Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:23, 24 July 2012

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Anton Maegerle

Anton Maegerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear all, I come back to en:WP today because of the following: Anton Maegerle is a German journalist which is member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and is one of the experts about right-wing extremists in Germany. There is a right-wing campaign against him since many years with the aim to label him as "left-wing". In Germany Maegerle was able to reject those baseless allegations and e.g. one of the political magazines called FOCUS, who wrote that Maegerle is "left-wing" was defeated in a lawsuit. The magazine signed a cease and desists. Despites various won lawsuits against these allegations in Germany the German Misplaced Pages article was a target of the right-wing campaign. Because in de:WP they do not have any chance to label Maegerle as "left-wing", they have recently announced in de:WP to do that in en:WP. As you can see the article was changed recently in this way. What would you recommend?--♥ KarlV 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And as I can see, a single purpose account has made this edit last year.--♥ KarlV 13:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are correct that no one can legally call him left wing in Germany then I assume we shouldn't call him that here either. You could make the changes yourself if you are not COI. If they are reverted then admin that speaks German may have to look into it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - no one can legally call him left wing in Germany. I would not prefer to do the changes by myself, because of my history in en:WP. I am mainly working in de:WP and came the first time to en:WP because a political incident coming from de:WP to en:WP. Because I was inexperienced in en:WP (things are going another way) I got in serious conflicts with your en:WP policy. Because I do not want to come in any conflict in en:WP again, and also because I know that the changes will lead to major conflicts here, I sincerely would prefer that this issue would be handled on an administrative level. I wrote a documentation - unfortunately in German - about the serious abuse of de:WP in this special case here. Kind regards --♥ KarlV 07:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it while discussion ensues - We usually don't follow laws apart from Florida , although occasionally a sympathetic approach breaks out. - The article is a bit promotional of the subject and I was going to remove a bit of it , the usual , and he has worked for 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 - lists with links to front pages with no details about the subject to be found at all - and magazine articles and blog posts linked to as if notable reading etc - Youreallycan 07:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thank you very much, but there is still this edit with a citation from FOCUS 1996, which was not repeated by Jesse neither by FOCUS all the years after 1996 until today - with other words a suggestion which was unproven until today. Regards--♥ KarlV 07:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Somedrive by german IP address just removed that cited and attributed content -I replaced it a cited content attributed likethat needs more discussion and a degree of consensus for removal - thanks - Youreallycan 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw this. Anyway - do you think that addition of the whole story would bring more clearness on that issue?--♥ KarlV 07:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

KarlV is spreading lies here. FOCUS and Junge Freiheit had to sign a cease and desist for labelling Maegerle as “left-wing extremist” (Linksextremist), not “left-wing”. See the difference? There is nothing wrong with calling Maegerle “left-wing”, which he undoubtedly is. As for Eckhard Jesse's characterization of Maegerle as “left-wing extremist” (1996), no lawsuit followed this, though Jesse did not repeat this characterization either. Whether we should mention this - correctly attributed - in the article, is a matter of consensus here.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, "left wing" is not an illegal term in Germany nor in the EU in general. The claim that it is illegal to use the term is errant, and likely aimed at conflating any reasonable proper editing on this English Misplaced Pages, bound by US law in any case. I would suggest that a member of an avowed "centre-left" party is not really in a position to object to the term, as long as a reliable source uses the term, and is properly cited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In the German article we had a long dispute about exactly this citation. Jesse, who was labelled as belonging to the New Right by e.g. Lars Rensmann in a scientific paper, made his statement 1996 (!) not in a scientific paper, but in a half sentence of an opinion/comment article in a political magazine FOCUS. After the political campaign to label Anton Maegerle as a "left-wing-extremist" failed in 2008 because of the lawsuits, protagonists tried to bring the allegations again via the citation of Jesse from 1996. The disputes on German Misplaced Pages about the Jesse-citation leads to the following decision: the citation of Jesse 1996 is irrelevant because he did not repeat this all the years after and since 2008 and after the various lawsuits in Germany nobody can legally name Maegerle a "left-wing-extremist". In fact, the citation of Jesse in de:WP was rejected because of its irrelevance (e.g. due to the fact that his statement was not adapted in any reliable paper after 1996. Apart of that, please read also this. Regards--♥ KarlV 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. How is the procedure? Is that issue resolved or will this keep a source for future conflicts in this article (see also here)?--♥ KarlV 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello - I have seen that some threads have a "resolved-buttom" - some not. How is the procedure?--♥ KarlV 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oktay Sinanoğlu

Oktay Sinanoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd really appreciate someone else helping me look through this entire article. The entire article seems to be constructed of synthesis trying to point out inconsistencies between Sinanoğlu's self-published statements and what other reliable sources say. The entire thing seems like a hatchet job. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing some trimming now. Much of the article is based on this; an autobiography selfpublished on a Turkish website which looks rather like Scribd. bobrayner (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We also have Flickr used as a source; somebody's scanned/screencapped docs about Sinanoğlu are collected together in a Flickr photostream. I have doubts about the authenticity of one of the images. bobrayner (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also: There seem to be at least three different SPAs at work, judging by the page history... bobrayner (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I cleaned out a load of content which relied on synthesis, nonexistent sources, and most of all selfpublished sources; but Fightingagainstlies (talk · contribs) is just hammering the revert button to return to their preferred version. Oh well... I'm going to step away from the article for a bit. Anybody else got any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've reduced to a stub, protected the article against a revert war where the three-revert limit was already exceeded within a span of just over 20 minutes by the person reintroducing badly-written biographical content, and requested an immediate explanation at User talk:Fightingagainstlies#Revert warring. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• If any other editor wishes to work up a proper reliably and independently sourced stub, better than the one sentence that's there now, please do so on the talk page. If you manage to get together three or more paragraphs of properly written good content, let me know and I'll transfer it to the article. Uncle G (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, the version that I cut it down to (considerably longer than Uncle G's version but half the length of Fightingagainstlies' preferred version) would not be a good basis for future improvements because I didn't yet fix all the issues, which run quite deep. Probably better if somebody starts it from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• It appears that DGG is willing to start from scratch. See User talk:DGG#An academic for more. Uncle G (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Up Series

Up Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

References to Michael Apted's interview at the NFT have been deleted as contentious, despite verbatim reports being widely available. Until recently the transcript was available on the BFI/NFT website itself.

The references are reports of what Apted himself said, so it is not clear why this conflicts with policy on BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 16, 2012‎

As the admin who removed the contentious info based on an OTRS complaint, the purported interview statement I removed was being presented as a fact as opposed to an allegation. There was also a sentence that followed ("suggesting that his threat") which added additional supposition based on the original unsupported content.--Jezebel'sPonyo 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an OTRS complaint?Tomintoul (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Jezebel'sPonyo 22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The clash between Charles and Apted is reported both in the Radio Times and the Daily Telegraph.

www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-14/56-up-michael-apted-on-the-documentary-series-thats-spanned-five-decades

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9269805/Seven-Up-A-tale-of-two-Englands-that-shamefully-still-exist.html

I would be grateful for other editors' views on restoring the deletion by Ponyo. Many thanks.Tomintoul (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources, the crux of the BLP issue is that Apted contends one thing and another party denies it. Apted's allegation of a threatened lawsuit could possibly be included along with solid sourcing, but his assertion that there was a lawsuit threatened cannot be presented as fact when it's contentious and denied. You also cannot add the second paragraph as it consists of conjecture (you can see this in the use of words such as "suggesting" and "it is not clear why"). If the material is to be included at all it should be a single sentence noting that Apted alleges that Charles threatened to sue and it needs to be solidly supported by the best sources available.Jezebel'sPonyo 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the denials?Tomintoul (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo, as no other comments have been received are you happy for me to reinstate the material modified in line with your suggestion? I cannot find any public denials, so presumably the denial was from the subject on your OTRS complaint. Is that correct?Tomintoul (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS correspondence is private, I cannot provide any specific details outside of the general concerns I've already noted (and it does not change the validity of the BLP concerns). With regard to restoring the info, please wait to see if there will be additional comments here. If after a week of posting there is no input from others then we can look at the wording - with BLP concerns its best to get it right as opposed to rushing to restore disputed content.Jezebel'sPonyo 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for you advice. We will revisit next week.Tomintoul (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Phillips (guitarist)

I need some help on this article--see the history. An editor (also an IP) has added and keeps restoring totally unacceptable and unverified information--BLP trivia, unsourced stuff, poor writing, even a call for a job. Some people think that MySpace and Facebook are just fine as sources, apparently. Anyway, they've reverted me plenty already and I could report them for edit-warring I guess, but I don't really want to go there. I'm at 3R; besides, it's probably a good thing if they hear it from someone else. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User reverted and issued a final warning; article added to my Watchlist. GiantSnowman 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Said user blocked for edit warring and repeated addition of unsourced info on a BLP. GiantSnowman 14:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard Machowicz

Richard Machowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated malicious, libelous, and defamatory personal attacks on the wiki Richard Machowicz page. Please place stricter standards onto the page so that it can not be edited without a Wiki Administrator's approval. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmmamiller (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems the opposition to this is a WP:SPA. If referencing the radio show is inadequate, please notate that on the talk page and fulfill the discussion requirements. As of yet the WP:SPA has demanded that page be "Please restrict edits to individuals who have at least set up Wiki accounts" even though the information was added by User:DocumentMack, a wikipedia username account. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of eyes on topic, I have created a discussion for this here. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Simply citing a show name and date might otherwise be okay, but for such extremely libelous statements in a BLP, Misplaced Pages requires more... specially as the provided show name and date or the host name and key words DO NOT provide ANY reliable sources reporting on this.] Contoversial or potentially damaging information in a BLP must be attributable to a source readers can verify. If it cannot be, it IS TO BE REMOVED. See the lede at WP:BLP. This is POLICY. Schmidt, 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone blank this edit summary? . Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, plus a subsequent edit summary. I also left the editor a note. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked up the demographics. The edit summary was accurate in regard to the SEALs lack of diversity and I would encourage you to revert your action. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to offer your sources for consideration, but please understand that while the racial demographics might well be correct, their possibly being accurate about the lack of diversity in SEALs does not cite a statement allegedly made by Machowicz. For example, when Michael Richards made his ill-conceived faux paus in front of an audience much smaller than that purported to have been listening to Machowicz's show, the Richards incident made headlines... covered in multiple reliable sources. So if made, why did none of Machowicz's media competition pick up on and speak about the asserted statement being atributed to Machowicz as slamming the competition would be to their distinct advantage. Any such attribution, specially if contentious, requires firm verifiability. This is why we have policy dealing with potentially harmful statements in a BLP. Schmidt, 22:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole LeFavour

Nicole LeFavour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Most of article isn't neutral and isn't verifiable. It really seems like the subject (or someone very close to her) wrote the thing. Her award citations aren't listed, and she's not listed on her Facebook or campaign page as married, yet the article says she is. Her job listing on Misplaced Pages and on her website says she hasn't worked as an educator in recent years, yet under "personal details" it lists her profession as a public school teacher. You get the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangeyou (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I added an image?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been the most recent editor, but my focus was on standardizing the infobox, presentation, and re-sourcing self-published or unreliable sources to reliable sources; while I agree the article needs work, I don't expect to get back to it until I've finished creating the missing articles for the remaining Representatives, checked those that had existed previously, and checked the male Senator articles that had existed before I created the three that were missing. No problem if others get there first. Dru of Id (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Jenni Hogan

Jenni Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This Biographical article seems to be self written and promoting. It also seems to excessively promote KIRO-tv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.4.64 (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jenni Hogan as a fluff piece. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Joan Alderson-Rosazza

Philipmj24 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)The article "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" must be deleted. There was confusion when creating her page. Initially, it was thought that individual was one person. However, There is a "Jody Alderson" and a "Joan Rosazza". I moved "Joan Alderson-Rosazza" to "Jody Alderson". But "Joan Rosazza" is redirecting to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". "Joan Rosazza" must be an entirely new page (or blank page at the moment), as it is a different person, and not be redirected to "Joan Alderson-Rosazza". Your help will be appreciated. Thank you.

Place this template on the page with the rationale for deletion in the appropriate space.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

How? Philipmj24 (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

To make it simpler, place this - {{db|reason}} - on the page, with explanation where it says "reason".--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I see you've already figured it out.--JayJasper (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Marie Josee Drouin

Marie-Josée Drouin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marie Josée Drouin is her maiden name, and she has not been named as such for a long time. The title of the article should be "Marie Josée Kravis" like it appears throughout the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsayphillips90 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whale Wars

I'm having an issue with an editor who keeps removing content from Whale Wars, an article about a television program. In the "Cast" section is a table identifying cast members and their role in the program. Paul Watson is listed as "Captain of the Steve Irwin and "Admiral" of the fleet". The editor removing this content claims that this is a BLP and WP:V issue as Watson is not a licensed captain. To put this in some perspective, the MY Steve Irwin is registered as a pleasure craft and therefore apparently does not require a licensed captain. The table lists people according to their role in a television program, which does not necessarily match their qualifications away from the program. Most crew-members have qualifications that have nothing to do with their role on the TV program. Watson is often referred to as captain in reliable, third party publications, so I don't see how there is a BLP issue here. The verifiability matter is a different issue. However, Watson is often referred to in the program as both "Captain" and "Admiral of the fleet". In fact, the opening narrative of every episode of the program includes a reference to "Captain Paul Watson". Interestingly, the only reference in Paul Watson "confirming" his non-captaincy is a November 2007 article from the New Yorker, which is obviously out of date today. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. The common usage of wikt:captain is "The person lawfully in command of a ship or other vessel." It is not a BLP violation to use the standard form of words. Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The common usage of "captain" and "admiral" means someone who is control of a ship or a fleet of ships. There is no reference in the article given that indicate Paul Watson has been at the helm of an individual vessel or in command of a fleet of vessels. The article doesn't verify Watson's claim to that title.

The common usage applied to the commercial fleet which Watson ostensibly operates is that of a licensed posistion. Watson is a Canadian citizen (as far as I can tell) so the Canadian Coast Guard would have record of his license. Without the credentials, the claim that Watson is a "captain" or "admiral" because he played one in his reality telvision series is as good as claiming that Paris Hilton is a farmer since she tried to examine a cow in her own reality series.

Watson claims to be a "captain" of a 1000-ton vessel with a dozen or so souls aboard, and this is a serious and weighty role. Watson has no credentials to the role -- one requiring a license in any country with a Coast Guard service, including his home state of Canada.

Since he has no claim to the title in its context, the claim should not be reflected in Misplaced Pages since it simply isn't factual. The replacement of the claim reflects bias to his agenda, since the only substantiation of Watson's claim to that tile are Watson's own assertions.

--Mikeblas (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Several episodes of Whale Wars have shown Watson at the helm of the Steve Irwin. One such case was on February 6, 2009 and is documented in season 2, episode 11 of Whale Wars. Watson is shown at the helm, giving orders multiple times in the episode. Remember though, being in command doesn't mandate being at the helm. The opening narrative of every episode (using Animal Planet's narrator) mentions "Captain Paul Watson" and the series shows him to be in command of of up to three vessels at a time; the MY Steve Irwin, MY Ady Gil (replaced by the MV Gojira/MV Brigitte Bardot) and MV Bob Barker. And again, this is his role in the TV show. Nowhere in the table is it claimed to be his role outside the series. And really, if you're going to raise verifiability issues, the source that you added here is from November 2007, 12 months before Whale Wars first aired. You really need a current reference to claim that Watson "has" no license. At best the source can be used to support "had no license in November 2007". --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He may actually hold a captain's license. I don't think they expire and are hard to revoke like a journeyman ticket. See Sea Shepherd I--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was also captain of this one:Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Society_operations#Cooperation_with_Costa_Rica_.282002.29--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirk Broadfoot

Kirk Broadfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be a gross misunderstanding over how WP:NPF is applied, specifically when it comes to off-field incidents involving a footballer. On three occasions, Jmorrison230582 (talk · contribs) has reverted this edit. The user has left the following edit summary:

He isn't a well known public figure and isn't relevant to his notability as a footballer

I found this to be rather incredible, since as a regular player for one of the two best known football clubs in Scotland, a Scotland international and with more than two hundred appearances in the Scottish Premier League, he is very much a "well known public figure". And as football is quite popular in Scotland, their off-field activities, especially crimes and court cases, are of public concern. And the incidents in question were extensibly covered by the Scottish press.

I'm having trouble understanding how WP:NPF could be applied under any interpretation of the policy. --Mosmof (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPF talks about people who are relatively unknown. Broadfoot may be reasonably well known in Scotland, and even then, probably only amongst football fans. Outside of Scotland, hardly anyone will know who he is. Therefore he is "not generally well known", as per the guideline. It's not as if he is a politician (or a public figure of that nature) and therefore incidents in his personal life are of significance. The two incidents mentioned did not affect his football career, which is why he has an article at all. With some individuals there is a danger of articles having very little content about their life and career and being half filled with one unsavoury incident, which is undue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Being reasonably well known in Scotland among football fans means he's well known. Scottish people are people too - there's noting in the guideline about being well known outside of Scotland. As a professional footballer and a Scotland international, he is a public figure. And "unsavoury incident" involving professional footballers are matters of public discourse (and well covered by the media!). --Mosmof (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And since when do we not mention arrests that don't lead to conviction, as suggested here? --Mosmof (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how either incident is relevant to his notability, as football player. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They're relevant to his notability as a public person. He is a public person as a professional footballer. While footballers are generally known for their on-field exploits, people are also interested in their off-field activities as well. Which is why the two incidents in question were well covered by the press. --Mosmof (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not notable as a "public person", he's a (pretty average) professional footballer. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, I think we have a fundamental disagreement over what it means to be a public person. You seem to be conflating "public person" and "public figure" with "public employee". A "public person" in the most straightforward sense of the phrase is someone who is the subject of public curiosity and discussion. As someone who conducts his profession in public and whose job performance is scrutinized by the media, and as someone whose arrests appear in the news, Broadfoot fits the definition of a "public person" very squarely. Mosmof (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic in reporting on what appears at most to have been a minor scuffle. Broadfoot was cleared of the charges, and it would be undue weight to include this in a short biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fair for the more recent incident, but does your comment cover te 2003 conviction as well? Mosmof (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly - and it was 2004. Frankly, 'footballer involved in scuffle' isn't news. And neither come to that is 'Scotsmen involved in scuffle - drink involved'. And before you ask, I am partly Scottish myself ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Category policy

Do BLPs remain in Category:Prisoners and detainees and its sub-cats after they are paroled?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless otherwise specified or unless obvious from the name of the category, categories apply both currently and retrospectively. Thus, if someone is categorized as an actor, it doesn't matter if they no longer act. This particular category is problematic because of the BLP implications. The issue was raised on the category Talk page in 2009, but it was not resolved (there's a pointer to a discussion for a particular person). I think the question merits further discussion. My view is that if the category is appropriate to use in an article, it doesn't matter whether it's current or past. In other words, if the article is about a criminal, then even once they are released, the category can remain. OTOH, if the article is about an actor who was jailed for a week for DUI, the category shouldn't be used at all. But that's just my off-the-cuff opinion, and a broader discussion could hopefully flesh out the issues. Unless you have someone specific in mind, this discussion probably belongs on the category Talk page or on the BLP Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I did have a BLP in mind. I just noticed that they were released and still in the cat. I am not concerned about removing it to avoid the Streisand effect. If others wish to bring up the unresolved discussion then that is up to them. I suppose it should happen in the highest level category as it has 100's of subs. I will resolve this section for now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malcolm Gladwell, pop science (etc) writer and sometimes alleged corporate shill, has appeared here before (example). Waggish SPA Dontletthemwin (whose realization that the first syllable of "Hoary" has another meaning is often repeated, and is most perceptive and utterly hilarious), brand new SPA Javierachile and various IPs are very keen on the "corporate shill" angle. I've no particular beef about that, but they do base their charges on ho-hum sources, and alleged shilling by Gladwell now amounts to a lot of the article. Broadly interested Sunray and SPA Jacobesau have been removing this material. Two recent contributions by this special-purpose IP have particularly interesting edit summaries:

1. Hoary, read the correspondence Gladwell initiated with the author of the SHAME report. He didn't claim libel, just tried to massage the truth. Like you.
2. Twisting the knife in PR scum.

I love to be accused of malpractice, stupidity, etc: if the accusations are funny enough, I add them to the list near the top of my user page. But "massager of the truth" is pretty feeble stuff. If only I'd been accused of being "PR scum" too! That certainly would have gone on the list. But no, a look at the edit shows that the (alleged) "PR scum" is not me but instead Gladwell.

Now, if I see a BLP (or anyway a BLP of somebody other than a mass-murderer) being edited by some IP-hopper who calls the biographee "scum", I'm inclined to undo the damage and to s-protect. But in this case doing so might look like sour grapes or a mere tantrum. (Certainly the IP is obsessed with me: he looks at Sunray's edits, and takes them to be mine.) So I warmly invite an uninvolved admin to consider (i) s-protecting the article for at least one month and perhaps also (ii) threatening to crack a few heads. (Mine?)

There's some additional background material here (a WP:RS/N archive). -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two areas of controversy in the article, the first about the prices he charges for speechs, and the second about his corporate conflicts. The first area, which is in the Career section, has problems, not the least of which in my mind is how relevant all of this information is. That aside, the overall tone is non-neutral. Rather than reporting facts, it characterizes the facts in a POV way. In addition, it leaves out balance. For example, the quote about 30 speeches and thousands of dollars, leaves out that the source also said he sometimes gives speeches for nothing (comes right after the quote in our article). The Washington Post thing is really silly. It's a good source, but all our article does is note the headline - misleading and not very helpful.

The conflict material is worse. The Exiled source should be out. The sinister reference to an internal Philip Morris document is unsupported - the cited source is just the Washington Post article, no internal anything. The sentence after that is unsourced. The BofA stuff is repeated (already in the first part). Again, more importantly, the overall tone is wrong. It smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS and general editorializing.

Not sure what to do with the mess. I suppose semi-protecting it would help so that non-neutral editors can clean it up. It would certainly remove the IPs, but I haven't been able to sort out all the new accounts (are they related perhaps?), but, for example, I believe Dontletthemwin is auto-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There are/were some blatant violations of WP:BLP in this article, IMO. In the past two weeks I have twice removed a text-book example of original research , . The editor who is adding this material is writing from a particular POV and is using Gladwell's own writing and a couple of unreliable sources to draw conclusions about Gladwell's speaking engagements.

I agree with Bbb23 about the use of The Exiled as a source. While the authors of this blog-type website are ex-journalists, the publication is not peer-reviewed and doesn't meet the tests of WP:IRS and WP:VER. The article on Gladwell in Exiled does not use reliable sources itself and draws conclusions that do not stand up to analysis

I commend Hoary's valiant attempt to reason with the POV-pushing editor in question on the article talk page and to bring the discussion here. I certainly agree that semi-protection is warranted, along with warnings and blocks to any editor who perpetrates the BLP violations. There is a fair amount of criticism in the article as it stands. We need to ensure that this is properly balanced. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noted your removals and am waiting to see what, if anything, happens next. That will affect any decision I make (another admin may feel differently) about semi-protection. If you have a moment, you might also want to address the "high price" speaking engagement material. It, too, is problematic as I commented above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the paragraph on "high priced" speaking engagements. The language used in our article did seem indicative of a particular POV as the sources simply raised questions about the optics of the Bank of America's publicity for their three engagements featuring Gladwell. Two of the sources reported Gladwell's response, so I've added that as a quote. Hopefully it is now more neutral in tone. Agreed that the response to these edits bears watching. BTW, I've added warnings about violations of WP:NOR for Javierachile and 50.47.103.17. Sunray (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that paragraph may give undue weight to the whole Bank of America issue, which seems pretty unexceptional once the anti-corporate spin is removed. Sunray (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident, the entry has been locked-down by the web's equivalent of Small Claims Court bailiffs. (Again, it is noteworthy that the standard applied to other criticisms on Gladwell's page, which are matters of opinion, are a joke. Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia?) The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. If the wealthy, world-famous Gladwell and/or his lawyers have read the SHAME report and not found it actionable, then it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Laura Chinchilla

Laura Chinchilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You have her as married to Ricky Martin (with a link), and claiming that the current president of Costa Rica has a son by the Puerto Rican pop star. I'm not quite sure how to change it, so I'm leaving it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.139.96.174 (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

All vandalism and removed, thanks for bringing it to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Murdock

Mike Murdock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many defamatory statements being made on this individual and there are no sources for this information regarding his personal life. Misplaced Pages is a fact based informational source only.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.148.10 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not protected. You could remove the unsourced statements youself. You may wish to read WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:POV in case those may apply to you and other editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Charlene Strong

Charlene Strong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This living biography created a section about a business that Ms. Strong is a founding partner which violates the neutrality of wiki- as well as serves as and advertisement of her new business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mswompa (talk • contribs) 02:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a first pass over the article and most of the overtly promotional content and tone should be gone. still needs a lot of TLC and third party sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharvanand

Sharwanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Movie name: Naalai Namadhe is redirecting to wrong page. Unable to edit the same.

I've removed those links on the Sharvanand article, but is there a correct destination for the links? In the Misplaced Pages search, I only found the 1975 movie, nothing else. -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mark Howland

• Mark A. Howland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Misplaced Pages has an inflammatory and inaccurate page on me. It does not accurately reflect my 35+ year career as an environmental consultant nor accolades I have earned. It inaccurately report much content about the one lawsuit I had in 34 years of business and titles me a State Rep which was a period of 2 years of my life and not the 35+ I have been as an environmental consultant. The case never went to court, was settled out of court and is inaccurately protrayed in a libel and slander format which has hurt my career and life.

Please contact me with regard to this matter.

Mark Howland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.108.29 (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The material you removed was reliably sourced. The information you added was not sourced at all. Site policies and guidelines, such as WP:CITE, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Neutral point of view, would say that the version prior to your edits was what Misplaced Pages accepts. Those same policies and guidelines, plus WP:NOTCENSORED, would say that your edits were unacceptable.

Also, are you calling the article is proper libel? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to contact someone about your issues with the article, you can try this contact help page. Jonathanfu (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this person meets our notability standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Checking the scope of the article's sources, I'm inclined to agree. Misplaced Pages is a worldwide encyclopedia, not a Massachusetts-focused encyclopedia. While I won't stand to see the article censored, I am fine with it being nominated for deletion for lack of notability (though I will not nominate it myself or participate in the discussions beyond countering any further inappropriate actions by Mr. Howland). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

State legislators are covered in the primary clause of Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Politicians and are considered de facto notable; we do not have set guidelines for environmental consultants, which would default to the Misplaced Pages:Notability#General notability guideline. Dru of Id (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a source verifying Mr. Howland's claim that the case was settled out of court. I removed the wiki-text from 2007 implying that the case was (still) in legal limbo before some judge or other; I replaced with a summary of the terms of the out-of-court settlement.

I certainly don't see any "libel" or "slander," even in the previous version. It sounds like a more measured interpretation of Mr. Howland's post here would be that the inclusion of the windmill controversy represents undue weight in his biography. I disagree, however. These accusations came from the state attorney general's office, not from an opposition blog or activist organization. Furthermore, the report of the settlement includes significant concessions from Howland -- namely, $400,000+ in reparations, and a permanent prohibition for Howland from any further alternative-energy-related business. Unless these settlement terms have been changed or abandoned, it sounds like this incident was a significant controversy involving a public figure, and thus should be included.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

while there was a settlement agreement, there appears to have been issues with the completion of the terms -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There was a legal decision. I removed the paywall source but found 2 others although one is behind a highbeam paywall. Some wikipedians have a free account there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

• Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about recent edits to this article, by User:Meduban. As I note on the talk page (this section), there's now a lot of WP:OR and editor commentary in the article section in question (parents' immigration history). (There are also problems of waiting for consensus -- he is repeating the edit despite being reverted by multiple editors.) Meduban has gone to NPOVN, but I fear his post there is so long that no-one will read/respond. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question are to a single section of the article, corrected after I read the original short version, and (i) compared it to the cited Washington Post (WP) article, and (ii) after I read a description of the Senator's wife, simply as a former cheerleader. In it's brevity, it appeared to leave the reader hanging, with an incomplete, and somewhat negative perspective on these matters. This conclusion was reinforced when it was discovered that WP article contents that were seemingly negative were included, but that the response of the Senator's office that was exculpatory was omitted carte blanche from the short article version Nomo... is arguing to maintain.

Here, following, is the entry I wrote to bring this to the attention of the NPOVN, which was registered because there was no action given by Nomo... to actually engaging proposed content changes. Response was simply to revert.

Hence, I disagree with Nomo...'s representation of the matter, stated above: My sense/understanding is that this is a single editor v. editor issue: Nomo... seems to be the only one with issue as to content: (There is another editor that seems to be concerned regarding process, Rrius.) Note, both were informed of the NPOVN submission, to allow for a full and complete exchange there.

The question now, is, how should the article remain, until this content matter is adjudicated.

Nomo... has repeatedly declined to engage the proposed content addition in any rigorous or systematic way; rather, the solution has been to revert to the shorter, less content-filled, less-citation rich, shorter version.

I am now stating flatly, in response to the resistance to what strikes me as simple, academic, fair changes to the text aimed at making it more citation- and fact-based, that this is a case of bias with regard to the original short version.

If a course is to be taken, then, this **short version section should not remain in place** while this is being adjudicated. The section should be removed on the whole, until the matter is resolved. This is how the matter is handled in science areas, when the factual basis of a section is called into question; there is never any issue of leaving a section in place if factual accuracy is questioned. Alternatively, the long version can be left in place, and edited down as substantive challenges to its factual content are agreed upon. Either is fine by me.

Regardless, given the time and care that I, as a faculty member, have given to this matter, I believe onus should be on Nomo... and any others beholden to the original short content, to respond to the specific comment-focused comments contained in the NPOV entry below. I.e., why is it better to leave in a wrong name for the Senator's wife, a limited description of her occupational background, and the claims of the WP article on one side of the issue but not the Senator's reply to WP claims **that appear in the same WP article**? And why should the point not be made that the Rubio web pages have indeed changed since the original WP report, and are now more carefully written, and that the passport evidence is consistent between WP and Rubio accounts, and that current Rubio pages at the WP are noncontroversial? Why should these facts of the case not all be set before readers, to make their own decision, rather than the omitting more than half, and letting stand a seemingly biased short version.

Please, instead of accusing of edit-warring, address the substance of what is below. Meanwhile, omit the short as clearly half the story, at best, or leave in the full, as more fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Errant nonsense. Claiming to be a professor does not give you special status. Unless the existing article violates BLP or is unreferenced, it is entitled to remain as is until consensus exists to change it. You do not have some special powers to get around the normal process just by being an expert. You don't even claim on your user page that you are an expert in this topic. There isn't even proof you are an expert at anything, with the possible exception of ignoring calls to read guidelines. You have done that well enough to get blocked, and then simply made the same silly arguments that you are allowed to edit war because you think you are special. To address two points in your second-to-last paragraph, it doe not use a wrong name for her. She was not named Rubio until after they got married. The former name is the proper one to use when saying " married ". And it is an article about Marco, so outlining her early job as a bank teller, her "interests in fashion design", and hosts bible study at home is pointless and excessive. It is hard to take seriously your claims that you have no bias here when you repeatedly call Rubio "the Senator" and seek to add unnecessary features-style fluff to a politician's article. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alton Brown

Alton Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is NOT married to Giada Delourentis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.20.188 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems the Alton Brown article has been reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Irina Slutsky

• Irina Slutsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please delete this revision (diff)? It was an anon saying something pretty offensive. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I went to the article. The entire paragraph seems to be gone now.Coaster92 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they may mean a rev-delete. It is an old edit and seems a rev-delete may be in order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Coaster92, for that type of vandalism wp:revision deletion is the best idea, so that nobody has to see it again (the criteria for which are here). It seems there are no admins on this board? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted requests deserve cross-posted thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes‎

• James Eagan Holmes‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event
• Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event

Should This guy get a separate article from his bio at 2012 Aurora shooting? He is notable only for the single event. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like a question for a deletion/merger discussion; I don't see the BLP issue. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I dont see any issue here other articles that have had the same turnout include: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik If this does goto AfD I have the feeling the result will be similar. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's partly because one doesn't take mergers to AFD, and AFD and the administrator deletion tool form no part of the article merger process and are not involved at any stage. Project:Articles for deletion is for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I believe it is a BROADER Misplaced Pages issue. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Misplaced Pages should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Misplaced Pages page, at least not if Misplaced Pages does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Misplaced Pages page to gain significant long-term attention and recognition from a single horrendous act. In other words, Misplaced Pages, by providing an essentially in perpetuity memorial page to a spree killer, merely for killing a bunch of folks in a single event, positively—yet perversely—incents these acts in the warped mind of a perpetrator. N2e (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no question. The exact situations for which WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP were designed. An admin needs to redirect and lock it NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on analysis from Black Kite, I am no longer sure that the redirect would be the most appropriate thing in this situation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that this is going to generate a large enough article for content forks to be created. And the idea that we're somehow granting someone a special recognition by giving them a Misplaced Pages page is simply silly. Infamy is just as notable as fame. However, in the interest of article focus and proper development of content forks, it would probably be best for the article on the Shooting and the Shooter to be merged for now. This will make sure all edits get properly vetted by the same editors. They will be re-forked again eventually, that is something that is unquestionable. The only question really is whether it helps more to push them together first or leave them separate. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew Wilkinson - Australian Actor

Mathew Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am Mathew Wilkinson the actor, the picture on the page is not of me. Can this please be deleted. I am happy to provide a picture for its replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkinsons11 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily hidden the image, but am not familiar with the actor and do not have time to do research to see if there is substance to either side of the claim. Can someone follow up? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the original uploader was....err...not reliable --> see Queer men. Hint: check deleted contribs...to the actor, our sincere apologies. The image will be deleted.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibi Aisha

Bibi Aisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reworded a portion of the article (its information was based on a recent CNN story) because the tone of the portion was inflammatory, and the content of the CNN article appeared to be editorialized by the Misplaced Pages editor. Those edits were reverted without discussion on the talk page, and simply re-added because the information was sourced to CNN. While CNN is a reliable source, we shouldn't be making their content MORE subjectively reported. Anyway, I don't want to get into an edit war, and would like someone else to have a look. Thanks.98.94.58.75 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and the CNN piece. The information seems to be taken from the reference, which btw is not listed as a reference this time around. I agree the tone of the paragraph is not appropriate and the language and style are somewhat inflammatory. I do think it would be appropriate to include more detail than was included in the previous version. What is your feeling about including more detail but re-writing the information in a more neutral tone?Coaster92 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly acceptable. Neutrality of tone is probably the biggest issue I see here. In reality, the Misplaced Pages article would be discussing the mental health state of someone, paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story after a conversation with a psychiatrist, who had initially spoken to Aisha. If we are that many degrees of separation away from a primary source, I feel that we have to be very neutral in order to be responsible editors. Bottom line, yes, I think that's fine. The only thing I would worry about is making sure we aren't simply paraphrasing that entire article to the point of near-plagarization. 98.94.58.75 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

98.94.58.75 is misrepresenting the quality of the edits. There was nothing paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story. The paraphrasing of behaviour was taken from direct quotes by Bibi Aisha's own carers, ie: no degree of separation. The actual words were used with the only paraphrasing being a re-arrangement to avoid a copy vio. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think it appropriate to include detail on her psychiatric problems. They are not the reason she she is notable, though it is relevant that they exist. They can therefore be mentioned, but should not be covered in detail, under the basic principle of proportional coverage. Relying on a single journalist for BLP of this sort is not acceptable. As far as i can tell, these details have appeared only in a single story in one newspaper, & one story in CNN--where all the details are not presently visible, so repeating them here would be an outrageous violation of WP:DO NO HARM, the basis of our BLP policies. I have removed almost all of that section, and will regard restoration of the contents as a BLP violation, unless my view turns out to not be the consensus of others experienced in problems like these--which I very much doubt. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask the advice of some other admin experienced in this about revision deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that CNN was not the source. The source was a two page article in The Advertiser, a News Limited publication. I feel that the new version, while better than that of 98.94.58.75, is too sparse regarding her background since entering the U.S. and in fact now implies she was moved by her carers to Maryland when it was her own choice and without the knowledge of those caring for her. I believe WP:HARM supports inclusion of some of the deleted text in some form and I'm happy for it to be discussed here. I dont intend to edit the article again so will accept this boards suggestions regarding what should be used and leave it to you to make whatever edits are required. As the News Ltd article is not available on the net I can email a scan to anyone who wants a copy. Wayne (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Celina Jaitly Name correction

Celina Jaitley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can you please correct the name spelling of Celina Jaitley to Celina Jaitly E should be removed.

Ref: Father's name in Wiki - Her father Colonel V.K. Jaitly,

• Official website: celinajaitlyofficial.com
• Twitter: http://twitter.com/celinajaitly
• Yahoo Press: http://in.movies.yahoo.com/news/actress-reiterates-her-name-celina-jaitly-not-celina-183000934.html

Can you please rectify the client's name as soon as possible on all references on Wiki . I tried correcting the same but it gets changed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 11:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "client"? Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well that lasted long G. Kww moved it back already under the rationale that the majority of the sources say its spelt with an e. I had a closer look, Times India spells it at least 3 different ways (Jaitley, Jaitly & Jaitely) depending on where its located - Header, link, body of text etc. In some cases spelt differently on the same page in the same article. I wouldnt hold any of them up as particularly reliable in their background research. The sensible thing would be to go with what she self-identifies with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to copy and paste what I wrote directly to Kww about that. I shall simply add that there are far more interesting and creative ways for Indian newspapers to mis-spell "Kevin Wayne Williams" than there are for "Uncle-Ji". ☺ The Times of India should, for one, be spelling Jaitly's name correctly from now on. Read today's on-line issue for why. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Did you read the comments on the latest article in the Times India? Is there some sort of racial/geographical thing in India with name spellings? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Name should be accurate. Whom should the Passport copy be sent to prove the real name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I dont think that will be necessary. It should'nt take that long to sort out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• No, that's not the right approach, and it's not the way that Misplaced Pages works. (Would you trust me, someone that you've never heard of, if I said that I had a private copy of a passport and knew The Truth?) Have M. Jaitly herself, or an appropriately identified official representative, follow the remainder of the procedure, the first two steps of which have already been taken, that is outlined at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) . She should approach the Volunteer Response Team and politely point out that even though you, an editor, and I, a Misplaced Pages administrator, both tried (my edit and move to correct title and content are here and here) to get her biography corrected, another editor Bollyjeff (talk · contribs) and another administrator Kww (talk · contribs) insisted upon the incorrect version. Point them to the Times of India piece, the MovieTalkies.com piece, her own public complaints about Misplaced Pages, and this BLP noticeboard discussion (whose hyperlink is Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Celina Jaitly Name correction). Don't mis-spell "Kevin Wayne Williams". ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Uncle G we are trying everything possible to have it rectified. We will try what you mentioned. The only option we thought was to provide the Identification documents which I proposed in my previous comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look now you will see Jaitley redirects to Jaitly. Problem solved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it looks like that except for the URL name http://en.wikipedia.org/Celina_Jaitley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webonautics (talk • contribs) 15:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update --Webonautics (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Joy Behar

Would someone please delete this edit diff Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also several others by the same IP Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All of 58.106.163.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably should be deleted. Jim1138 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Monica Macovei

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention an anonymous edit alleging drinking problems of former Ministry of Justice Monica Macovei. The edit was from 89.136.42.120.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.9.145 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Robin Brooke

Robin Brooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article on a former All Blacks player features some very prominent (tabloid style) allegations which I think are undue and a violation of our BLP policy. Thoughts on how to deal with it appreciated. --Errant 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the first one is fairly well sourced. If he did pay reparations, like it or not that is seen as an admission of guilt. I am wary of the second one 'Allegations of' are very tabloidy and until resolved one way or the other quite prejudicial. The only reason to include them would be that it does indicate a possible pattern of behaviour. If there was only the second one, I would say remove, but it is supporting/supported by the first... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove this page and urls to it - http://en.wikipedia.org/Raymond_Hoser

Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030 Please remove the entire page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/Raymond_Hoser This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred. Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and http://en.wikipedia.org/User:HCA Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter. The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well. As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith. Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones. A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers. Thank you. Snake Man Raymond Hoser Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles

Phones: 9812 3322 0412 777 211

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution