have to meet the same requirements on reliability and verifiability as English sources, and it would be very helpful if a Hebrew-speaker (yourself included) can provide translations of the relevant quotes from them. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 00:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heyo George,
 * Best I can see, this thread was opened over the Rabin issue, which RomaC promoted for a month until you and ChrisO came on the page and ChrisO started inserting his new version of it 5 times while trampling on all the other edits. Our sole argument (me and you) seems to be over how to use Shahaf's CV where you assume bad faith when he says he completed his Physics Masters at Bar-Ilan University when other sources say he's an accomplished Physicist or when his CV (which he published, btw) says he worked for Elscint on CT technology when other sources mention that he worked on CT technology... or that he recieved '1997 Ministry of Science Fellowship' along with his '1997 Ministry of Science Award' when the award is mentioned in other sources (etc.). My issue is that you don't have any reasonable reason to argue against these additions other than what is referred to, no offence intended, as Wikilawyering that Shahaf's website is supposedly not reliable about his own credentials which are already mentioned, mostly in passing, by other sources.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the place for this discussion, but:
 * Don't accuse others of bad faith.
 * My concerns with the CV is that (a) I don't know if he published it, and (b) its posted on a site that I don't know to be his; a website which says anyone can upload to it.
 * The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you feel that this information is "already mentioned... by other sources," then cite those sources, but only if they're reliable, and only if they say what you're citing them for (e.g., if you cite a source for the statement that he attended Bar-Ilan University, be sure the source actually says that). ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Jaakobou's interpretation of my position is a bit dramatic re the content on Shahaf's involvement in Rabin assassination theories. As I've said before I see no need to detail this, and don't think it should have its own section. Despite there being a number of very reliable sources on this, was no information on it in the article. Frankly, I think after the back-and-forth now there may be too much information. A couple of phrases/sentence, as background informs the reader that Al-Durrah was not Shahaf's first foray onto such investigations.


 * On the other points, this is a BLP and we have to be certain the sources are reliable and verifiable, a CV that we don't know was written by the subject is twice removed from that criteria. I must say, it seems some editors here are evaluating the sources not on the basis of their reliability and verifiability, but rather on the basis of how they treat the subject. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heyo RomaC,
 * If this is about who wrote the CV, I can tell you that its his website and he indeed wrote that CV. We also list it as such on the article. There's also nothing exceptional/contentious in the material cited to this CV as it is almost entirely already mentioned (with less detail) on other sources and we really have no reason to suspect that its inaccurate or possibly libellous.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "I can tell you that its his website and he indeed wrote that CV" - based on what? ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 05:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The CV is his based on his picture being at the top left on the banner and him writing almost all the articles on that site with most of them being related to himself and/or his opinions/endeavours. Who else would have a photocopy of his 1997 award from the Ministry of Science or a photocopy from the Ministry of Education for his work with gifted children or a photocopy of the main page in some of his UAV work in Tadiran (etc. etc. etc. - just click the links)?
 * p.s. The argument for non-inclusion here is argumentative for the sake of argument. The material itself is obviously not contentious/controversial/libellous when its mostly noted about by both James Fallows and Amnon Lord. There's nothing wrong with adding that he completed his Physics studies at Bar-Ilan when every article that names him says he's a Physicist and there's nothing wrong with citing that he worked for Elscint on CT when Amnon Lord says he worked on CT.
 * With respect,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC) add site 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting argument. You should probably take the case to WP:RSN and see if uninvolved editors agree that it's his website, and if his CV should be considered reliable. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 07:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't know how you could show definitively that the CV was written by him, though. The photocopies Jaakobou mentions could conceivably have been obtained by someone else under a freedom of information law. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ChrisO,
 * Tadiran unmanned aerial vehicle documents are not free for the general public and, upon further review, Fallows says Shahaf graduated from Bar-Ilan in 1977 and the CV is only used to say that he studied there between 1970-1977. Not only that it is easy to go into the links and see that this is indeed his website and his CV but the content itself, unlike the libellous presentation on the Rabin issue, shouldn't have gotten us here.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jaakobou, but these unsupported claims are getting a bit tired. "Fallows says Shahaf graduated from Bar-Ilan in 1977". Where? Here is the Fallows article. Where does he mention Bar-Ilan? Where does he mention Shahaf graduating from anywhere? Where does he mention the year 1977? Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, he doesn't mention any of these things. This is called mis-citing a source, and it's one of the major problems this article has had. ← George <small style="color:#dc143c;">talk 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct about one mistatement, but hte general idea - of adding a bit of background to an accomplished Physicist still stands. You haven't made a single argument to why you find the material contentious and made some highly argumentative 'concerns' about the validity of Shahaf's writing about his own credentials (and the many photocopies that support it being his writing).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  06:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ehud Barak
The problem is not the article itself but a couple of references to Barak elsewhere, links have been posted to these articles in the Barak page. The problem pages are Dalal Mughrabi and Coastal Road massacre. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * References are from several renowned publications and written by professional journalists. It all complies with WP:RS. I don't see where is the problem. If there are credible sources proving the claims false, they should also be put forward. So far, nothing has emerged.Froy1100 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are a piece by Robert Fisk, here, where Fisk writes that Thirty-six people died and a surviving videotape shows an Israeli agent, a certain Ehud Barak – yes, the man who is now Israel's Defence Minister – firing shots into her body and dragging her across a road. The other source is from TIME Magazine's "Middle East Blog", here which says they watched on television as an Israeli army officer -- future Prime Minister Ehud Barak -- shot bullets into Dalal's already dead body as it lay on a road in Herzilyah, Isarel. Blogs such as these are reliable sources, this is published by TIME, not by some random person on blogspot. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never new that there were authouritive reports that this guy was shooting dead people....According to multiple media reports, Ehud Barak, the current Israeli Defense Minister, led the military operation against Mughrabi, and there are reports of images of him firing shots into her dead body and dragging her across a road.[10] [11][3][8][12]

what does it mean..reports of images? has anyone got any links to these images? Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "No More Mr Nice Guy" is messing up the article. Fisk's and Butter's articles clearly talk about footage of Barak shooting the corpse. The pictures show Barak handling the body, but not shooting at it http://www.daylife.com/photo/05Q8c5zdae4a7 . I'd better put it as it was. If there are no further objections, I will include it in the Coastal Road Massacre article as wellFroy1100 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A link to the image from the video is available for viewing here. It should be mentioned that a news article in The Guardian also says: Mughrabi's body was dragged off the tarmac and shot several times by Barak in images captured by the media.
 * Please also note that there is a separate BLP issue regarding a comment mde by User:AnonMoos on the talk page here, where she calls Yusuf al-Qardawi a "bloodthirsty hatemongering racist". I've asked him/her to strike or redact the comments a number of times, but s/he has so far refused to do so. Could someone do something about this and perhaps issue a warning to AnonMoos regarding the general sanctions to which I-P articles are subject under WP:ARBPIA?  T i a m u t talk 11:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an image from the video, it's a picture. It was in the papers. It doesn't show him shooting or dragging anyone, it's shows him disarming grenades from the body, according to the caption here and here (both of these are on the talk page of Dalal Mughrabi)
 * As for the rest of the claims, the Fisk's article is an opinion piece and Butler is a blog.
 * Fory1100 (an obvious SPA) was not able to achieve consensus to include this information in the Dalal Mughrabi article, so now he's trying Coastal road massacre. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs published by RSs are RSs, and Fisk is a professional journalist, he himself is a RS. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogs published by RSs are not necessarily RSs. I'm not sure where you get the idea that a professional journalist is an RS when writing an opinion piece, could you point me to the relevant policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. Quoting WP:RS, "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. And for Fisk, he is an expert in the field. What he writes is a RS. And do you have anything to say about the Guardian piece Tiamut just linked? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know that Butters' blog piece is subject to editorial control? Your assertation about Fisk is interesting but seems like your own opinion rather than policy.
 * Anyway, text in line with the Guardian source has already been put in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on BLP-sensitive content at Jesse Ventura
We'd need some outside help for reaching consensus on the Navy career section of the article Jesse Ventura. While some of the content in that section is sourced, this content is being synthesized into a narrative that enhances negative information. That synthesis is, in part, based on one questionable source that presents its content, e.g. this text, in a directory named "venturawatch". Cs32en  Talk to me  03:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. Despite repeated warnings several editors at the Ventura page have been adding unsourced information. Everything they have provided a source for is in the article so no-one is trying to delete unsourced content. However these editors have argued that it is not necessary to provide one in this case. One quote from one of the editors on the Ventura talkpage -
 * 'What you are stating right now is that despite the fact that Ventura was not in combat and therefore could not have earned a Combat Action Ribbon (which requires that a person actually be in combat to have earned it), that this requires a source. Not true.'
 * As far as I was aware Wiki policy is that all claims must be sourced, especially controversial ones, and that unsourced material may be removed from BLPs, however the several editors wishing to include their own unsourced original research do not concur. Weakopedia (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the editor that made that observation. Let me make my point very clear, because I'm tired and I'm getting sick of this nonsensical argument.  The DD 214 for any member of the American Armed Forces lists all awards earned.  Ventura's lists only two awards.  There is no synthesis here, it is simple logic.  If it isn't listed, he didn't earn it.  All X must be Y, A does not equal Y, therefore, A cannot logically equal X.  All awards must be on the DD214, the Combat Action Ribbon is not on the DD214.  Therefore, he could not have earned it.  There would be a need for sourcing beyond the DD214 if one were trying to claim that Ventura DID earn it, not that he DID NOT. I've asked for comments as part of dispute resolution, so by all means, please do so at the article, but I wanted to put the other point of view here before I went to sleep. Rapier1 (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously have some difficulty understanding the very concept of synthesis for you have used exactly the same language to defend you use of original research as is used in the policy page to warn editors how not to do things. Luckily you found a source for the material you wished to include and saved having it's finer points explained to you more forcibly. Weakopedia (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sedgehill School
Needs some attention. User:LeadSongDog come howl  13:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed nearly everything as it was all original research. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. You may want to note that BLPN is generally for BLP issues. Aditya Ex Machina  14:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was the BLP issues that primarily concerned me, particularly those relating to the allegations of responsibility around the subject of the fire. If someone has access to archives of The Times some of those might be verified, but in any case NOR certainly applied to much of the article.User:LeadSongDog come howl  18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Marvin Sapp
This article, which profiles the highest-charting gospel artist in Billboard's half-century history of charting album sales, still contains two notices/warnings that were posted in 2007--"Needs references or sources" and "article written like an advertisement." Both issues appear to be resolved.Jay Swartzendruber (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the advert tag and changed BLPunsourced to BLPsources - it could do with a few more. I also removed the image placeholder, its use is now discouraged. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Marc Daubert ( Founding Member of the rock band Phish )
Proper references HAVE BEEN placed at the end of this article. Marc is mentioned in several books about the Band and it's former members. He is also mentioned in the album credits on the PHISH CD " Lawn Boy. "

Thanks

Posted 3 / 26 / 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaqfather (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding some references. I've added another one and removed the tag.  --Slp1 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayson Blair
There are severe problems in this article stemming from uncited defamatory statements. The subject was forced to resign from his post due to plagiarism, but there is much more uncited (possibly true, possibly libelous) content here. I made some changes but I don't have time to comb the entire article right now, and it's imperative that we do so immediately. --causa sui (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a bunch of changes covering language style, and verification & sourcing. Further content issues remain, esp. concerning interpretation of sources. I'm unable to do any more on it today at least though, so someone else'll have to take over. –Whitehorse1 00:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the controversial uncited and the uncited too, the whole content is quite controversial, at least it appears to be well cited now. There are also a couple of citations that do not appear to be wikipedia reliable citations and there appears to also be excessive citations to one source, the new york times, tomorrow when I have a little time I will expose and expand the citations to see what is actually going on.Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on it, Off2riorob. You *might* have tended toward over severe with removal/blanking I feel. We share the same goal of course though, and caution is generally better. Post removal what's left sometimes doesn't quite make sense for a reader just yet, such as "…Landman told the Siegal committee…", as clarity was provided by the removed chunk further up that said "internal report was commissioned …with a committee …led by …Allan Siegal." It may look more well cited than it is, unfortunately. The challenging part is resolving which references back which facts and interpretation of (generally online, fortunately) cited sources. By the way, in the tidying references edit you deleted sources given including Associated Press, the subject-interviewing bp magazine, and the Washington Post. A removed peice like "Both Raines and managing editor Gerald M. Boyd, considered partially culpable for Blair's indiscretions, resigned a month after Blair's departure  " fell under a deleted Assoc. Press reference titled "New York Times executives Howell Raines, Gerald Boyd resign". I think the ambiguous referencing styles possibly caused some confusion. You're right there are apparent non-rs citations, too. These, to student press, are accounted for by the subject having been editor of his college newspaper. When used with diligent care, and in specific circumstances, we should be fine. There is significant use of the NYT source true, though then again their article's in-depth. With an article like this, dealing with medical and libel aspects, it's always going to be a difficult task. Thanks again. –Whitehorse1 15:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hughes (Australian actor): allegations in Australian press
There's been a lot of debate and reverting on this BLP over the last 36 hours, since allegations surfaced in the Australian press. The debate on the talk page centres on whether wikipedia ought to ignore the allegations until charges are laid or the subject is brought before court. My view is we ought not to wait: the allegations have been reported in reliable sources and we are presenting them in context (by saying that the subject has denied them, is referring them to lawyers, and that the police have not received complaints). I'm all for the zealous protection of BLPs here, but not to the point where we ignore allegations reported in reliable sources. But I'm more than happy to follow any consensus reached here. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The same topic was raised above at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the disputed content...

Alleged misconduct
In March 2010, former Hey Dad..! co-star Sarah Monahan alleged in Woman's Day that a member of the show's staff had inappropriately touched her on the set of the television sitcom. The allegations were picked up by the news media, and another co-star, Ben Oxenbould, told A Current Affair on 24 March 2010, that he had witnessed Hughes involved in an "incident" with a girl under the age of 10 on the set. A Current Affair put the allegations to Hughes that he had indecently assaulted Monahan and other co-stars. Hughes denied the allegations and referred them to his lawyers. As of 25 March 2010, Police had not received any official complaints relating to the matter. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/police-may-take-action-over-sarah-monahans-hey-dad-abuse-claims/story-e6frf7l6-1225844068510http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/25/2856057.htm http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/puzzled-hey-dad-star-denies-molesting-his-onscreen-daughter-20100324-qwte.html
 * Note: this link shows how the material was presented in the most recent version:

comments
Personally I would say that these claims are quite extreme and as yet there has not been a charge at all or perhaps even an official report, it is early days as yet to add this issue, we should wait to see if any official report is made and if there is any charges, as yet it says at the end of the comment, as of 25 of march there has not even been a official report and the issue has gone to his lawyers, we should wait before we add such extremely controversial content to a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the claims are extreme. Yes there has been no police action yet. But the allegations are being reported in reliable sources and are ongoing (from today's news: ). There is nothing wrong with reporting the allegations here as long as (a) we report them as allegations; (b) we report the subject's denial of the allegations and his referral of them to lawyers; and (c) at all times we use reliable sources. Waiting for police action or charges is an arbitrary line in the sand. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a duty of care to living people, that fact that it is being reported in a few citations does not require us to insert it, we don't have a rush to report allegations as they do in the press, let the situation develop and if and when more is reported we can add it then. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have any more of a duty of care than the reliable news outlets - every single Australian news publication - who are reporting the allegations. Letting the situation develop to see what happens is not an appropriate course: people come to wikipedia for information. It is our job to give it to them, as long as the information is reliable. In this case, every single word in the last revision of the article was supported by a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong when you say that we don't have anymore of a duty of care than reliable news outlets, they have a duty of care to their shareholders and a need to sell and report whatever will increase sales, we have none of those incentives. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is totally irrelevant. They have a legal duty to not commit defamation. Our acceptance of these sources as "reliable" (not in any dispute here) means we ought to trust their reporting judgement. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Imagine this if in a few days it comes to nothing, no official report, no charges nothing, a malicious report even..we could change it then to read...In 2010 he was accused of sexually assaulting a girl of ten but it didn't come to anything. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be entirely appropriate. We can't ignore massive-scale coverage in reliable sources like this. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Massive localised reporting, we are not a news outlet, we are an online educational resource, it people want tittilation they have more than enough without us joining in, editors should take care to see this seperation and move away from this type of type of position, wait and see how it develops, it is not ok for us to report such controversial content without, at the least an official report and a charge or at the minimum a police investigation. Personally, in this case I would prefer to keep it out unless there are charges. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to make personal subjective judgements about what we consider appropriate for inclusion. The fact is that these allegations are now what the public principally knows this guy for. We should therefore report the allegations. Moreover, I can't understand any reason to draw a line in the sand at "charges" or "police investigation". Either we cover the allegations from the moment they appear in reliable sources, or we wait until conviction (ie the point at which the allegations are proven in a court). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * personal subjective judgements. Yes it is, we have BLP policy and our common sense and responsibility as wikipedian editors, if the reporting takes off and the issue develops and the subject perhaps comments more about it and a report and investigation occurs and charges are brought then clearly the issue can be added, for the time being it can happily stay out. The situation is mentioned on wikipedia and I can support that inclusion at this time on Sarah Monahan BLP, just that she has made a comment about this and on her article this man is not named. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the BLP policy supports waiting for police action before reporting allegations. BLP requires verifiability and the use of reliable sources: both those standards are met here. So you are left with "common sense" and "responsibility as wikipedian editors". Both totally subjective opinions. All of your comments on this thread so far have been your personal opinion about what is appropriate. You are entitled to that opinion and it is a sound opinion. But it is an opinion. You have failed to show any policy-based or objective reason why the material should not be included. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets just call it editorial judgment, and erring on the side of caution and not inserting sensational disputed content that may do damage to a living person and his family. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. You are entitled to have editorial judgement and seek consensus for that judgement on the talk page. But personal editorial judgement is no basis for the reversion of reliable material, so please consider restoring it (at your discretion, I have no desire to revert you). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not at this time restore this content, I have removed it using my editorial judgement to protect a living person, I will consider changing my position if and when any new revelations are reported. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed. Your concerns have been conceded to have no imperative in policy. Editorial judgement, sound or unsound, is not a basis for unilaterally reverting reliable material: WP:STATUSQUO. Your editorial judgement is no more or less valid than anyone else's, particularly when the majority position on the talk page is in favour of inclusion. I ask you again to restore the content. There are good reasons - that you have given - not to include the content. But those reasons don't justify reversion without consensus. Nor do mine. Lets stick with the status quo and leave it to the talk page consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(reset) I think the point that Mkativerata seems to be ignoring is that just because it may be legal to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. Arguments about legality and Wikipedia policy seem to me to be wiki-lawyering at its finest. Off2riorob is entirely right when he says that we have different obligations than the press based on the different nature of our charter and taking a narrowly legalistic approach does not serve Wikipedia well. I would ask, what is the harm in waiting for a short period to assess if the allegations will amount to more than a "she said, he said" situation? - i.e. there is some action, legal, police or otherwise. Lastly, majority opinion does not equal consensus for inclusion. The status quo could just as justifiably be classed as removal of the content, given that this was its original state. Surely that is the prudent action in this case. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are implying that I'm arguing that because it is legal it is right, you are mistaken. I believe we should include this material because it is an encyclopaedic part of the subject. But that is a judgement open to disagreement and subject to community consensus. That's why I've opened it up for discussion on the talk page. Fine. The status quo at the moment is that the article is blank on the issue and I won't change that without consensus. But to suggest that BLP policy requires the removal of the content (as Off2riorob has done) is absurd. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of my concerns with this, other than the "early days" thing, is that all the significant reports I've seen are simply reiterating what has been said on A Current Affair and Women's Day, two effectively tabloid publications. The above references are all simply reporting it in terms of the original coverage. Personally, I'd be more comfortable if the press had gone beyond reiterating the tabloid's coverage, or if someone had (at least) raised it with the police leading to an investigation (which is likely to occur in the next 24 hours or so). - Bilby (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree substantially with this. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, more articles that hold new information regarding the allegations have been published today, one of them being This One. This article (and others of similar content) add; another accuser, as well as additional comments from previous staff / actors from the show (Hey Dad..!). The allegations have happened, whether nothing comes of them or hughes go to jail, it is still quite a big event in Hughes' biography. Parradudes (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - the article you mention just reiterates what A Current Affair claimed last night - there is no substantive new comments. Every reference in the article to these additional people refers back to ACA as the source. - Bilby (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It sadly appears that more and more many wikipedian readers are from a tabloid reading environment and that they want this wikipedia to reflect their environment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

no index
I have attempted to add a no index to the talk page this morning after find comments like why is there nothing in the article about the fact that this man is a pedophile, this no index has repeatedly been reverted by an IP who doesn't want the talkpage no indexed and suggests I need a mandate to add it' Off2riorob (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC) The page is already no indexed by default, because it uses the  banner: That template includes no indexing. If you enable "Show hidden categories" at Special:Preferences &gt; Appearance, you'll see any such biography talkpage has "Hidden categories: Noindexed pages" in the Categories list at the bottom. –Whitehorse1 15:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC) p.s. quick nifty tip I've picked up: viewing source on a template you can use find in your browser to check for a noincluded .Whitehorse1
 * You could let them remove it if they want to – their removal won't actually do anything. Your addition won't have any effect either. You should definitely, if you haven't already, remove the allegation from the talkpage in this case, and warn the IP about adding claims of committing serious criminal activity for which a subject hasn't been charged, onsite.
 * Thank you very much for that information, I did remove the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's one of those things I only knew myself out of luck, from prefs settings. Whitehorse1 17:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Harry Bloomfield
(copied from WP:EAR by User:Jezhotwells )

To whom it may concern,

Harry Bloomfield

In the past 2 years I have been using Wikipedia to refer people to see my wiki page.

My profile has been edited several time in a defamatory way and even erased completely in the past few weeks by a user named “Thebattlebgins”. This is possibly an act of criminal defamation of character in my biography placed in your prestigious application on the Web.

Please feel free to check the edit history on my profile to verify the various attacks by the user “Thebattlebegins”.

I kindly ask you therefore to reveal the user’s IP address to locate and stop him from further damage to my reputation as lawyer and business man. Is there a way to block or restrict posts to my page for a certain user who is not acting according to the standards of Wikipedia?

Thank you very much for looking into this urgent matter and I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Harry Bloomfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldbloom (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding replies from WP:EAR. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few points: First it is not "your profile", it is a biographical article in a an encyclopedia that anyone can edit (subject to certain rules). Second, obviously vandalism is inappropriate and we take it very seriously, particularly when it concerns biographes of living people and it is usually quickly reverted. Third, as the subject of the article, you should not be editing it except to remove obvious vandalism. If you have concerns about other content you should discuss such concerns on the article's talk page. Fourth, the article as it is now is, frankly, a mess and I have added maintenance tags accordingly. The layout needs fixing per WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOSBIO, but above all it needs multiple, cited, non-trivial references to reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject per the guidelines at WP:BIO. Hope all this helps. We are happy to help you with this, but conversely you have to understand that Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and its own ways of doing things. – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with hwat ukexpat says above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in Autobiography to support the claim that "as the subject of the article, you should not be editing it except to remove obvious vandalism". Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As always when attempting to precis a longer document, I omitted some nuances. Directly from WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) Be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. – ukexpat (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point Andy Mabbett is getting at is our WP:COI policy explicitly does not forbid people from editing articles concerning them, it is only strongly discouraged. This is a key point, because it means amongst other things that if people are editing an article on them but not doing anything bad then they can't be blocked, no matter how extensive their editing or in what areas. Also if a person's editing has no problems, it would be inappropriate to continually pursue them for editing the article on themselves. For these and other reason it's better to make it clear that editing an article concerning them is strongly discouraged rather then saying they should not do it, which seem to imply it's forbidden which is not supported by policy.
 * A look at Template:Uw-coi may be helpful on how to word such advice in the future.
 * People of course should be aware that if they are editing an article, for example removing sourced criticism which has due weight and expressed in an NPOV manner then this is indeed forbid, and while it doesn't matter who's doing it, it's very easy to do this and similar things when you have a strong bias towards the topic, as you would usually have for yourself. In other words, the fact that you are almost definitely not objective means you are a poor editor of an article concerning yourself. It's also worth remembering that while you may not be blocked, anyone editing an article on themselves may attract adverse attention from the media even if their edits were considered constructive.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Investigation reliable and notable?
A Russian celebrity gossip type show investigated Marina Orlova, by interviewing her, then checking up on her claims. For example she claimed to have graduated from one university, the show then went to that university and the staff had no record or memory of this person being there. This was broadcast on NTV (Russia) on 15th October 2009.

You can see a preview of it at Official network site, click 'Архив' then page 2, then click '«Супер Новые Русские»' to watch preview of episode at top of screen.

Or you can watch the entire thing on youtube - part 1 + part 2

NTV (Russia) is a major broadcaster, which broadcasts around the globe, which will have proper editorial controls in place to stop libel or false information from ever being broadcast. Yet User:Off2riorob keeps reverting these additions without saying specifically why it can't be added.

Now I've got people saying I'm going to be blocked if I keep trying to add it. What do I do now?--Sinistrial (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source issue on Tucker Max
The website, www.quotabletuckermax.com, is being used as a source on this BLP article three times (sources #37, #38 and #39), and is being used as conjecture on the talk page. I have already posted my doubts that this is an adequate source for BLP articles on the Reliable Source noticeboard, but the only person who commented there was the same person who has been using the website as a source for the article.

As the website is devoted entirely to holding Max up as a subject of mockery, it is my understanding of wikipedia policy that it shouldn't be discussed on the article talk page, let alone in the article itself. Seth Kellerman (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that site http://www.quotabletuckermax.com is not a reliable source for content in T Max's BLP. and that they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This one needs more eyes. User:Theserialcomma is revert warring to keep the unreliable source in the article. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plasmatics

 * - This article is not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's (band member's) privacy. At least two band members are explicitly named, followed by characteractizations that disparage the persons. The introduction, and sections of the article are sensationalistic in tone regarding the exploits, actions, and legal troubles of named band members, see:WP:BLP. The article is under- sourced. There are multiples of unsourced statements throughout the article, that amount to titillating claims about individual band member's lives.  Looking at the article's revision history I notice that some of the material has been challenged in the past, and a meager source, represenative of perhaps only one or two sentences would be added for remedy. The unsourced material is out of proportion to the unrepresenative references provided. It appears the editors are unaware of BLP policies, when I assume good faith. However, this article appears to have been written in an irresponsible manner, which is in conflict with BLP policies, see:WP:BLP. It does not fall under "Criticism and praise" see WP:BLP I am removing contentious material and adding a speedy delete tag. // Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After removing the sensational material, the rest of the article appears OK. However, it appears that most of the material is not cited or referenced. Two templates regarding this issue and POV have been affixed to the article for some time. I believe the removed contentious material should not be restored unless its tone can be monitored. I see the major issue with this article is the tendency toward titillation, along with insentive characterizations and statements. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was indeed a mess, and it is now rather less of a mess. However, your main bunch of changes (here) shows what seems to me a mixture of good changes and dubious ones. Some of what you cut hardly seems damaging; or if it's damaging, it's damaging to the halfwits who were (or pretended to be) so offended by the Plasmatics' antics and then beat them up. (Yes, it's mostly unsourced. But so is most of what you leav in.) You get SGML comment syntax wrong in places and do things resulting in other oddities. I suggest that you reexamine your changes and revise some of them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix the SGML. In regards to the other edits, I will let the Admin board here decide or the discussion that ensues decide. Technically, any material that is biographical and unsourced can be removed, and this is especially true with BLPs. So really if its not sourced it can be considered contentious. However, I just chose anything that might put the band members in a bad light, since appearently most of them are living. There is concern also for the people that are in their life - families and friends WP:BLP. Anyway, in this instance, I am just relying on what I consider to be disparaging information. Can it be more neutrally worded, etc., etc. ? Thanks for your input Hoary. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a punk band so there will be some rebel type content, it could use a music fan and a few more citations. I have not had a look at the removals but Steve's comments seem on the right track, although speedy delete request is a bit much, it has been removed, imo the article is worthwhile but needs improvement, they look more or less notable to me After a search any controversial content that appears uncitable can be moved to the talkpage for consideration or deletion, anything run of the mill can imo be left and tagged as requiring more citations and at least the job is started. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Holy shit - what a fucking mess. Try reading the article now.  There are many things that simply don't make sense because chunks of text were just deleted without regard to sentences that follow.  There wasn't that much contentious content.  The Plasmatics did use shotguns and chainsaws in concerts.  They did blow up cars both at shows and on TV.  Wendy did cover her nipples with electrical tape. How is any of that disparaging? Sean Echevarria (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So go find a citation and put it back. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean this to come over as rude as it does. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but this is frankly bizarre. Deleting material relating to a band's theatrical stageshow - which will be well known to anyone with a passing familiarity with the band in question - and then posting on the BLP board about it? Saying that they blew stuff up on stage or wielded chainsaws is neither a BLP violation in respect of the members who are still alive, nor even vaguely "controversial" - either in the sense that it is damaging to them or "disparaging" in any way whatsoever, or that it might possibly be untrue. Ideally yes, the information and the specifics involved should have sources. But we don't need to source every detail on every page, nor does broadly accurate and relevant content necessarily need to be deleted while we wait for those sources.  N-HH   talk / edits  21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does look a bit conflicted or involved, I wouldn't object to reverting back to the previous content if someone was going to work on it, the lead singer that most of the removed content was about has been dead ten years. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The very start of Allmusic's history of the Plasmatics says: "At a time (the late '70s and early '80s) and a place (the New York punk scene) where shocking the audience was often the order of the day, few bands had a greater gift for cultivating outrage than the Plasmatics. During the group's heyday, a Plasmatics show could include anything from lead singer Wendy O. Williams covered in shaving cream and electrical tape while brandishing a chain saw as blue-haired Richie Stotts attacked his guitar in drag, to the destruction of televisions, electric guitars, automobiles, and other consumer goods." To keep this out of the article on BLP grounds is, as the above poster states, truly bizarre.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall we revert it back and leave a comment to the removing account to discuss any issues they have on the article talkpage previous to removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, using "Holy S--- what a fg mess" - as the first excited expression as a response to this complaint pretty much expresses the tone of the removed material, and expresses how certain editors view how to write this article. I wrote above the major issue with this article is it has a tendency toward sensationlism, and tittilation, and in other words is unencyclopedic and lacks a nuetral point of view. Using "Holy S---" and "fg mess" are sensationalist remarks and this is also the editor who is "restoring" the article. In addition, there is the insentive characterizations and statements. Especially, Wendy's passing could have been handled with more tact. Just because this is an article about a punk rock band doesn't mean it is supposed to flout Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, there is the fact that there is a lot of biographical information in the article that is unsourced that does not include the contentious material. And finally, although Wendy has passed on she was part of a band who has members that are still living and her former behavior in the band reflects on them. I noted this in the revision history. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Steve but no one agrees with you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I was trying to add the following below, but apparently there was an edit conflict. Here it is anyway: The sensationalistic and tittlitating material is now being restored word for word (or almost word for word). Specifically, the editor who opens responses with "Holy S--- what a fg mess" has restored the following material. Here are the diffs:, , ,. This is all salacious material. The section title here:  and this section title  are designed for sensationalism and are salacious. The tone of these diffs are unecyclopedic and they lack a nuetral point of view. This flouts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can link specific policies and guidelines here if I need to. In any case, it won't be long before I reccomend this article for WP:Afd. The article is about a punk rock band, it is not the punk rock band itself. In other words it is a Wikipedia article. There should be a clear distinction. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve, you should take your issues to the talkpage for discussion, there was no support here for your removal of that content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct Off2riorob. I didn't see this before, but perhaps the best thing to do is get involved in the editing process of the article. Thanks for the tip. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another tip btw - you're probably better off steering clear of the GG Allin page, or at least covering your eyes if you come across it.  N-HH   talk / edits  12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean
There's currently some discussion about various issues with this article (which has been a frequent topic to this noticeboard). It already has a fair amount of attention so not that important for people here to intervene but thought I'd note it in case people are interested anyway Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Pillsbury
Someone just posted asking for some help with this politician/bureaucrat's bio to WP:3O, which is how I noticed it, but it seems to me that it probably requires some more attention than that. It appears to have been under dispute for some time, including possibly involving editing by the subject of the article itself. It needs some more eyes who are experienced with BLP issues than it'll get at 3O, I think. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran entry not significant for wikipedia
This aricle about Vijay Eswaran is not significant, it has to be deleted &#91;&#91;User talk:R.srinivaas &#93;&#93; (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article looks totally alright to me, he seems notable enough, it could use some internal links and the citations working on and expanding, if anyone wants a little job. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

✅

--&#91;&#91;User talk:R.srinivaas &#93;&#93; (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i have created an article Thorogood (but it was deleted) which according to me is more notable than Vijay Eswaran, on what basis you are saying he is notable (i do understand wikipedia has guideline for this ) just beacuse some has added some content and has referred links (those are from the website the person created for himself) does not make him notable, his company Qi Group is allgedly involved fraud in India , Srilanka, Nepal . ?
 * He looks notable enough to me, there are links to company and personal sites but there are also links to global independent publications, imo enough coverage to assert notability, if you feel this way still you could nominate the article for deletion and open a AfD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams, Jean McConville, Brendan Hughes and Ed Moloney
There has been a long standing agreement that Gerry Adams alleged IRA membership is covered briefly, since he has described claims he was in the IRA (specifically ones by Ed Moloney) as libelous and has never been convicted of the offence, and was in fact acquitted when tried for it in 1978. A great many things have been alleged about him by many sources, but the agreement still stands that we do not include a lengthy "rap sheet" of offences he has not even been charged with. Ed Moloney's new book includes the allegation that Gerry Adams planned the kidnapping and execution of informer Jean McConville. He has not been charged with this offence, he has not been convicted of the offence, it is an incredibly serious accusation by Ed Moloney. Gerry Adams has said that Moloney's claim he was even in the IRA is libelous, this is obviously way beyond that. This is not even a new accusation from Moloney, his earlier work that Adams described as libelous contains "Whether, as alleged by one well-informed source, or not the order was given by Adams, it is inconceivable that such an order would have been issues without his knowledge" about her kidnapping and execution, amongst several pages of detail about the incident. O Fenian (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have commented at the "Talk" for Gerry Adams how important it is that this discussion atracts new input and is not swarmed by existing editors with their known positions. However, it is important there be a second statement with arguments for inclusion of this matter.
 * Such a statement might start with this, a Google News Search now showing 184 news articles refering to, if not repeating the allegation. At this precise moment, that chapter opens with "'I'm suing Adams for the truth -- it is not about money' - Irish Independent - Sam Smyth - ‎4 hours ago‎ - Helen McKendry, daughter of Jean McConville, whose murder was allegedly ordered by Gerry Adams, according to a new book. ... ".
 * It might also be useful to note that there are two allegations about Adams and the IRA. In 2002, Moloneys book alleged the same as others have done, that Adams was in the IRA. This first allegation is in the article. For some reason, the second allegation made by Moloney in 2002 (involvement in the killing of McConville) has not been allowed into the article, and this is the point at issue. In 2002 Gerry Adams said he was consulting legal advice on whether either allegation was libellous. We have no information on what advice he received from his solicitors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that should be "alleged informer Jean McConville" in your paragraph above, O Fenian? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree
Please check this out. I think the list of arrested suspects is not quite in line with WP policy.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we add pictures or names of suspects usually, we definitely don't if they are children, anyone know of any previous similar situations? Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re pictures: The policy area dealing with photographs like this is WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.". None of the persons depicted are minors. The image description shows it's provided to the media by the U.S. Marshals Service, via AP (presumably Associated Press; generally a reliable source). The page history shows the picture, which is on Commons, has been renamed to make clear they are charged, not convicted. The photo appears within a section titled "Criminal investigation", which details the charges on which they were indicted by the U.S. Attorney. No disparity between the text and image nor placement of the image to falsely assert by implication is evident. –Whitehorse1 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Thorburn
- I need advice or intervention from more experienced wiki editors please; a user editing from various IPs (quite possibly the subject of the article) is reverting my edits, citing 'pending legal proceedings'. Have read WP:BLP but still unsure of the correct action to take. // Vl'hurg talk 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is not really very notable is he, I did a search, is this very minor incident reported in more that that Sun paper? Have the radio station announced anything about it? that they sacked him for this email? I have nominated the picture for deletion as it is to be found at other locations on the web and there is no evidence of permission. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not found anything from the radio station. I don't think there's much other coverage to be found other than the linked articles. I just get the feeling that someone is trying to introduce some bias by removing the negative aspects (which are relevant to the article in my opinion). Vl'hurg talk 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He is almost unworthy of a article, a minor local news scandal about a person of little actual notability, named and shamed on the globally published wikipedia is a bit much imo. Wikipedia should not be the main distributor of such content about people of minor notability, are there any more citations about him, or has this email thing more in any other publications, perhaps a major nationwide publication? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User:OrangeMike has inserted the content, blocked the IP for a week, citing no legal threats and semi protected the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Levi Bellfield

 * - Not sure what Wikipedia policy is as I know the page is hosted outside UK jurisdiction, but this page would be considered in contempt of court in the UK as it talks about Bellfield's prior offences while he is being prosecuted for other crimes; as demonstrated here British media cannot discuss his criminal history. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing we're not hosted in the U.K. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oliverio II --- campaign worker again removing accurate and sourced information
User Wilkerson_cl keeps removing accurate and sourced information from the Michael Oliverio II entry. CL Wilkerson is Curtis L. Wilkerson who is a known operative and employee for Oliverio's campaign. I have warned this user, and I am documenting these incidents on this page to alert others on Wikipedia. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See: "According to TSG's Web site, Wilkerson's success rate is more than 84 percent with his clients, including Sens. Truman Chafin, Mike Oliverio and Evan Jenkins." <http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/charleston-daily-mail/mi_8044/is_20060925/callaghan-manage-campaign/ai_n46272535/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilkerson_cl did it again! I request that his editing privileges be blocked for violating policy after having been warned. I have restored the deleted sections again. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have requested editor assistance (Editor_assistance/Requests) on how to resolve this conflict. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with Wikipedia
In March of 2010, the fact that this Wikipedia article had been edited by Oliverio campaign manager Curtis Wilkerson (who edited openly in his own name) was the subject of a report in the Charleston Daily Mail. An Oliverio spokesman argued that the material they had removed (about Oliverio being praised by President Bush, and about Oliverio's role in the ALEC), while admittedly true, gave a misleading impression of Oliverio's political history.
 * This isn't just accusations, this is an open admission of what they did. Since the Oliverio campaign guy has admitted that they were the ones doing the COI edits, would somebody take a look at whether the editor in question should be blocked for his history of COI edits? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean Wallace
The article on this person appears to be written by himself. My understanding is that this is not permitted. --SamanthaChambers1966 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Samantha. Welome to the site.

It is permitted, though it is discouraged. The reason for the preference others author them is that it's difficult to write about oneself dispassionately, free from bias. It is possible.

For a quick example of the issues involved you might like to read my somewhat scrappy comment at the bottom of this deletion debate. The subject is in a different professional field, but the same concern was at hand. There're a lot of jargon acronyms there for somebody new, though you should be able to get the gist.

Although the subject of this article created it, in 2006, he's only edited it 3 times and about a third of the brief article's content has been added by others. A main concern in such cases is the notability – in Wikipedia terms, of the subject. That broadly means sufficient independent reliable published sources that cover them in some depth exist, perhaps they've won notable awards, etc.

The references at the bottom of this article show this individual has won awards significant enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (even I've heard of one) and he's mentioned in the list of winners in the respective article on here (not added by himself!).

The article needs a little attention for such things as encyclopedic tone, and style, but is broadly fine. I'll try to do some work on it soon. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've built on your good work, tidying and expanding it a little. –Whitehorse1 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great job. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams
Can we have a neutral editor or two take a look at a recent issue on the above. A recent accusation that Adams was a member of the IRA has just become a news item. The general accusation is an old one and has always been denied. The new accusation is a report in a book. It needs some people who understand BLP policy who have no issue at stake in Troubles articles which are under arbcom restrictions. Thanks -- Snowded TALK  13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted something there on the article talk page (clarified). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The IRA allegations have come and gone for decades. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * it is also written quite neutrally and not really excessively written and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that there is another thread further up, and that the new allegation is that Adams was involved in the death of Jean McConville. This claim appears in a new book by Ed Moloney, who sources it to a posthumously-released interview with an IRA member who died in 2008.  The claim is questioned in part because the main witness is deceased and can't provide further corroboration.  There is substantial international press commentary on the book, enough that Wikipedia should include a summary of the issue, probably in the article about McConville rather than in Adams' biography.  McConville's daughter has a lawsuit pending against Adams, already mentioned in the McConville article.  If the lawsuit makes progress and attaches more attention directly to Adams, it may become appropriate to describe it in Adams' biography as well, but it appears still in an early stage.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree
Some editors have read or heard of the things this right wing "Christian militia" group is accused of plotting, and wish to state in they lede that "they are terrorists." There is an edit war over the terms to be used to describe them. Some references included to show that they are terrorists consist of some writer saying that the "main stream media" is not calling them terrorists, but the writer thinks they are. I suggest that they not be baldly labelled as terrorists, but if some government official or mainstream media says they are, the label should be attributed to that source, and not be included as a simple statement of fact. BLP should apply strongly to those accused of crimes who have not been tried. Some eyes on this article would be appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good to only use extremely strong citation there and take care not to assert anything, there is going to be a big trial. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the page should be fully or semi-protected so that language or categories achieve consensus on the talk page before being added. I have edited it so I hesitate to protect it. Edison (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Full support for that Edison, semi protected, excessive categorization with BLP issues, I can't see that anyone under the circumstances would have any objections. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim Ung-Yong
This guy was apparently a famous child prodigy in the 1960's who since then has been trying to keep out of the public eye. The article was vandalized a few days ago (without being fixed) and I just came across it by accident. It has a weird and long history of editing from IP addresses over a several year period. Almost all the content (though not obnoxious) was unsourced with source requests, and seemed weird enough that I deleted it all. Looking at some of the old history (July 2008) it was formerly sourced to a now-404'd German-language article on a Korean TV station website. There is a Wayback Machine snapshot of the article, which is a somewhat gossipy human-interest story but reasonably backs up some of the older and longer versions of the article, so I might restore some of it (the stuff removed is not exactly contentious, just a bit unusual). A bit more annoying, the guy has a fairly large number of Google hits, almost -all- of them apparently derived from the enwiki article. There are also a bunch of interwiki links to non-English wikipedias and the ones I can decipher any of seem to have about the same info. Even the Korean one has the same outgoing links (I can't read any of the words though). I wonder how many of enwiki's BLP problems propagate to other language wikis like this.

Given the frequent vandalism to this article, some watchlisting would be appropriate. On the other hand, a fair amount of the (extensive) IP editing is of reasonable quality, so semi-protection probably isn't called for. It could also be useful if a Korean speaker could look at the Korean sources and maybe find additional ones.

I have been looking into IP-address editing of BLP's in response to a request from Casliber; there actually doesn't seem to be that much in general, and this article is pretty unusual.

66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado & over-zealous patrolling by admin users who are taking matters personally
Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users [apologies for some of the heated argumnets, but the patroller Morenooso is provoking people beyond the limits]

Manual of Style for Bios, Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users

Please bear with me because this is very serious

PART I - Introduction

I seem to unwittingly have stepped on a minefield in a battle being waged by Wikipedia ‘patroller’ Morenooso against “Portuguese nationalists”. On 27 or 28 March 2010 on the Nelly Furtado page I added the word “Portuguese” to “Canadian” where it said she “is a Canadian singer-songwriter”, thus changing it to “she is a Portuguese-Canadian”. User Morenooso (More Noose?) reverted it and sent me a note about me using “different styles” which would make it difficult to read” – pure nonsense, by the way, as readability is one-thing and in-house style is another (I have ten years experience as a real life editor – radio, television and magazines). So, I tried to plough through Wikipedia pages on Style etc and read something about hyphenating nationalities. So I went back and changed it to “Canadian of Portuguese descent”

Guess what? Mr Rambo Morenooso came shooting within less than 15 minutes of my posting! And someone called Slim Virgin went and semi-protected the page in question. This is what “More Noose” left me: Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Nelly Furtado. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) · Advice - This article was put under semi-protection by an Admin because of nationalist edits like yours which can now be considered vandalistic. I'd recommend dropping the issue. --Morenooso (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC) What exactly the first note means, god only knows – why not spit it out? The second note “Warning” already alerted me to the fact that something was going on. So, I went to the page and saw that he had reversed my edit. That really got my blood boiling! So, I began looking into the matter. Oh, and by the way – the page is now “semi-protected”! to stop vandals! How can we stop the nooses such as ‘more nooso’?

PART II – attack against me

I demand a public apology from Morenooso for accusing me of vandalism and of “nationalist edits like yours”. It is at the same time a brilliant choice of words – so you are assuming that because I have a Portuguese name that I am Portuguese, making “nationalist edits”. So, if my Portuguese surname makes me Portuguese, does Furtado not make Nelly Portuguese? I am not using this as an argument for “Portuguese-Canadian”, but merely to illustrate your ridiculous accusation – and hoping that more sensible administrators will take corrective action.

For your information I am actually South African of Angolan parents – there are five independent African countries that speak Portuguese and where a significant portion of the population (possibly the majority) carry Portuguese surnames.

I am also fluent in a few languages, contribute to Wikipedia in at least 6 and can easily read another 10, in which, if I suspect something is wrong I can refer it to colleagues who speak that language to check. The colleagues I refer to are professional translators on a number of forums where we are in permanent contact to help each with translation issues.

PART III – historical record of tampering with this issue

Unbeknownst to me, this is an old war, which has been going on for ages, with Morenooso personally involved in it as far back as could (ab) use his powers! People have for years been adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado’s “Canadian” only to have it deleted by the likes of Morenooso and – according to the records, someone called Yamla before him. I ask you, is it not better to accommodate popular sentiments rather than have people who get cheap thrills out of imposing their authority overriding contributions on the grounds of some ill-defined rules? And don’t give me nonsense about rules, because I’ll get there. In the process, I’ve now taken the trouble to spend a lot of my time on this, so I expect the matter to be handled with the respect that it deserves – and not a cabal cover-up to protect Morenooso. . I could live with it if it was strict editorial policy. However, the Furtado case has – over the years - been argued back and forth. NOT – as you would have expected - on the grounds of editorial policy, but on all kinds of ad hoc rules nonsense such as seen in silly comments of the type “prove that she is Portuguese and I’ll allow it”. But fine. Let’s go with the rule that Morenoose most often trouts “mention of nationality in the opening paragraph”. However, this rule is not followed in other languages. So, Wikipedia must either re-invent centuries of editorial policies, codes and guidelines (as it appears to be doing) that will apply TO ALL LANGUAGES (after all, it is the Wikipedia Project), or, if that is not the aim and each language must determine its course, then it must accept existing language conventions and bow to centuries of English editorial style. And nowhere is there a rule about how to refer to nationality in the opening paragraph. In my time, I’ve proofed, subbed, edited, translated a few hundred thousand words. Now, about Mr Morenooso (‘more noose’ on freedom of expression? I’ve put ten years of my life into freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in Africa). Morenooso is extremely arrogant, leaving his print wherever he goes through with statements like “I repeat”; “have already said”; “I hate to be blunt but the rules are the rules”; “If you don't want to follow this rule, then I gently suggest you edit other articles or go elsewhere where you are permitted to break the rules”; “It is the country where the person is born. Period.” Period? That’s it? He is the law? That’s what it would appear if you read the complaints against him! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado And his comment to me personally “I’d recommend dropping the issue”. The latter actually implies that Morenooso thinks I know that there is an issue around this matter - in other words, he indirectly admits that this is just one more time that he is dealing with this matter, undoing one more edit. With millions of edits every hour, how was he able to go back to my second edit in a matter of minutes? Obviously this is a pet hate of his. Or does he do nothing else but monitor if anyone dares to change when he has ruled on a specific matter? Type Morenooso into Google and you will be happy/ aghast to see how many times the name comes up in connection with his abuse of power. Type [Morenooso] +[vandalism]; [Morenooso]+[abuse] etc to read the complaints against Wikipedia. But neither you or I should have to do that – merely look at his record on the Nelly Furtado discussion page. And before Morenooso, his ‘predecessor’, waging this war against referring to Nelly Furtado as “Portuguese-American”. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12061&mode=threaded Still on Google – and therefore out there embarrassing us, the Wikipedia community to the world - Morenooso has the following to say on his privileged user page: “chances are I put your talkpage on Watch” – what exactly does that mean? What kind of language is that to be using towards other contributors? Some of us are more than equal? But here is an interesting comment by Morenooso: “Wikipedia has rules. With every rule there is an exception. Unfortunately Furtado does not fall in the exception range – Morenooso. Ok. So what is the “exception range” and where do we mere mortals find out how to gauge whether we are within the range? Or would Morenooso prefer to keep it a secret for the initiated cabal?

PART IV – the folly of this administrator war

At any rate, it is sheer folly to try and provoke Portuguese speakers across the world for the sake of trying to impose a rule that as you can see from the examples below is not followed in probably thousands of cases (the one I listed below I gathered in a few minutes – imagine how there aren’t out there. The Wikipedia community is about knowledge not turf wars – so let’s try and not turn this into it with accusations of “nationalist edits”. What would become of Wikipedia if actions of users such as Morenooso attracted the attention of hackers out for vengeance? Would your Gestapo-style policing have been worth it?

There are also comments by these super-editors or patrollers about “Portuguese nationalists” repeatedly adding the word “Portuguese” to the opening paragraph.

I see reference in discussions between these Gestapo users about blocking Portuguese IPs and Ids to stop them from insisting on adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado. These cowboy rogue patrollers are doing a great disservice to the Wikipedia project and should be weeded out. Take the trouble to Google for instances of people complaining about “Wikipedia editors”. Yamla, Morenooso, http://manojranaweera.com/2007/01/08/wikipedia-sucks-no-it-doesnt

PART V – Lack of consistency in application of soc-called rules

Please look at the log under “Nationality as per Manual of Style for Bios- statement by government & dual birth certificate of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado ”I have reason to believe that Morenooso has a personal grievance to seeing Nelly Furtado being referred to as Portuguese – he reversed it once now it sees it as a personal affront every time someone adds the word Portuguese. He has demonstrated it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado by amassing a range of arguments for doing so, including ridiculing himself by claiming that adding Portuguese to Canadian “Portuguese-Canadian” makes it hard to read!

If the logic is that the person should be referred to by the nationality under which he or she gained fame, then why is Albert Einstein referred to as “Swiss-American”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein In fact, if the style rule is to make the text look tidy, then is “German-born Swiss-American” nor far worse than “Portuguese-Canadian”?

And what about the notability rule here? Einstein was famous long before moving to the US – in fact his move to the US was a consequence of his being famous!

The arguments by the super-editors for not citing Furtado as “Portuguese-Canadian” are ridiculous, one by know-it-all Morenooso himself with this latter day commandment: "Repeat: I do not think a statement by Furtado that she is Portuguese would be sufficient" by user Morenooso; another asking that proof be produced that Canada has accepted her dual citizenship”. How arrogant! Nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity!

What kind of inquisition is this? Is this being done with every one of the hundreds of thousands of people listed on Wikipedia as being A+B? I believe not. Because if it is, where is Einstein’s US birth certificate?

And so what, if members of the worldwide Portuguese community take pride in seeing Furtado as one of their own and want that fact made prominent? Are the Canadians complaining? Threatening to deport her is she goes live claiming to be Portuguese? Again, nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity! Who is Morenooso to want to impose his own vendetta against it?

Would it not serve the project better if people like Morenooso cared a bit more about knowledge and culture than on militarily imposing a rule that is flaunted in thousands of pages, for a personal sense of gratification? If Morenooso cared more about knowledge, he would know that Furtado was the official singer at the UEFA Euro 2004 held in Portugal, as the “Portuguese poster girl” for the cup. Her rendition of the Cup song (Força) has become a worldwide symbol of Portuguese identity. In fact, the Congress of Portuguese-Canadians has since then created the “Nelly Furtado ‘Força’ Award”. Imagine that – an award conferred by the Portuguese community in Canada named after none other than whom? A deservedly “Portuguese-Canadian”.

PART VI – the history

Nelly Furtado is mentioned in the article “Music of Portugal”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Portugal

Furtado began singing in Portuguese at community events of the Portuguese community in Canada, her officially first public appearance being singing at her mother’s side singing the Portuguese anthem on Portuguese National Day. How much more Portuguese than that do you want her to be? Do a DNA test?

It is a shame that Morenooso should spend so much time patrolling well-meaning contributions with a Gestapo mentality instead of making more fruitful contributions to the project.

For your information, Portuguese-Canadians are officially recognised as such in Canada, the Portuguese-Canadian community being held in high esteem in mutual respect, arising from when Canada invited and assisted Portuguese to immigrate into Canada (in what is called a sponsored immigration look it up) at a time when Portuguese were being repressed under the yoke of the Portuguese nationalist dictatorship. In 2003, Canada issued a series of stamps commemorating 50 years of the official Portuguese immigration.

Part VII – The Style Guide

Nothing is ever cast in stone – even constitutions get reviewed, changed amended etc. Happens to laws, decrees etc all the time. It is a logical process of civilisation – look at the pillars that uphold your values and revise them as and when necessary. And inept administrators get fired. In the past few days, instead addressing the issue, I seen people writing about making the rules less ambiguous, so as not to fave further challenges by those advocating for "Portuguese-Canadian". So the rule-makers are a power unto themselves?

There are numerous areas that dearly need improvement, so it is such a pity that members such as Morenooso choose to spend/ waste their time tilting at windmills.

Part VIII – a few examples of references to more than one nationality in the opening paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Fernandes_%28footballer%29 is a Portuguese-Canadian footballer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Fernandes Canadian singer of Portuguese and Italian descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Silveira What exactly is a Portuguese-Canadian family?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tavares_%28lacrosse%29 “and is of Portuguese descent”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Silva is a Canadian politician and is one of two MPs of Portuguese descent in the Canadian Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Almada Madeiran-born UK reality television star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Aguilar English novelist and writer on Jewish history and religion, was born in Hackney of Jewish parents of Portuguese descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_De_Forrest was a Portuguese-born American early silent film actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Barretto_Spinola was the first Portuguese American to be elected to the United States House of Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_%28musician%29 English soul and R&B singer-songwriter, of Nigerian background

Portuguese-Canadian National Congress http://www.congresso.ca/english/default.aspx

Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals http://www.fpcbp.com/

Part IX

I’ll monitoring all these pages now to see whether good sense prevails or whether the likes of Morenooso get their way and everything now gets changed to cover up for the inadequacies of people who should never have been entrusted with power – however little. --Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There's more than a bit of forum-shopping going on here. Short version of this controversy from my perspective: MOS:BIO discourages the use of ethnicity in the lead. Editors are claiming that Furtado has always been a dual citizen. If true, that would allow the use of "Portuguese-Canadian". However, no source has been presented that shows the Canadian government recognizes and respects any claim by Furtado to Portuguese citizenship. What has been presented is private analysis of Canadian and Portuguese citizenship laws, which comes under the blanket of WP:OR. This has led to a long-festering dispute. Unfortunately, it has become a shouting match. Morenooso has been making claims about the contents of MOS:BIO that do not stand up under examination, which has been inflaming the situation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP reference in Goatse.cx
The "Geographic Location" section of the above article has rightly been flagged as original research, but since it attributes responsibility for an internet shock site to a living person with no citation or support, it should surely be removed immediately. The article is currently under lockdown pending consensus on whether or not it should incorporate an image from the shock website (warning: it currently does). The ; but this is a different issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
 * It has been removed.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Tim Minchin
Inside tim Minchin's Wikipedia article, it is stated that he was born and raised in Northhampton, UK. I think that this fact is wrong as Tim states inside his DVD "So Live" that he was BORN and raised in Perth, Western Australia. Is there someone who is able to rectify this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorN57 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there's a controversy, ignore the rules and send him an email asking for clarification, and go with whatever he says. (added:) Actually the "proper" way to do this is ask Tim Minchin to pass the info through WP:OTRS. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The birth location is currently sourced to a twitter post which I presume is from Tim Minchin's verified account. This isn't the best source but it is a source and better then any e-mail to OTRS, so if there is dispute over this the better thing to do would be to remove the info entirely until a decent secondary source comes along Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, the issue is just that there's apparently video of him saying something different, so there's a discrepancy. In the past I'd have just emailed him and summarized his response on the talk page, rather than bothering with OTRS.  But I know we've gotten more strict about such things.  Removing the info is another ok approach, I guess (leave a note on the talk page about the removal and the reason for it). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous reverts
I received the following message on my discussion page: "Please do not add the honorific prefix to any of these wiki pages... I have gone through and revered most of your edits but it will take some time to undo the rest of them. If you could please re frame from doing this again it would be extremely helpful.--Triesault (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)"

User:Triesault has claimed that Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are not entitled to the honorific prefix "The honorable". Members of Congress do not require citation in order to be assigned the typical honorific. He/she has decided to revert many of the edits I have appropriately made to current Members of Congress. Regardless of their political party, they are entitled to this honorific. User:Triesault has decided to remove them from Members of the Democratic Party only. I request that User:Triesault be warned over this issue and be prevented from undoing all of my appropriate edits. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of the Manual of Style section on Honorifics? Specifically MOS:HONORIFIC -- &oelig; &trade; 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The IP has been blocked. Anyway I'm not that fimiliar with practice in this area but the guideline appears to support the IP's desire to add the honorific if it is true that Members of Congress are entilted to it (this appears to be the issue of dispute). In particular:
 * Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities ..... but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper
 * An example of "discussion in the article proper" would be listing the official, spoken, and posthumous styles for a pope within an infobox
 * However this appears to have started because the IP made mass undiscussed changes to the religion and the addition of the honorific when it was missing which is inappropriate; and then edit warred over it. Mass undiscussed changes of any sort are nearly always inappropriate even if supported by guidelines.
 * For the same reason I personally don't think it was a good idea for Triesault to remove the honorific from existing articles where it wasn't added by the IP without discussion but I don't believe he/she's selected only Democrats rather he/she only made the change in articles the IP had modified including ones where the honourific wasn't added by the IP. If there is a bias it must because of the IP's editing pattern. I'm not even sure there is a bias, this for example is a Republican.
 * In any case as I hinted at in the beginning the bigger issue is whether the honorific should be there which depends on whether the honorific is indeed something that is normal for MoC which isn't answered by the guideline.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect name for person: Crazy Legs Conti
Hey Wikipedia,

You have created a page under the name Jason Conti - please note that for twenty years I have been known as Crazy Legs Conti - my taxes, my ids, my mum all refer to me as Crazy Legs Conti. Your wikipedia page for Gene Simmons doesn't have the heading Chaim Witz. Also, Fee Waybill is not listed as John Waldo (I am much more of a Tubes fan than a Kiss fan). Whatever proof you need, please let me know, however if you can change Jason Conti to Crazy Legs Conti it would be much appreciated. I can be reached via email at Eat All You Can,

Crazy Legs

side note: If you were to publish Wikipedia how many volumes do you think it would be? Would door-to-door salesmen be involved? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.10.18 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Crazy Legs - I've requested the article be moved. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Article creator here, my apologies for the mistake--I messed that up. A move is right idea. You're awesome, Crazy Legs. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question
Hello

At the article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi", an user added the line

The Hungarian form Hunyadi János was already presented in the lead:

János (John) Hunyadi  (Hungarian: Hunyadi János, Romanian: Iancu (Ioan) de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko; Is that add really necessary? Isn't it redundant to specify that name twice? Thanks in advance for the answer(Umumu (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Addition does look pointy to me, The subject has been dead 600 years, suggest trying to engage the editor in discussion on the talkppage there, or perhaps ask the question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, this noticeboard is in relation to questions about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * May be related to dispute about place names of Hungarian-populated regions in Romania, that raged at ANI for a while earlier in the week. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Using an advocacy website to add a negative opinion to a BLP
I believe that blogs/advocacy websites are generally not considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia, with certain exceptions. In this case, someone added some pejorative information to a BLP using an advocacy website/blog as a source. There is, of course, more to the story. There is some dispute as to whether the site in question is truly a blog or more of a project, which may make a difference in the validity and relevance of its claims. Also, there appears to be a public feud ongoing between that site's owner and Corcoran, the subject of that BLP. I'm seeking an independent opinion but have also notified the editor who made the edit about this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with any outcome on this. Note that the staff at DeSmogBlog and Terence Corcoran are at loggerheads and have each made comments about the other over the years. Their mutual antipathy is a fact, and may bear documenting per wp:SPADE. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit adds little of value and the citation is  bit bloggish and clearly admitting opinionated against the subject, the content isn't really a BLP problem though a better citation is required the content is middle of the road really, king of the deniers, it seems a shame to remove the only citation presented to  a three year old stub, is he really well covered and notable?  Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Corcoran appears to be a regular columnist for one Canada's major newspapers, but otherwise I haven't searched around to see if there is much other information on him. I have no opinion on whether his article should be kept or not, just that if it is that it follows our BLP standards for information and sourcing. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SPS sources are not permitted for such material in a BLP. I have removed the claim. ATren (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this Corcoran person is not notable enough to warrant a page of his own, since you have now removed the only cite on the page. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be true, the prod tag you applied is probably appropriate in this case. ATren (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented on the notability issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Phillips (author)
Can some fresh eyes review the quality of sources used to make some pretty nasty claims about Bill Phillips (author)? One of the sources was from a web page whos directory lists it under "gossip" on a sketchy site. MM 207.69.137.15 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Better Days (webcomic)
- I've repeatedly removed accusations of "racism" from this article. It is my position that it is a horrible violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to label a living person (the artist of this webcomic) as a "racist" by using unreliable sources like the pseudonymous authors "The New Meat" and "El Santo" writing in the furry webcomic fan blogs "Crush! Yiff! Destroy!" and "The Webcomic Overlook". Pseudonymous authors of webcomic furry fan blogs do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so we should not let them call people "racist" on Wikipedia. However, disagrees with me and has repeatedly reverted my removal of these accusations. Sugar Bear's position is that "this is not a biography. This is an article about a comic strip." // Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really (imo) a big issue as regards BLP, small commentary about racist comic story and reviews considering author may also be.., article is under consideration at Article for deletion, more in regards to sourcing quality, here Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to call the author of the comic racist, and I don't think the reviewers are either, just that the portrayals could be construed as racist. But, considering that this is probably going to be deleted, the point seems to be moot. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Sugarbear is in error. BLP applies to living people in any article, whether biographies or not. Sharks is correct; such a label must be cited to a reliable source, preferably more than one, and/or one of considerable standing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivor: Samoa
What do we think of this? I've just taken out one contribution that I saw as a BLP violation (although not a terrible one). But this whole article reeks to me. It is unsourced plot summary, about real people, that mentions "lies", "vendettas" and "racist statements" among other things. If this material was about anyone other than reality TV contestants it would be totall unacceptable. I can't see the difference. We have no right to make negative commentary about the behaviour of people on reality TV unless its sourced to reliable secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Example:
 * "Upon returning from Tribal Council, Jaison talked to Mick about voting out Ben next because of the racist comments he made about Yasmin."
 * I would remove the excessive unexplained opinionated claims of racism and open a thread about it onr the talkpage for any discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This show has a history of focusing on race issues. In fact, there was an entire season focused on it, which caused some controversy.  See Survivor: Cook Islands.  I softened the language a bit. Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are issues here that need looking at, in the reality show that focused on race issues, the red camp said John Harrison was a racist, there is the issue, its a game show and subjects in the game show are playing themselves, there is a fudging on the border between the subjects own life and the game show and is is hard to seperate the two, it needs careful sourcing and commentary, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lord David West of Hollesley
The following is copied from WP:EAR –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A short time ago someone set up a page for Lord David West of Hollesley - someone who has had a noteworthy life as one of Britain's richest men, and most celebrated entrepreneurs. Taking an interest in his page we began to flesh out some of the details. (NB it has been noted wikipedia believes that the page seems like an advertisement more than an encyclopedic entry, and so a re-write is in progress).

It has saddend us to see that someone, who clearly has a grudge against David, has begun to put very one sided comments on this page accusing David of all kinds of unsubstantiated things. Although we have requested citations and corrected any misnomers, this person seems determined to put as many one sided comments on to the article as possible.

My real question is: Whilst there should obviously be balance, if the person is just trying to deface the page by making spurious allegations about 'sex tapes and dungeons', can we do anything about it. We've left the person's comments on the page so far and simply countered them, but is there anything we can do if this 'vandalism' continues.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response

Kind Regards

Jim Sherry

Chevalier121 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reported this and copied your comment to WP:BLPN, which is the right venue for this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the unsubstantiated contentious allegation at the end of the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tina Charles
Tina Charles biography, in the part Career says: "Charles' big break came in 1975, when Indian-British music composer and record producer Biddu, who had just enjoyed massive success worldwide WRITING the disco hit "Kung Fu Fighting" for Carl Douglas, produced the single "I Love to Love (But My Baby Loves to Dance)" for her." When we go to the Kung Fu Fighting entrance, we read that "Kung Fu Fighting" is a song WRITTEN ADN PERFORMED by Carl Douglas, and produced by Biddu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snbarza (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing material about reality TV contestants
FYI - discussion here about sourcing requirements for plot summaries of reality TV shows that involve living persons. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Carole Bayer Sager
It is stated in Sager's bio that she wrote "You've Got a Groovy Kind of Love" while she was still a student at the High School of Music and Art. The song was written in 1965 - Sager graduated from HS in 1961 (Her picture is in the 1961 yearbook). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.154.111 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell
- attempt to insert negative material based on a WP:PRIMARY source backed by a non-WP:RS blog source. An IP user, so far using and, has re-inserted the material at least four times, with myself and another editor trying to explain on the talk page why the material needs stronger sourcing than has been provided so far. I don't want to get caught in an edit war, I turn this matter over to you guys. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update – this issue is now moot. This solid, mainstream newspaper source —  — now covers the material in question, and the article is being updated to reflect that.   Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)