Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:40, 15 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

Junior Hoilett

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

Srates better not be playing for newcastle united.. previous claim. Now plays for newcastle united all false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.138.161 (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Took me a while just to figure out who you were talking about. I've added the template. Someone else may want to decipher what your complaint is.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced transfer speculation about a sportsman. It bafles me how IPs can find this board but can't work out how to remove false information themselves... GiantSnowman 19:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Gwyn

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

This article doesn't seem to fit WP:ACADEMIC, as well as not fulfilling other criteria.

One, the guy is associate professor, not full, and not distinguished. Doesn't have any awards or chair to set him apart and establish notability. Willing to hear other perspectives on this but seems like he doesn't fit WP:BOL.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the short article a bit and added a source. It's suspicious that the article was created by the subject and heavily edited by the subject subsequently. I don't think the subject can establish notability as a professor, but it's not as clear whether he can as a writer. You're welcome, of course, to do some research and to nominate him for deletion if you believe he fails notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, seems to violate WP:COI, but bigger question is notability, of which I don't see it meeting. I placed a tag and will wait to see what other's see.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I searched around and found a few articles mentioning Gwyn. I am interested to know what other editors think about these in relation to his notability. One source is the publication of his short story "The Gray" in Esquire. There is a short introduction to the story with the comment that it is the "best bar fight story." Another is a New York Times article from 6-20-12 that mentions Gwyn as one of the authors who will be part of the Esquire ebook devoted to men's fiction. Also one of Gwyn's stories is published in the Gettysburg Review, a literary journal published by Gettysburg College. A review of Gwyn's book "The World Beneath" is published in the Bomblog. Creative Loafing Charlotte published a review of The World Beneath as well. IMO there is blossoming notability. His article is nominated for deletion. I would like to hear input from others on these sources before I comment there.Coaster92 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23, the article is suspicious in that the article was created by the subject and is still heavily edited by him (including removing the AfD prod). The issue of WP:COI aside, since he doesn't fulfill WP:ACADEMIC (and I'm willing to entertain other views on this, but have yet to see evidence otherwise) he also does not fulfill WP:AUTHOR, the other issue here for notability. Yes, he was published in Esquire, and his work was reviewed. But, he has not received any awards (e.g. National Book Award), hasn't had a short story nominated for one (e.g. Pushcart), and has not had any work collected, say in Best American Short Stories. These are just a few examples of what would help him clear the hurtle of notability. If in fact his notability is "blossoming" well then, when he blossoms, he will have an article. Until then, I don't see it. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

David Andrews (Trio Capital chairman)

• Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/David Morisset (Australian writer)
• Rivowriter (talk · contribs)

Hello, this is my first time making a report like this so I'm not sure if this is right. Yesterday I reviewed an AFC submission ‎for "David Morisset (Australian writer)" from new editor Rivowriter. The article positioned the subject as the pen name used by David Andrews, who was known in the news as the chairman of Trio Capital, a fund company involved in a well-known public fraud. The article focused on the person as a writer and provided a list of self-published works. The reliable sources (respected Australian newspapers), however, mostly focused on the individual's involvement in Trio Capital, and the most contentious BLP claim made in the article--that Andrews made no wrongdoing regarding the fraud--was supported only by a blog post. Digging a little deeper, I found that "Rivowriter" is also the name of the blog written under the name David Morisset. It became clear that Rivowriter was probably Morisset/Andrews writing an article about himself. In reviewing the sources I found that Morisset/Andrews had notability with his involvement in Trio Capital and not really as a writer. Finding no AFC reason to reject the submission, I cleaned up the article, tagged it, removed the lists of non-notable works, and left a Talk page note about how it needs to be refocused. This morning I find that Rivowriter has blanked the article and PROD'd it for deletion, with: "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: last draft contained unsourced and potentially libellous material after change of heading to David Andrews (living person)" I really didn't change anything much about the claims made in the article, I simply refocused it from "David Morisset" to "David Andrews". What is to be done here? Thanks for your advice. Zad68 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the prod as he's clearly notable; I've also started to clean it up a bit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Brad Birkenfeld

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

This is for someone with time on their hands: I wonder about the recent edits, but could not easily which of the editors had changed quotes, for instance, and what the original publication had (a TIME article was mentioned). I'd do it but I'm looking at a few other things right now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome work! Thank you Bbb23! JFHJr (㊟) 01:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another editor has restored the article back to its problematic state. Despite my opening a topic on the article Talk page and posting a comment on the editor's Talk page, he has failed to respond. The article is currently back the way it was before I rewrote it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Valerie Harper's biography

Valerie Harper's stepmother's name is Angela Posillico, not Angela Basilico.

I am Valerie's half-sister, Virginia, and Angela Posillico was my mother.

Otherwise, it seems to be a very accurate article.

Thanks,

Virginia Harper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.142.174 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Virginia. Name fixed. It's nice to know the rest is accurate. filceolaire (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I will not make a joke about WikiSanta, Virginia. Tagging as done unless there are objections.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Angie Vu Ha

Angie Vu Ha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article appears to be for self promotion. Subject (person) is of little significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markushumner (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Reviewing the list of references, there don't appear to be any secondary reliable sources. I searched around as well and did not find any reliable sources. Looks appropriate for deletion nomination.Coaster92 (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yulia_Latynina

Can I add "I want to inform the Spanish people that this "journalist" calls Ferdinand VII "absolute scum even by Spanish R(r?)oyal standards"..." to Talk:Yulia_Latynina? СЛУЖБА (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• BLP issues aside, Misplaced Pages is not a forum. If that comment by her was notable and talked about in the press, it might have a place in the article (we'd have to see the sources to decide). But if your intention is merely to "inform the Spanish people", then you should find another website to do that on. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • http://echo.msk.ru/programs/code/904151-echo/ СЛУЖБА (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Based upon a WWW page that doesn't appear to mention Spain or Ferdinand VII anywhere, I'd say that the answer is a clear "No.". Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding poorly kept "anonymity" of an author

This is maybe a difficult one. I am assembling a couple of articles on recently released books here. The first listed book was recently published anonymously, with the author only being described and identified with an alias and a few identifying details, like being a former Chinese diplomat and government employee who now teaches at a school in Pennsylvania. Link deleted on what seems to be his staff page at a university the author seems to rather more clearly identify himself. Would it be a violation of BLP, and possibly OR, for me to say they are the same people? John Carter (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It would be OR. As the only source is OR therefore you don't have an RS so it shouldn't be used on a BLP. Why would you even want to out a Chinese dissident who wrote a book under a pseudonym? I have deleted the link you included above. filceolaire (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First, isn't it wonderful to know that AGF is alive and well here? I note I did nothing in the text I added to indicate in what I added anything regarding the nature of the person, certainly less than the person who responded did. Basically, in the process of doing a web search for the subject, I found the page. Considering how quickly that page returned, it seemed to me to be a reasonable question that the "anonymity" might have been halfhearted in some way. Certainly, the description of the author on the publishers' site here could quickly rule the number of candidates down quickly. So I guess the next question would be whether the webpage of the school newspaper here which more explicitly carries the name of the author, would be acceptable? And, yes, I should add I guess at this point that the book hasn't received that much attention yet, so these pages came up rather quickly on the Google search, and I asked this question initially within an hour or so of finding the first link linked to above. I had also at that time seen the second link provided here, but, for whatever reason, it didn't appear on the search I ran to provide links for this notice. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a legitimate question here. Basically, the author seems to have, both on his/her staff webpage at the university, and in the university's newspaper, clearly established their identity. So, we have an author who, prior to publication of the book, seems to have wanted to keep their identity secret, who has, basically, seen their identity announced after publication, presumably with their permission, if we assume that the newspaper of the university at which the person teaches would not indicate that they had written a book without the consent of the writer. Personally, under other circumstances, I would be myself hesitant to even list the things said about the author at the publisher's website, given the apparent anonymity at that time, and the ease with which one could pinpoint them based on those fairly limiting criteria. But now that the author has, seemingly, gone public, even if I can't find any sort of press release or similar which clearly indicates as much, then do we (1) continue to withhold name and maybe identifiers, or (2) do we go ahead with identifiers, if not name, or (3) do we go ahead with identifiers and name? Honestly, I have no idea, and that's why I'm posting here. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Official biographies on university websites seem passable as reliable sources; they are generally written by the professors themselves. I had a concern that the author may have wanted to maintain their anonymity, but John's assessment appears correct: after the book's publication, they were publicly identified as the author. I can only assume this was done with the author's consent. However, when this book is cited as a reference, we should use the author's pseudonym, as that is the name the book was published under. Homunculus (duihua) 01:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd come here prepared to type something, but Homunculus seems to have stolen my thunder, so I'll simply say I concur with Homunculus on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

John Baumgardner

Is http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/j_baumgardner.asp suitable for biographical details? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's more or less a self-published source. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If I can ask another under the same heading, is AiG OK for biographical details about the father of Jeffrey Dahmer, who I believe is living? If not AiG, should another source be sought about his religious views, or should that not be addressed in the article at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I demur that it is SPS, but it certainly appears to be strongly religiously affiliated - I would not likely use it for any remotely contentious statements of fact, but for interview statements as to beliefs of the person interviewed, and properly ascribed, it is likely fine. Collect (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bio of Desaix Anderson

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

Dear Wiki, The Misplaced Pages of my, Desaix Anderson, bio is inaccurate. In the Wiki discussion, it states that I am a Southeast Asian expert. In fact, in the US Foreign Service I worked on Southeast Asia for 13 years, but on Northeast Asia for 24 years (and one year on NATO), so I would appreciate your editing my bio to state that I was an East Asian expert. If desired, I can send to you a detailed biography.

Many thanks,

Desaix Anderson

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

Victor Lewis-Smith

Victor Lewis-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are many different problems with this article, some going back years. Having expected a clean up following recent events I waited but no one serious has got involved. If I start editing I can tell from the past that I will just be reverted by anonymous editors. As the situation has been getting worse I am asking that experienced editors/admins take an interest. Some issues:---

1. I have found evidence of what looked like sockpuppeting and reported it (the resulting investigation is here:- Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dora63/Archive) The conclusion of the investigation was WP:MEAT. As MEAT is prohibited would someone please escalate the names of the editors involved for further action (the pattern seems to be that User:Clemmywemmy removes negative material while User:Dora63 adds positive material)
2. Looking at the Talk:Victor Lewis-Smith (and particularly the talk page archive) it seems that this problem and others have been going on for a long time, eg:- (summarising from here on the talk page) there is persistent removal of any material which does not reflect well on the subject of the article, although it may come from reputable secondary sources is not defamatory or libellous. Over a period of years most negative material has been systematically removed, often by anonymous editors or (recently) by one of the MEAT editors.
3. Another piece of information which is repeatedly removed shows that the article may need to be renamed. The article is called Victor Lewis-Smith but this diff suggests Victor Lewis Smith (no hyphen) was born plain Victor Smith (his mother Norma’s maiden name of Lewis being added later) .
4. Many controversial edits to the article or the talk page are by anonymous editors or editors with only a few edits in their history (eg User:Thimblywimbly) or editors who only edit this article/related articles (eg User:Clemmywemmy) – not many edits are by experienced editors.
5. There have been recent attempts to name editors (eg here and also here).

So I suggest protect/semiprotect the article? At least that way the anonymous edits would stop.

And then maybe more experienced editors could take an interest in the page.

And perhaps a discussion could start about renaming the article using the subject's real name (or at least removing the hyphen). VLSCheck (talk) 10:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed a rubbish en[REDACTED] article - brought about by conflicted users on both sides - It and en[REDACTED] and the subject would benefit by deletion imo - hes barely wiki notable and the articles rubbish and unlikely to get any better unless stubbed to the real noteworthy detail - I am not seeing that semi protection would help anything . Regarding your desire to rename the article - Thats not a WP:RS for his name or his date of birth so there will be no renaming going on using it. - If you want to discuss anything I suggest you read WP:RS and find one to support your claim, thanks - I made some edits - diffs - attempting to bring the BLP a little more in-line with en wiki policy and guidelines - Youreallycan 06:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrence Deacon

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

IP edits at it again. Same issue. Trying to push their POVs and expanding the controversy section too much. We had consensus on the wording. All were happy and then they take turns un-balancing the POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Bartholomew

I'm not even sure this guy meets GNG. Thoughts? Craig Bartholomew has cut and paste his entire CV onto the article, and another editor has taken the initiative to make changes, but I fear this may turn into an edit war soon. Talk about WP:RESUME!

I'd support removing his acolytes' attempt at turning his article into a hagiography, and if it persists I'll see what I can do about semiprotecting it; if someone wants to start an AfD, that'd be just fine with me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DePUFFed a bit. Removed some of the comprehensive list of everything his pen ever touched, but I do not know if any of the remaining list is notable at all. Collect (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well put, Blade of the Northern Lights. Should be noted the bulk of the editing of this guy's page is by people who've also edited the institution he teaches at (which, interestingly, reads like an advertisement). I don't see any of the remaining list of "publications" as notable. Many are from obscure presses, some are suggestive of self-publishing. Either way, I'm going ahead and start an AfD. Surely, it'll bring out some resistance from the acolytes, which is why I'd suggest semi-protecting.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephen M. Cohen

Stephen M. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At one time I did a lot of research on this individual as he was the man accused of stealing the domain name sex.com in 1996. There were many articles published about him, some were found to be true and some were found to be press releases that were reprinted as news articles. I check his criminal record for check-kiting and grand theft and found that not to be true. The orange county Superior Court has an public online Case Access located at http://www.occourts.org/online-services/case-access/.

There were several Stephen Cohen’s but with different middle names.

There have been no real updates to the article for some time. Today, I noticed that the article was changed and I checked out a few of the links and found one that went to the bbc.com and there was no mention of Cohen. I reversed it back to the old link and ended up in an argument with Ryulong

I out in a proposed deletion and then received a warning from Ryulong not to make changes. It is my belief that this individual is somehow connected to either Cohen or Kremen. I am not sure which one. I asked him and of course he denied it. I really do not want to get into a pissing war, so I would request an admin to look at this article and see if it should be deleted or not.

Also you might want to see if Ryulong is also Tomker. Kasanders (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few problems with some of the edits there - such as, primary cites being used to reveal not otherwise notable minor convictions - you should notify User:Ryulong and User:Tokmer - I will do that - Youreallycan 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no intentions of contacting that individual again. If I wanted a pissing war I would go back with my ex. It's best left between him and you admins.

I am not sure why the article exists in the first place. Cohen is not notable and I don't think anyone now cares about him or Kremen. I met both of them and can't say I would ever want to see either of them again. Kremen is bad news and Cohen is worse.

If we were to write articles about everyone that has ever been convicted of a crime just in the United States alone, we would need to add alot more computers and disc space. I just saw a interesting documentary on CNN where they claim the US has more criminals in custody than Russia and China combined. Maybe that should be put to a vote to see if we should write articles of individuals that have convicted of crimes. Then someone needs to think on what level the crime has to be to be worthly of for an article. Are there age restrictions and etc? Food for thought!

However, On the issue I presented, what ever you decide is ok with me. Kasanders (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Kasanders is currently suspected to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account of an individual with a vested interest in the aforementioned article and has in the past whitewashed the article to remove any mentions of actual criminal convictions the individual has received, as well as adding material that is either fraudulently cited or not cited at all. This whole report should be disregarded as he is attempting to excuse the use of one reference which he claimed was not valid (which has since been removed) and the vague reference as certain material added to the article as being irrelevant as some sort of excuse to get this page deleted.

This is now the third time he has accused me of having a conflict of interest in the article when it was never on my radar until a recent posting to WP:ANI by a confirmed sockpuppet account to try to remove the content of the article (see Misplaced Pages:ANI#Bad Person and removal from the pending block list). I have been an editor on this project since early 2006 and 11 July 2012 was the first time I had ever edited the article to attempt to fix it after it had been horribly skewed by Kasanders and other related sockpuppet accounts. The only primary citation is a case filed against the subject by the State of California which includes his prior convictions and sentences, because Kasanders sought fit to remove mentions of the subject's convictions of bankruptcy fraud and check fraud from the article, despite there being other reliable sources that mention the same content. I'm surprised that Kasanders has not been blocked yet, as he is most definitely quacking and being hoisted by consistently trying to get me in trouble for trying to fix his intrusions on a perfectly valid article. Kasanders' claim that he has met the individuals concerning this page shows that the account is indeed in a conflict of interest if not a sockpuppet in the case I linked before.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Q for User:Ryulong - Hi - in this diff you add a link to this external web link http://www.bsis.ca.gov/public/pi-9725_2012_05_09_dec.pdf - and add to the article a couple of alleged convictions/probation content addition reports, with the edit summary of "Found another reference; this mentions several convictions and the Kremen case" - Please respond to this query - do you consider this external to be a correct WP:RS to add and support and promote and publish this detail about a living person via en wikipedia? As your addition is clearly contentious and disputed in a BLP I have removed it and I have requested the user to make his case for its inclusion within en[REDACTED] policy -Youreallycan 09:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is indeed a reliable source, as it is an official court document from the State of California's Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. It internally refers to several prior convictions of the subject of the article, which includes references to the Sex.com case for which we have many more reliable sources. I would believe that a document concerning an actual court case would be a reliable source on matters concerning its plaintiffs and defendants. And the content is not contentious, it is factual and supported by this reliable source. Your constant edits to this page while I have been attempting to respond to you have left me hit with four separate edit conflicts. Restore the content (as I have but I realized that probably would be wrong so I have self reverted). We should not be listening to this stupid sockpuppet account which I've just confirmed through observational evidence as being one of many with the aforementioned conflict of interest.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• - update - the User:Ryulong has reverted my removal of the disputed content with the edit summary of, "You kept freaking edit conflicting me before I could respond. This is an official court document from California which is an RS" - I operate a one revert edit pattern and discuss so I will get back to this tomorrow - but its clearly a violation of primary citations that include personal detail with no secondary reports in regard to minor convictions. Youreallycan 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I self reverted. And the "primary citation" prohibition is only meant to avoid sources that are made by some Joe Schmo on the Internet. We should not be throwing out a legal document as a reliable source.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for self reverting - We don't report/publish such legal issues using such primary sources - Youreallycan 09:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It's a court case and a legal document in the state of California. It's even hosted on a freaking .gov domain. I think we can cite that no problem. What we should not be doing is listening to this obvious sockpuppet when he has already shown to have no idea how to work cooperatively and is instead trying to wikilawyer his way into getting the entire article deleted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes - but we don't primary report such issues - as for the sock/coi /co-operation issues - we all have our problems don't we. - Youreallycan 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I think when we already have proven with other reliable sources that the subject of the article is a convicted criminal, then a court document that makes references to other prior convictions of the subject would indeed be something we can report on.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Clearly I still object to your desired addition to the BLP, so I will take a step back and allow others to reply to your query - I suggest you may well benefit from requesting additional experienced opinions from the WP:RSN - regards - Youreallycan 10:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've found the Post article that is currently a dead bare URL for you. There's also an Economist and an InternetNews article. Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Anderson, John Ward (2004-02-22). "Techno-Rebels in West Bank?". The Washington Post. p. A29. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required)
  • "Sex, lies and Earth Station 5". The Economist. 2003-12-18.
  • Singer, Michael (2004-04-20). "Sex Site Settles with VeriSign". InternetNews.com. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Sixtus, Mario; Eberhardt, Oliver (2004). "Verwischte Spuren". c't (in German). {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • The post article seems to have disappeared off of the Internet. If I had known that, I would not have removed all of the accompanying text in order to get the Reflinks tool to properly fill in the other citations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Mirrored copies of it abound, however. Just put the title into your favourite WWW search engine. You can also still read it through HighBeam if you are one of those Misplaced Pages editors lucky enough to have an account. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• And if you want something other than a Consumer Affairs department record that lists these prior cases from the 1970s, Youreallycan, try McCarthy 2007, p. 48–49, which gives a detailed account. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • McCarthy, Kieren (2007-05-03). "Stephen Michael Cohen". Sex.Com. Quercus. ISBN 9781905204663. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) — via Waterstones
  • But what are your opinions on the California State Bureau of Security and Investigative Services pdf?—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Best practice is to avoid court documents as WP:BLPPRIMARY sources.
      • Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
    • seems pretty clear as Misplaced Pages policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • http://www.bsis.ca.gov/public/pi-9725_2012_05_09_dec.pdf says on page 1, line 20 "Complainant alleges", so I would say it is not a reliable source. You can use the info to find reliable sources to support things in that .pdf. For example, you can use his PI# in that .pdf doc to get info on his private investigator license at http://www.bsis.ca.gov/online_services/verify_license.shtml . I added one to the article. On a larger note, I'm not sure a biography fits. Perhaps the info could be covered under an article such as Theft of Sex.com as a WP:SPINOUT from Sex.com with Stephen M. Cohen redirecting to Theft of Sex.com. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • One of the complaints on the talk page, by Guy Macon, is that the article is out of date. See the abovecited sources. You'd have to work EarthStation 5#Stephen M. Cohen into that refactored article, somehow. How would you do that if you are only focussing on sex.com? Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Page 38 of the McCarthy book cited above includes Cohen's 02/23/1948 birth date and other early life information. That, coupled with the other info makes a biography article appropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I did not think to look for WP:BLPPRIMARY (as I merely checked WP:RS). However, I was using the document to cite the prior convictions mentioned within (particularly the check fraud one, which Kasanders kept throwing out despite other reliable sources stating it happened). How can we cite these things without some sort of court record of that information?—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Court documents/party briefs filed by one party or another have a reputation for being slanted towards the filer's view, even if they contain reilable facts like the ones you cited. However, judge signed court documents establish facts as do informational records of the case such as I used here, but was removed without a valid justification. Once the judge issues a ruling on his PI license, it probably will include the same criminal history and you can cite that document. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• The DCA-BSIS report is moot, anyway. I pointed to McCarthy 2007 once already. The whole of chapter 10 is a biography of Cohen, from 1948 to 1988. It has far more than that report could give you: Van Nuys High School, Stephen G. Cohen, the Free Love Association, Ynata Corporation, the other Ynata Corporation, Repossessors Incorporated, and so forth. And it details cheque fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and several convictions. It even mentions a telephone-me-and-I'll-vouch-for-one-of-my-sockpuppets practice dating from two decades before the existence of Misplaced Pages. I strongly suggest reading it. Uncle G (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Ryulong regarding his (now self-reverted) edits. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I never said that the subject was not notable or the article not relevant, as should be clear to anyone who reads the history. I made one small edit and my edit summary refers only to that content, and Kasanders is either misreading unintentionally or misquoting intentionally. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering the SPI he's a part of, I totally believe the latter. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, Uncle G, would you mind adding some McCarthy references to the article? I'd do it right now, but Google Books won't let me preview it. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
      • For reasons that may or may not become apparent, I don't want to take editorial actions on the article at this point. However, the wikitext of all of the citations is in this section, and notice McCarthy 2007, Ch.10 above. As I pointed out elsewhere, this author is Kieren McCarthy. Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Ah, thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Using the descriptor - is an American criminal in the intro

I removed this diff - with a comment summary, "remove primary descriptor as criminal from the lede - tell the story in the article" - and basically think its undue to primarily describe a living person, someone who is not currently wanted for any crimes and who has spent less than five years of his life in jail as "is an American criminal" - he is a person that has committed some crimes but he should not imo be portrayed as purely a criminal in wikipedia's voice. - The descriptor was replaced after my removal by the User:Ryulong, diff with the edit summary of, "we have information that he is indeed a criminal" - what do others feel about this descriptor in the lede intro in this case - Youreallycan 02:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that not only is it questionable to use the descriptor, but that it is redundant, given that the sentence in question also includes the words 'notoriety' and 'fraudulently'. This is what's known as 'laying it on with a shovel', and as such an abomination in stylistic terms. Ok, he did a bad thing, and got caught. In fact he seems to have done several bad things, and got caught several times, as the article makes abundantly clear. I think our readers are capable of working this out for themselves without the need to spell it out repeatedly... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FFS, it looks weird to just have "an American" as a descriptor. We have similar entries on other articles on living persons convicted of crimes, so why should this man be treated any different? And if anything the reliable source Uncle G provided above shows that the subject has been a repeat offender for onwards of 40 years now. And in the end, I'm just restoring items that were removed by the myriad sockpuppet accounts.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Criminal is fine in the lead since the lead summarizes the body of the article. American fraudster might be better given that the topic is categorized in Category:American fraudsters. The lead then would need to be revised to something like "an American fraudster who gained notoriety after criminally acquiring control of". Seems awkward, so maybe American criminal works best. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to take editorial actions on the article at this point, including debating specific wording, as explained above, so I'll only address this in generalities. The objections here are twofold. One is a learned reticence with respect to articles to calling people criminals. The other is that it's driving the point home with a mallet.

For what it's worth, I'm of the school that agrees that far too many Misplaced Pages biographies start with bad definitions rather than good definitions as they are supposed to. Part of this is the Misplaced Pages editors' obsession with race and ethnicity, as well as cramming everything into the first sentence. Biographies will read "Jane Doe is a Jewish Scientologist of Hungarian, Romanian, Phillipine ancestry, who was born in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, moved to America at age 1, and who currently attends Catholic church." and only several sentences in will one find that the important thing about Jane is that she's an olympic medal winner, or an A-list celebrity, or a high-echelon politician.

I suggest that you take the same route here as would be taken for Jane Doe. Find a way of defining the subject that doesn't centre on the fairly irrelevant race and ethnicity, and that doesn't follow the humdrum and rôte "John Doe is a nationality occupation." formula. You'll probably find that your problem goes away. Uncle G (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ongoing

Stephen M. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having some trouble and dispute with User:Ryulong regarding my attempts to bring this article inline with policy. They are reverting all my efforts - can uninvolved users look at these two differing versions and see which is more policy compliant -Youreallycan 20:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Ryulong's version

• - Youreallycan's (my) version

What the hell is your problem Youreallycan? Your edits to the page have not been beneficial. You completely screwed up the chronological order of the content. You put blatantly wrong information in the lede (his grand theft and check fraud convictions were from the 70s), and now the word "criminal" is absent from my revision. I have reported verifiable facts. You have completely made the article out of line with BLP by inserting false information. Uzma Gamal emailed me today to express his issues with the mishandling of the page, where you have been removing content based on your own incorrect applications of policy. Stop and let other people edit the page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The word "criminal" is perhaps a bit vague. If he was convicted of fraud, then I suggest "fraudster". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, what do you think about "fraudster"? I see Uzma Gamal has already suggested it above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still the grand theft and other charges he has been convicted of. Something needs to be done to encompass everything.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Update - diff -User Ryulong appears ot have backed off from the major problem and has self reverted his "jonny is an American criminal who..." appellation from the lede - the other issues are less of a problem - his edits imo are an undue portrayal of the person as some massive criminal when they have spent less that five years of their life in jail - Youreallycan 21:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Even with the word criminal out of the lead, for a 2-sentence lead, it's incredibly poorly worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

While he may have only spent 4 years in jail for check fraud, he did flee the country after he was ordered to pay $65 million in damages and was held in jail for another year. I would not say that these are the actions of anyone who is not considered a "criminal".—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with YRC that the word criminal should not be used in the lead as his "occupation". I also think that Ryulong should take a break from editing the article. Over 174,000 edits? My god, don't you ever rest? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is as good a time as any for a suggestion I've been contemplating: we need a template, equivalent to {{trout}}, that conveys the message that sex is more fun than editing Misplaced Pages. Surely someone here can conjure up the inspiration and creativity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear - User:Nomoskedasticity has now jumped in and added - Stephen Michael Cohen (b. February 23, 1948) is an American fraudster and thief - - what a place this is - Youreallycan 21:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait -- I thought you were unhappy with "criminal" -- there was a measure of agreement here, surely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I'm leaning toward Nomosk's view of how the lead should be crafted. I tend to agree with Ryulong that criminal activity is what defines Cohen, at least based on the body of the article. However, to say he is a criminal who committed various criminal acts is overkill and not very good writing. However, to use the criminal labels that are attached to him and then briefly describe what he did makes some sense. As an aside, the EarthStation 5 sentence shouldn't be in the lead. It's not even in the body. How can it be a summary of the body if the only place it exists is in the lead? I'm also not too crazy about "deceitfully gained control" - it's a bit redundant of fraudster. Perhaps something more generic like illegally gained control?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what some people think defines the subject - this is the policy compliant manner to describe the subject - Stephen Michael Cohen (b. 23 February 1948) is an American who was convicted of grand theft and check-kiting after fraudulently acquiring control of the domain name Sex.com in 1995 - factually and without labeling using wiki voice - not, Jonny is a thief who .... Youreallycan 21:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to take a wild guess: I would bet that Jude Law starts out with a sentence that includes something like "is a British actor"; I'd be surprised to see anything like "is a Brit who has appeared in this film and that film..." Surely the former complies with policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep on - it will all be useful later when I report you - Youreallycan 21:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Report him for what? Do you guys have an interaction ban (I can't keep track of all the drama)?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@YRC, why is your version policy compliant? I don't see this as a policy-driven issue. If anything, it would be controlled by WP:OPENPARA, a guideline. That doesn't require that we state a label, nor does it prohibit it. The two items that are relevant here are #4 ("The notable actions or roles the person played") and #5 ("Why the person is significant"). In some ways, that could be read to favor your version. However, note that every example uses a label (queen, scholar, farm worker, and president). And it is an issue of what we think defines the subject, based on the material in the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That Bbb23 is what we are doing here - (have you forgotten completely? WP:BLP ) BLP requests us to be conservative and to take care in the manner we report on living people - this is clear that , Jonny is a thief who stole .. is far less compliant with policy than , Jonny was convicted of stealing such and such in 1975 ....Youreallycan 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a judgment call in this instance and not a BLP policy issue. In any event, I would not like the wording "He is a thief who stole", but it would be okay to say "He is a thief who took". BTW, your version, "He is an American who was convicted of" wouldn't bother me, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - its a judgment call in respect to a[REDACTED] policy that encourages you to be cautious in your reporting especially in regards to living people - Take care also not to apply different levels of care to people that have committed and been found guilty of offenses, no matter what subjects have done - we protect them all from undue reporting. I am on a one revert self imposed condition - and I will be editing this article back to what is imo a policy compliant position when I am able to - I would , considering such as your acceptance of the disputed addition , be willing to take this to arbitration to see what the committee feel about such labeling in the[REDACTED] voice - Youreallycan 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many statements in a policy. Some are very specific. Others are more generalized. The "conservatively" part of BLP is fairly generalized. It's only used twice in the policy: BLPs "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" and "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Both are fairly generalized and therefore more open to interpretation in any given case. Do you think saying that Cohen is a "thief" is unbalanced or that it affects his privacy? Supposedly, consensus cannot trump policy, but there has to be a consensus as to what the policy means. I don't think this is a policy issue except in the very broadest sense, and I think it's distracting to reduce it to policy. I agree that all BLPs should be protected, no matter what they've done. I worked very hard to keep material out of an article about a serial killer. Finally, ArbCom doesn't concern itself with content, and this is a content issue, not a user conduct issue, unless you believe that every time someone disagrees with you, it becomes a conduct issue. I think you need to take a deep breath and calm down.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't get personal with me - mind your fuckin business about me this or that - or that I am calm or not calm - The issue with Arbcom would be policy interpretation - and they are available to comment if policy is being misinterpreted -Youreallycan 22:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Enough! People, this situation is bad enough as it is. I don't want there to be an arbitration case as well.

  All of you, try to use some imagination. "John Doe is an American fraudster." is not a good definition. It doesn't define the subject. It points to a large number of people, not one. How many American fraudsters are there? Indeed, how many articles in Category:American fraudsters are there? Define the subject. Consider how you would (properly) answer the question "Who is Stephen Michael Cohen?". You wouldn't give such a vague description. You'd say. "He's the bloke who …". Give a good definition that actually defines. All of this bother over the intersection of nationality and "occupation" will then go away.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Maunus edited the article more in line with what YRC thinks is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - THINKS - loOP - lol - Youreallycan 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 3

This situation is ongoing - the subject has spent less than five years of his life in jail - and is being described in the lede by User:Ryulong as an ex convict - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who .... is totally undue - Youreallycan 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you stop making new threads about this every time there is an issue other users have with your edits to the page? I did not initially put in the phrasing "ex-convict". Maunus put it in. You reverted it, and I thought it was all right and reverted you. When will you get it through your thick skull that there are multiple people who disagree with you and you should back off the fucking page?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The disputed addition was not in the article - you added it here - diff - your personally attacking me is demeaning your case - - Youreallycan 20:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not the person who originally put the phrase "ex-convict" into the lede of the article. You reverted Maunus (who made the first edit 6 hours ago), me (20 minutes ago), and Nomoskedasticity (10 minutes ago). Those are three people who disagree with your interpretation of policy and you've reverted three times despite limiting yourself to 1RR. You are in the wrong here. Stop enforcing your personal interpretations of policy on this page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Describing someone in such an undue way is a violation of WP;BLP whatever three users say - Youreallycan 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not undue when he's not known for any legal activities and has been to jail on three separate occasions. He percentage of his life spent behind bars should not be the metric we use to define what he is not.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@as such my 1rr condition is void - also is 3rr - stop adding policy violating additions about living people - jonny is an ex convict - lol - Youreallycan 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the only one insisting that it is a policy violation. Maunus disagrees with you. Nomo... disagrees with you. I disagree with you. When things are at this level, you step back and assess the situation instead of being stubborn and insisting that everyone else is wrong.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a policy violation WP:BLP - I will die by that - my thick skull as you demean me is certain of that - Youreallycan 20:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How does it violate WP:BLP? We know that the subject has been convicted of several crimes, including one major fraud case in which he was forced to pay millions in damages. Why can we not provide that information in the lede?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jonny is an ex convict who - lol - give over - Youreallycan 20:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop fucking dismissing any argument and act like a god damn adult?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your demeaning personal attacks empower me - Youreallycan 20:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the record I don't think it is a good idea to identify Cohen as an ex-convict. I do think it would be a good idea of YRC were to get a BLP topic ban since he is clearly unable to either think clearly or assume good faith from other editors regarding BLP articles. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • diff - you are the one that started this - I assume good faith at all times - but I tie up my pony or its not there when I return - Youreallycan 21:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your actions belie that statement. I know I started it, consider it a message: treat a man as a dog he will bite you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone here in this discussion - I have been attacked much more - I have worked with and interpreted WP:BLP for more than two years - if I am wrong in this then I need to know - its clear to me that - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who - is a totally undue manner to portray him - add what he has done but do not label him like that in wikis voice - Youreallycan 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You may think that people "attacking you" is a sign that you are doing the right thing and standing up for the little guy and wikipedia's integrity. It isn't - it is a sign that you're doing something wrong. You are attacked because your entire demeanor is dismissive of other editors arguments and concerns, overtly and covertly suspicious of their motives (WP:AGF). Even if I agreed with your argument I wouldn't support you in a discussion the way you treat others. Your attitude undermines and invalidates any greater good you think you're achieving by "protecting" BLPs. Because you actively force people to take a stance against you. (Similarly consider this: when I called you "asshole" it wasn't a personal attack but a friendly message that you were acting like an asshole and I would like you to stop that. I realize that I might have chosen another way to give you that message, but your confrontational behavior has the effect on other editors that they confront you with emotions as I did, not with reason as would be ideal)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Users should defend policy and living people and not respond out of upset or personal slights - Youreallycan 21:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't, because users are living persons too. It's funny you seem to think you're acting out of empathy with living persons, and that induces you to act un-empathetically to your peers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite completely even whilst under personal attacks here - if you take a position of policy cautiousness - you will find me there as a friend - you got upset with our discussion and you made this edit in retaliation for that - you don't agree with it now - thats good so we can move forward - Youreallycan 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have not been polite, and that is why others haven't been polite to you. (You have only been "polite" in the trivial sense of not using direct personal attacks - but personal attacks are a symptom of frustration with offensive and confrontational behavior, not of lack of politeness). When you realize that we have moved forward, and I think that it will result in a longer and more positive[REDACTED] experience for you in the long run.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite - or post a diff to show I haven't - your position of, I have attacked you and its your own fault fails to hold water - lol - I wouldn't have to suffer this crap attacking if I allowed you to violate policy and didn't stand up to your personal attacks - - Youreallycan 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement of point: In this post ^ you are being an asshole again. You are simultaneously asserting that I have an interest in violating policy and that it is your responsibility to keep me from doing that. That is an assumption of bad faith and completely confrontational. Secondly you request a diff for a problem with your behavior that is evident in each of the phrases that you have written on this page in several threads, but which obviously does not come across in a diff - this shows that you consider the letter of the policy to be important but not how other people perceive your behavior. This is a lack of empathy and a complete disregard for collegial editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No diff then - lol - I consider policy compliance far in advance/prior to vague empathy and collegial claims - Youreallycan 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So you'll be friends with people who agree with you, and revert like hell when they don't... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

- Friends are not really related to this issue - for what its worth - in my interpretation of WP:BLP - Stephen Michael Cohen is an American ex-convict who - is a totally undue manner to portray him and a clear violation of policy - Youreallycan 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

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

I'm currently addressing a COIN request on the above article. A month prior, there was a 14 June 2012 Sockpuppet request which noted, "There appears to be some disagreements between Abhayakara and Nomoskedasticity and this SPI looks to be a spill-over from disagreements at the Michael Roach article.". The COIN request seems to be influenced by that as well. From whatlinkshere, the Michael Roach article links to: Arbitration, AN/3RR#1, AN/3RR#2, AN/I #1, AN/I #2, BLPN #1, BLPN #2, BLPN #3, BLPN #4, BLPN #5, BLPN Watchlist, COIN, Copyright problems, Contributor copyright investigations, Mediation, Sockpuppet investigations, Spam #1, and Spam #2. I'm posting here because the controversy section in the Michael Roach article appears to give undue weight to the marriage/divorce issue. It's also is causing an impasse on Talk:Michael Roach. If one of you good folks were to move that information its chronological place in Roach's history located just above it in the article, I think some of the details could be trimmed, the information would be put in context with all of Roach's life, and there would be less of a battle ground. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DePUFFed a tad - SPS sources are not good for self-serving claims about the person himself. I have doubts about the "controversy" bit as it appears to be partly OR here. Also corrected minor misuse of a source. Collect (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Collect, perhaps you'll see it without my pointing it out to you, but: the COI-afflicted editor has partly reverted your edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That whole article and talk page are a mess because they have been abused. An independant editor should go through it and trim all the BS. I offered to mediate a few times and was basically told to get stuffed and leave.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your participation was appreciated at least by me. I really wish that an independent editor would go through the page and clean it up; I think that User:Collect's attempt is a good start, although I don't agree with all of his edits. Abhayakara (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Craig Wiseman

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

I would like to update the biography of Craig Wiseman. I work for the company he owns, Big Loud Shirt. I'm not sure who put up the current bio. It's not wrong or bad, but Mr. Wiseman would like it to read like the one on our website, . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigloudshirt (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

•  
  1. Encyclopaedia articles aren't written that way. We don't stuff them full of peacock terms and editorialization such as "one of today’s most celebrated", "seven short years", "significant rôle", and "notable accomplishment". This is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional blurb.
  2. Unless you are prepared to turn "Copyright © 2003-2012 Big Loud Shirt, All Rights Reserved" into the CC-BY-SA license, which is unlikely and almost certainly not your decision to make, we cannot accept your copying and pasting that content into Misplaced Pages as you have been. Read the notice about copyright violation that is on every edit page that you've ever seen here. This is a free content project.
  3. Corporate accounts are not permitted. Get yours changed to a personal account that is solely under your personal control, now.
• Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

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

Repeated inclusion of information saying Katie has left Scientology, and "officially returned to the Catholic Church". Sometimes involving adding categories. Categories (of Scientology or Catholic nature) are in clear violation of WP:BLPCAT but I believe even the claim of "officially returned to the Catholic Church" is not in compliance with policy. The sourcing is Huffington Post, quoting an anonymous parishner from a NY church. I feel that essentially no information regarding her faith should be included unless sourced to a highly RS, preferably quoting Katie directly, especially as this is a current ongoing event, there is tons of rumors and mis-information flying around (in the blogsphere, tabloidsphere, and likely in meatspace). Additionally as there have been allegations/reports that Holmes may be worried about her safety and that of Suri, and there have been reports/rumors of "SP" being retaliated against in the past, we should avoid any possible antagonization of Scientology without significant sourcing. I am now at 3RR on this content, and would appriciate assistance or clarification of policy if I am in the wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors have told me that WP:BLPCAT does not apply to a statement in an article, only to lists and category articles. That is my understanding or at least what I was told. It does not seem Huff Post would be a reliable source because it is a blog but I did see in People that Holmes registered with a Catholic Church in Manhattan. I do not see the statement in question in the article right now in any case.Coaster92 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't but WP:BLP protects such content from being added to the body of the article - without attribution and when weakly claimed in low quality press articles -so , right now - its a no go - if she goes to the church or comments herself we can/will add something then - regards - Youreallycan 05:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Content is continuing to be added on this topic. Additional eyes and feedback would be very welcome. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets hope that Scientology does not infiltrate into Misplaced Pages. Thanks.--Cruks (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Beth Moore

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

• Ocdnctx (talk · contribs) claims that the Beth Moore article is vanity, and single-sided ad copy for her enormously profitable businesses and further claims that the absence of a controversy section is surprising.

--Ocdnctx (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article itself reads poorly, and I already found some copyvio and non-encyclopedic passages. If there are notable controversies, please provide sources for them. Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Keeping in mind any WP:BLP concerns, any additional text can be added that is appropriately backed by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I see that this editor has posted at Talk:Beth Moore. That talk page, (rather than this Noticeboard), would seem to me to be a more fitting venue for their concerns.Shearonink (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

MMM-2011

MMM-2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone should probably review MMM-2011; might be OK, but it seems to me to be claiming criminal activity on the part of someone not yet convicted for that activity. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone try to re-phrase using terms like suspected, alleged, arrested, suspicion type thing? You could try this and if reverted then seek consensus. I only took a quick look and didn't read the sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a lot more complicated than that - from what few English-language sources there are, it appears that those running MMM-2011 have openly described it as a 'pyramid scheme', and claimed that it isn't illegal, provided that they make this known. Frankly though, the article is a nightmare in sourcing terms - it needs attention from someone able to read the Russian-language sources, for a start. For what its worth, Time Magazine seems happy enough to describe the founder of the scheme as "Russia's most famous charlatan" , so I think we are fairly safe implying that there may be reasons to doubt the morals of those involved. (I originally wrote "...honesty of those involved", but of course if somebody tells you they are going to run off with your money, and then does so, it is difficult to accuse them of dishonesty...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does wp:NOT on en:wp just cover NOT in english speaking countries? If it a translation from Russian, too much like advertising, not had much effect in the english world, etc. Could we just AfD it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"not had much effect in the english world, etc"? Please think about what you are writing. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a multinational project, and suffers from far too many biases due to the uneven distribution of contributors as it is. And no, WP:NOT says nothing whatsoever about excluding articles for such reasons. It is possible that the article merits deletion due to difficulties in finding reliable sources, but 'not our problem' isn't in itself grounds for deletion. And nor should it be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I just seems to me that the size of the issue may me off. It looks like all the figures are either unknown or come from the subject itself. I can see accusations etc being notable but if they have only sold 5 bucks worth of snake oil, swamp land and bridges then the whole article could be an advertisment or smear campaign in disguise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael C. Brewer

Michael C. Brewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The current version is not a BLP violation But it's a reversion of this recent version which may not be one either as it's reliably sourced. It needs expert eyes on it as to whether the material should be kept, reverted, etc.. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-17863095

• - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9316950/BBC-conductor-accused-of-raping-former-pupil-with-wife.html

• - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2155834/BBC-conductor-honoured-Queen-WIFE-raped-pupil-prestigious-music-school.html

Personally - I wouldn't add anything without a conviction - if others disagree then a small comment only, and not in the lede - such as .... In 2012 Brewer and his ex wife were charged with rape after a former pupil alleged sexual abuse from over thirty years ago. Youreallycan 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Brewer is sufficiently well-known to avoid the application of WP:BLPCRIME, so I would not include anything in the article on the charges. I also note that the editor who added the material was subsequently indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my reaction as well. I would suggest several editors adding it to their watch lists. Note also this earlier IP edit . Voceditenore (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Brewer is sufficiently well known to have this issue reported in multiple major UK reliable sources including the bbc - As I said , to clarify - its widely published in reliable sources - although I personally I wouldn't add it until there was a conviction - considering the sources I wouldn't remove it either and there is nothing in policy that would support its removal if added in a npov and well cited manner. - Youreallycan 05:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The 4th million article

Which article became the 4th million created on Misplaced Pages? And was it a biography?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Help desk#4 millionth page and 500 millionth edit, and no, a coastal city, Izbat Al Burj. Dru of Id (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidents involving the drug bath salts and naming individuals who have been charged

Is it appropriate to name a non-notable individual who has been charged with drug use and other crimes, but not convicted? Specifically Carla Murphy? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say it is not appropriate to name her based on WP:BLPCRIME:

Persons accused of crime

See also: Misplaced Pages:Notability (events)#Criminal acts and Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Crime victims and perpetrators

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.

And based on WP:Notability

People notable for only one event

Main pages: WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E

People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.

Coaster92 (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wayne k Cherry

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

"Cherry retired in 2004 after the incredible fiasco of his latest creation - Pontiac Aztek."

It is not true that I retired after the Pontiac Aztek or as a result of the Aztek. In actual fact, the Aztek was done a number of years prior to its 2001 release. Just as a number of cars and trucks that I was involved with were introduced well after I retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne K Cherry (talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, it looks like the comment has been removed. Coaster92 (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

General Allen Wiki Page

There was a completely false statement posted to General Allen's Biography. We removed it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.56.177 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give more details? It would help to know what statement you think is wrong and also there is no page called General Allen so can you please mention what the actual article title is.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP removed an unsourced statement from John R. Allen, and made minor corrections there. Dru of Id (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick Pastore

Sections of this article are alternately biased in favour of and against the subject (but not dispassionately), and are almost entirely unsourced. The worst of it (paragraph starting with "It must be said...") appears to have been added by User:Dwhogberg, whose account has disappeared for one reason or another. Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Pastore&diff=502080766&oldid=265530446.

I'm not exactly sure how to proceed (rewrite, revert, delete, etc.), but it seems clear that something must be done. Any advice would be helpful and most appreciated. HuntClubJoe (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed it. I suspect that most of it can be sourced properly, but it needs to be re-written in any event, so better to start from scratch. I'm not inclined to watchlist it -- HCJ, if you're going to keep tabs on it, my suggestion is that you insist that any additions come with sources (reverting additions where this doesn't happen). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bert Hellinger

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

Under the references, reference 10 is incorrect. It now reads: ^ Gottesgedanken Bert Hellinger page 247 but should be http://afa.home.xs4all.nl/alert/1_9/hellinger.html - can somebody please correct this?

Thank you, CritWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by CritWiki (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, and not being fluent in the language, that link does not appear to be a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Can you provide more information? I have also left a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Bert_Hellinger_-_sources_in_German_and_Spanish -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Pearson

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

The introductory paragraph to this article contains a libellous, unfounded smear of Dr. Pearson (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Roger_Pearson&oldid=502417214). It introduces Dr. Pearson--who has had a long and distinguished career as an academician, author, and publisher--as the head of a "neo_Nazi" organization. That organization, The Northern League, was an ephemeral cultural organization that lasted only a few years and ceased to exist sixty years ago. Putting this at the head of the article demeans the scholastic contributions of Dr. Pearson's long career. The smear word "neo-Nazi" implies support of totalitarianism, political prison camps, genocide, etc., policies and beliefs Dr. Pearson has never supported, and no evidence can be provided to show that he has. The only "evidence" ever provided by those who persist in this libel is repeats of the same smear from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddyguyton (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree with you. - Youreallycan 13:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TeddyGuyton has been edit warring over this in the past and I have taken the issue to this notice board which ended with a solid consensus that his Nazi affiliations are both notable and verifiable through reliable sources and should therefore be included. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Have you got a diff? Youreallycan 14:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

For what?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"and taken the issue to this notice board which ended with a solid consensus"... Youreallycan 14:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added links to the discussions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool - where is your claim of a "solid consensus" at? Youreallycan 14:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure three editors against one is a "solid" consensus - but we can soon change that. I fuly agree that this guy is a Neo-Nazi and should be described as such, as verified by reliable sources. GiantSnowman 14:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree and agree with Teddy that adding it to the lede as Maunus is desirous of is undue. Its already well sitting in the body of the article and is covered in a npov manner - without unduly focussing on it in the lede. Youreallycan 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead must summarize the content of the body. In any case i am not "desirous" of anything, it has been in the lead since Nomoskedacity put it there after the last BLPN and Teddyguyton is removing it against consensus. And yes a consensus of three against one (SPA) is solid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well not very solid imo - that was imo a small discussion with a resulting "limited consensus" - You are the user that added it to the article - diff - it matters not what discussions have occurred - if its not in the article and you add it then its your additionYoureallycan 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I re-added it after TeddyGuyton removed it without discussion, after a consensus of three editors had decided to insert it. teddyGuyton then proceeded to remove it again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

- it matters not what discussions have occurred - if its not in the article and you add it then its your addition - and your addition did not assist the lede in summarizing the article - your addition as Teddy says, unduly focused on a minor issue in his life. - Youreallycan 14:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TeddyGuyton is an SPA dedicated to removing compromising information from the article on Roger Pearson - he is the one who is clearly "desirous" of something, I would appreciate it YRC if you would cease trying to make it look as if I am the interested party. I was the one who brought it to BLPN the last time to get wider community input. This is not a "minor incident" in Roger Pearson's life it is his main claim to notability, and it is the better part of his activities between 1950 and 1990. You don't know what you are talking about and are clearly running on BLP autopilot here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Teddy seems like he is attempting to move the Bio to a WP:NPOV position - this Northern group is not even notable and existed only for a short period - ? unlike other things the subject has done/founded like Journal_of_Indo-European_Studies - put that in the lede - You clearly are an interested party. Youreallycan 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye. Watch how interested I am when I unwatch the article and this board. Well done Rob I am sure the Pearson and his Nazi friends are very happy with you. (Redacted) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. YRC, you've totally lost the plot here. We have multiple sources that unequivocally describe the Northern League as Neo-Nazi. There is nothing remotely 'NPOV' about removing the only notable fact about Pearson from the lede - that Pearson is a promoter of a far-right racist ideology, and has been so for many years. <-redacted->. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am loathe to reply after you have personally attacked me , but ..here goes anyway - the Northern league may well be citable as having neo nazi aspects but my point is, and where I agree with Teddy's complaint - that as it was, it was undue presentation/weight in the lede - Youreallycan 15:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Is it normal that the lede of an article should fail to mention the reason the subject is notable in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The subject is notable for many things - the lede should reflect that and not focus unduly on one point in their life such as this short lived northern group - would you please remove your personal attack - such an insult won't assist discussion - Youreallycan 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence that Pearson is notable for anything other than the promotion of a far-right racist ideology? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - yes that is a different position - if that is the major notability and it can be cited then cite it and add it to the lede - ...is most well known as a promoter of far-right racist ideology Youreallycan 15:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd regret seeing BLP concerns lead us into an editing mode where we soft-pedal people's involvement in extremist political ideologies/movements that have a long sordid history of violating the rights and interests of, um, living people. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I restored the passage in question on the basis of a heavily tilted discussion here. YRC has reverted this on the basis that it is still under discussion here. I don't see any sign that any of the five editors who favor including it are so far persuaded by the points YRC is making. Perhaps, if we are to discuss further, YRC could make some new points. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, I think the lead needs to point out his extreme right wing politics as well as mention the Northern League. Right now close to half the article is about his politics yet the lead ignores it. And there's no hint in the article that the innocuous sounding "University Professors for Academic Order" was an anti-union right wing organisation - or that its next President was Ralph Scott, a white-supremacist academic. And what is "Benjamin Franklin University"? Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes the lede needs to reflect the subjects main notability in a NPOV manner - suggestions for that are welcome for discussion and acceptance here - Ralph Scott ? disambig? and Benjamin Franklin University ? - Youreallycan 17:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Scott was "University of Northern Iowa educational psychologist and vice-chairman of the pro-Nazi German-American National Congress Ralph Scott, financed to tour the US in the ’70s, arguing that school integration would reduce academic standards" - fairly minor player. The German American National Congress (also known as DanK) as you can see has an article with no hint of controversy - but see (but this is going off-topic although the GANC article should mention Austin App at least). Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• • within google books, searching for "Roger Pearson + nazi" results in a plethora of hits where the the most frequent description is that Pearson has close ties to neo-nazi groups and individuals, but the sources do not call him personally a neo-nazi. i think a sourced version with the "affiliation to neo-nazis" would be appropriate for the lead. or from this Oxford Press source "Pearson has succeeded in combining such right-wing politics with a conventional acedemic career." -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the edit in question does not label Pearson himself a neo-Nazi -- it describes the Northern League. Maunas has put a long list of sources substantiating that description on the Pearson talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Candy Dulfer

The article lacks NPOV. It reads like a press release or album notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.159.194 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbe Lowell

• Abbe Lowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Wiki, the PR team at Abbe Lowell's office has been trying to publish his bio according to his authorized version but for some reason an editor continues to undo his authorized version saying it is "unreferenced and unformatted". Can someone please have a look. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treadstoneclub (talk • contribs)

Misplaced Pages doesn't do "authorized" biographies. You'll need to learn more about how Misplaced Pages works, including WP:COI and WP:V, among other things. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the version Treadstoneclub is trying to implement. Not going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it because of the references/footnotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treadstoneclub (talk • contribs) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

no, formatting is something that can be easily fixed. Highly self promotional blitzes on the other hand are just not worth the effort. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution