Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?

You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.

More ways to help

• Categorize: Potential BLPs
• Monitor recent changes to BLPs: BLP watchlist (may be long to load)
• Remove BLP violations: Unsourced statements, All unreferenced BLPs (recently created), BLPs lacking sources, Negative unsourced content
  Possible vandalism or libelous edits (as detected by edit filters 39, 339 and 189), Removal of Category:Living people (filter 117)
• Check if these people could in fact be dead, or if articles about them were removed
• Manually search BLPs for violations by using advanced search parameters. This link will search for X in the category of BLPs. Change X in the URL to the keyword you are looking for; alternatively, type X incategory: Living_people (the underscore is necessary) in the search bar.
• Request article protection, report edit-warring users or report a specific user (in contentious topics recognized by ArbCom or elsewhere).

Today's random unreferenced BLP

Didier Manaud (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 9 Jan 2025 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)

• Pashtun Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about Pakistani/Afghani individuals and the criminal organisations, which includes drug-smuggling, they allegedly run. The article appears to contain orginal reseearch and is erratically sourced. It certainly doesn't comply with WP:A. Unfortunately it names many names. The main recent contributing editor has created a number of stubs in support of the main article, repeat similar allegations and, again, attribution is erratic. Several have already been deleted. Could someone with more time than I have today take a look please? The main article will take quite a lot of unpicking. ROGER  14:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some input on this as I have virtually no experience of dealing with this sort of issue. I know it's messy and not straightforward that's why I referred it here. --ROGER  13:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced names from Opium Mafia, which is where Pashtun Mafia redirects now. The article still needs closer inspection, but it's a start. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Information was put in the Trevor Marshall wikipedia page and has been repeatedly removed. The text removed includes information from SEC reports, court documents, patent applications and the need for referencing of current material. How can this be stopped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzayner (talk • contribs)

A look at the talk page reveals that the situation is much more complicated than that. There appears to be a long-standing argument over this gentleman's bio and the validity of his research. -Jmh123 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found at least one edit by Jzayner (talk · contribs) adding a negative claim about Marshall sourced from http://impnvestigator.chat.ru/, an anti-Marshall website. I think some editors need a better understanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP etc. (But then, so do I.) I'm not going to be able to help out. CWC 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am the subject of this bio. I am very uncomfortable about becoming directly involved in this dispute, but I have reviewed the WP:BLP and it gives clear guidance that I should do so, as the editor/vandal is making detailed and specific claims upon which only I have the underlying data. The claims of Jzayner are certainly intended to defame, and they cannot be allowed to stand. For example, an allegation has been made that the Foundation which I currently head was for some time operating without an IRS certification. In fact, the IRS certificate carries an effective date of 1 April 2004. Further there even seems to be some attempt to imply that I have said HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV does cause AIDS, and I have given scientific presentations detailing the manner in which the disease progresses. Although I can understand that the technical terminology used in molecular biology must be confusing to the average reader, I find it hard to believe that this editor is reading with an educated and unjaundiced eye (NPOV). WP:BLP says subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material, and, unless the admins here disagree, I am prepared to do that in this case, as I did when the Nazi defacements were posted to my bio on 28 May 2007, complete with a picture of Hitler (why didn't the wiki bots pick up 'hitla.gif' as a problematic image upload?). Trevmar 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jzayner 13:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Responds: this is absurd.

Mr. Marshall the State of California says Autoimmunity Research Inc. out of Thousand Oaks, CA did not receive tax-exempt status till Jan 2007. If this is inccorect you should take this up with them.

What about cancer being caused by bacteria? Your patent application also says and I quote "This invention is a method of killing the stealthy intra-cellular bacteria which are key to the pathogenesis of both Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome(s) (AIDS) and Cancers. It is currently believed that the disease(s) known as AIDS are caused by a virus, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). But much of the long-term (chronic) destruction of the immune system in AIDS is actually caused by tiny, stealthy, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The HIV virus weakens the immune system so that the stealthy bacteria can proliferate out-of-control, and the damage of AIDS is done just as much by these bacteria as by any virus. These very tiny L-form Cell-Wall-Deficient (CWD) antibiotic-resistant bacteria live within the cytoplasm of cells, including the phagocytic cells (e.g. monocytes, macrophages, lymphocytes, neutrophils and polymorphonuclear cells) of the immune system itself. The cellular proliferation in Cancer is catalysed the action of the same tiny L-form bacteria. They cause the cell nucleus to release mRNA signaling the Th1 cytokine cascade without the need for conventional signaling via, for example, CD4+ T-Lymphocytes. Some of these Cytokines and Chemokines, including, without limitation, Cellular Adhesion Molecule (CAM), create the environment which allows the cellular proliferation to start, and then allows the cancerous growth to gain a foothold in the body."

There has never been any evidence that bacteria weaken the immune system in HIV. There has been no evidence that bacteria are involved in cancer. Mr. Marshall you should also know that mRNA is always released from the nucleus, that CAMs are not cytokines or chemokines.

How come this edit is being related to obviously defamation with pictures of hitler? Take out the one sentence that cites an unauthritative source.

This is not meant to defame you it is meant to provide people with a neutral point of view about you.

My academic colleague, 2005 Nobel Laureate Barry Marshall, has linked bacteria with cancer pathogenesis. Barry and I have discussed each other's research on several occasions. You will find Barry's opinions at PMID:11991099 and PMID:15656929. But, at this point in time, none of this has anything to do with an encyclopedic bio, or with a NPOV. Trevmar 14:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There being no apologies, in accordance with WP:BLP, here is how I intend to deal with the edits impugning my integrity, and the integrity of my research. On 7/13/2007, while I was out-of-town, chairing a workshop at the Metagenomics 2007 conference, the single purpose account Addiex (talk · contribs) defamed Trevor Marshall by falsely claiming the Murdoch Academic appointment was fraudulent. Simultaneously, Savisha (talk · contribs) began removing all mention of our research from WP:Sarcoidosis, including a citation to FDA approbation of our research. Savisha had previously nominated Trevor Marshall for Deletion on 12/10/2006. On 7/15/2006 Jzayner (talk · contribs) repeated the fraudulent appointment libel, without having checked the sources I suggested when I reverted the Addiex libel. Jzayner (talk · contribs) then engaged in a series of what another editor has identified as tendentious edits of Trevor Marshall. Resolution: WP:BLP is clear in stating that the libel should be removed from Trevor Marshall and Talk:Trevor Marshall. I will do that. Any further edits of Trevor Marshall by these accounts will be closely monitored for defamatory material. Further, I would welcome this BLP becoming even better sourced, and I would encourage the use of clearer language by the editors - as long as such actions are performed in good faith - Trevmar 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ADMINS PLEASE: Jzayner (talk · contribs) is still stalking Trevor Marshall and has today reverted the libellous edits which I (the living subject) removed from Talk:Trevor Marshall, in accordance with WP:BLP and the resolution described immediately above. I implemented that resolution on 20 July, after allowing plenty of time for a consensus to be formed here at the BLP Noticeboard. Jzayner (talk · contribs) has now repeated the identical libellous remarks at Talk:Trevor Marshall IN DEFIANCE OF THE RESOLUTION above.I don't have time to continually deal with this defamation, and I surely cannot be expected to sit back and let it continue. I trust Misplaced Pages has a procedure for making sure that this defamation will cease. Trevmar 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A copy of the Court Order which is apparently being violated in these incidents was sent by FAX to Misplaced Pages at (727)258-0207 on 7/27/07 after no response had been received to the order and the following text sent by email 7/26/07 to info-en-q@wikimedia.org: " .. Please can an admin revert Jzayner’s edit 146999825, and Jzayner’s reversion of 145957535, and stop these accounts from continuing to harass and libel? .. I note he posted yesterday on the Talk page of the bio: 'A court document is not considered credible information.' Attached is a final order and judgment for Contempt of Court on 143 counts of libel, many of them Internet postings, which is the 'court document' this editor is describing as 'not credible.' The judgment includes an order for the arrest of the individual who posted the libel which is subject of that judgment .. I am sorry to have to bother Misplaced Pages administration with this. It is taking up far too much of your time, and my time too. I felt that I needed to become involved, as I am the intended object of this harassment and defamation, not the Misplaced Pages editors who originally created the bio. Unfortunately they have also been having their integrity impugned .. " Trevmar 03:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An email with a ticket number was received today from the Wikimedia Support Team. The Support Team should be able to help keep things running smoothly from now on. Thanks for your help. Trevmar 16:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know this article has been here before. However, I think it has major problems as an "owned article". The most recent have been a controversy over how his education was funded, with the wrong information prefered by the "owners." It was also pointed out that the title itself is POV, and not at all standard for WP. It should say what he is, an author, not what he advocates. Steve Dufour 15:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked. It seems you are correct. The parts about him and taxi driving and his high school career seem to have been inserted just to make him look like a stereotypical fool; and don't have anything to do with his notibility. Also the article about his Icons book also was very biased. I know nothing about the book after hsaving read the article, but can follow links to a half dozen articles b people who didn't like it. Basejumper 15:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked out some of the other articles in the creation/evolution area and many of them seem to have the same kinds of problems. Steve Dufour 18:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I bet. I haven't seen them, but it is probably the case. Unfortunately there is probably very little that can be done about it. The majority of editors in such articles will view such things as crackery, but even then, rather than simply explain the person, his history, his ideas, and then adding a short blurb about how his views are not in the mainstream and having links to articles about mainstream views of the things discussed; it seems necessary to them to soapbox and refute his every statement. The same is true in articles about religious minority groups. The articles are dominated by criticism. It's not supposed to be how it is, but it is impossable to convince people to do things properly. In this case, you can remove the taci thing and highschool bit on BLP grounds. They are potentially hurtful and don't add anything to the articleBasejumper 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Those facts are from Wells's own writings. I would just as soon leave them in, I don't think they do him any harm. They might even make him more interesting. A really strange thing about the article is that the section on his most successful book is mainly about the picture on the cover of the book, not the book itself. This is neither positive nor negative towards Wells, but when I have tried to remove it, explaining that I was trying to remove something to shorten an overlong article, it was put right back. (p.s. The article also goes into absurd detail on his college research papers.) Steve Dufour 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Icons article may need work, but there is nothing wrong with including basic biographic information about Wells such as his having dropped out of highschool which is information that would be included in any biographic article. For that matter, I'd be inclined to argue that being a highschool dropout and then getting a PhD is pretty impressive, not a smear at all. And Basejumper, I strongly suggest you actually read NPOV, especially the undue weight clause. Criticism should be included when it is relevant and should be given due weight. In the case of things like fringe science, pseudoscience and "religious minority groups" the vast majority of reliable sources are often critical or heavily discuss criticism, and so the appropriate weight includes a large amount of criticism. JoshuaZ 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is correct; if it's verifiable and relevant, then it needs to covered, period. FeloniousMonk 15:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help BJ. The article's owners seem to have circled their wagons in defense of it. Of course, as you mentioned, they are 100% sincere that they are doing the right thing; maybe even saving the world from the evils of intelligent design. Wishing everyone well. (p.s. I just checked out the article on chimpanzees, surely an important topic in the study of evolution, and it is much shorter than the one on Wells.) Steve Dufour 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think the aricle on chimpanzees is too short, why don't you fix it? It seems a bit contradictory to bring one article in a noticeboard for attention, and then complain that the people who edit that article who came to discuss it aren't off editing some other article.--Prosfilaes 11:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know very much about them myself. My point in mentioning it is that anti-Creationism seems to be a hotter topic here on WP than evolution itself, which I think is much more interesting. Steve Dufour 12:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked the article on JW. The article is certainly biased to the point of the evolutionists who use wikipedia as a battleground in their onslaught on religion. I don't think the taxi driver and dropping out of high school statements are of concern if they are true which I don't know one way or the other and the same things are found in articles on people with high ranks in society. I still have concern over my previous points and ConfuciusOrnis and Orangemarlin's POV pushing. The ip was blocked by in the guise of being an open proxy (yeah right) last time so now the conversation can continue.

The content in the article is still heavily biased and contrast what the references say. The legal threat JoshuaZ is alleging is just a warning to stop reverting to the slanderous and liable content as has been done again. It is hardly a legal threat any more than WP:BLP is. A number of these editors have been chronicly disruptive across the articles related to id and should follow the advice they like to dish out like JoshuaZ "noting" (pushing) affiliations and Orangemarlin on two occasion pushing his POV out of spite (WP:POINT & ). The article is still used by its "owners" as a means to discredit which speaks volumes abouts Wells' real importance and the threat he poses. 196.207.32.37 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now a problem with Wells's supporters trying to whitewash his AIDS denialism. Redddogg 18:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The only evidence for his "AIDS denialism" is a petition he signed in 1996. There is no evidence that he did anything or expressed any opinions about the topic since then. Steve Dufour 19:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction, there is NO evidence of AIDS "denialism". There is only the signing of a statement 14 years ago which is very prone to interpretation. Not only was this when a lot of scientists were still researching the link between HIV-AIDS - and so can't really be called denialists - there is NOTHING on his current opinion yet the article assumes it is. 196.207.32.38 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does WP:BLP require the deletion of well-sourced criticism? Editor with WP:COI has announced his intention to violate WP:3RR in order to repeatedly delete material talk-page consensus agrees belongs. See also Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Robert_Prechter. THF 17:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the participation of an administrator in this dispute. I did not "announce" my "intention" to violate 3rr policy -- I reminded THF that 3rr does not apply in cases of BLP abuse. Please carefully check the references and links on the talk page.

Also please note that the Robert Prechter article was part of an an arbitration case several months ago, the outcome of which was strongly influenced by BLP violations to Prechter's biography: text of arbitration committee decision. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can both you give diffs so that we can see the specific cites, etc? My personal view is that EWT is bollocks of the highest order, but BLP requires that criticism be well sourced. Raymond Arritt 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Diff. original reliable source. THF 17:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)r

Please see , and also ]. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Malkiel certainly is a good source, though "singled out" arguably is overstating the case. I note also the removal of a reference from a well-reputed publishing house. My inclination is to protect the article while the two of you try to reach a compromise. Raymond Arritt 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to help, I'll comply with any recommendation you have. You're correct about the removal of that reputable source -- in fact, you commented on an earlier dispute involving myself and the other editor, and that editor and dispute followed me to Prechter's page, among other articles. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 18:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, my recommendation is to work it out amicably. The criticism is well-sourced if perhaps a bit overstated. I think a compromise is well within reach if both of you don't dig in too hard. Raymond Arritt 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're right, though if you take a look at the Prechter and EWT article talk pages, you may see why I'm somewhat skeptical. You seem fair minded, especially from what I read on your user page. It could prove very helpful for you to keep an eye on the disputed articles (which is not to suggest that you don't have better things to do), given how deeply dug in we already find ourselves. Thank you, --Rgfolsom 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think "singled out" is fair: there are only three technicians mentioned by name in A Random Walk and Prechter was one of them. Perhaps "Prechter was one of three technicians singled out by..."? Regardless, NPOV requires some criticism in what is otherwise an entirely laudatory LEAD.

The other sentence Folsom objects to is word for word what is in the book. The details are important, because Prechter wasn't just a little bit wrong, he was a lot wrong: he incorrectly forecast an 80% drop in the market when the Dow in fact was about to go on a gigantic bull run.

To save time, I'd like to declare an impasse now. I appreciate Raymond's assistance and will abide by Raymond's edit; we have had disagreements in the past, but that was on a rare occasion when I was more inclusionist than someone else, so I trust his judgment on resolving the problems of NPOV and COI and LEAD (and BLP accusations) presented here. I am too tired of chasing down Rgfolsom's bad-faith citations to nonexistent support and personal attacks to spend time working this out with him when the inevitable result will be an impasse--he has refused to accept a single edit of mine on any page where we both edit, even when I am supported by WP:3O or RFCs. THF 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish to draw attention again to another BLP violation by THF. Here are the diffs, which show that THF has distorted two separate sources in order to portray Prechter in the most negative way possible. The diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I appeal for an administrator's intervention. Thank you.--Rgfolsom 19:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Looking for a BLPC on Michael Sessions, who is most notable for being an 18-year-old mayor, but whose article has a lot of material on some of his legal problems. I'm not familiar with the subject (which just went thru AFD). The article raised alarms for me in terms of WP:NPOV#Undue weight and I placed a BLPC tag on it. There was an objection, I insisted, it has stayed. Editors are making good-faith efforts to ensure everything is sourced, but that doesn't necessarily address the balance issue. Is anyone else concerned about the article? If not I have no objections to untagging it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment on the opinions Dhartung has expressed, and as author of part of the wiki in question, I am concerned. I've shared with Dhartung that in principle I can see how it would appear this way, but this is/was a developing story and at some point some consolidation of some of the numerous references may need to occur to meet Wiki standards. So at this point, in my eyes, the choice is either list nothing , or let the story unfold and revise in process. That much being said, I think it is both balanced and referenced as it stands, and my thoughts on future consolidation lean more towards readability.

Dhartung is also correct, this person is primarily notable in that they are a sitting teenage mayor in the largest city in a Michigan county, but the initial felony charge would certainly have been a regional midwest/U.S. story even if the mayor was not a teenager (as it stands, it has gotten international press). Further, the crime occurred against the mayor's teenage campaign manager (Thomas) and his mother. So even here, this seems consistent with the "age" notability and strong connection to the initial election and wike entry. Of the three sitting teenage mayors, this one by far has had the most positive wiki entries, having citations on the Wiki of many of their TV appearances, (positive) newspaper stories and trips abroad. While I agree by its nature the controversy section appears negative (as it well should), as a whole the article does list the good along with the bad, and does appear balanced to me.

It also needs to be noted the article failed the Afd and resulted in Snowball Keep. The article has also been subject to deletion vandalism. Kirksmonkey 15:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Subject says on Talk page that article contains errors and would like to correct them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied and emailed address given. ←Ben 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

74.64.94.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding a list of Kim Rhodes' children to her article, which is not-notable, after multiple warnings to stop doing so. I am requesting that an admin action be taken to, perhaps make one last final warning, and/or block this IP from editing. Thank you for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 04:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unsourced, too. ←Ben 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the information is unsourced, not that the names of a celebrity's children are included. But not only is it unsourced, those names do not appear elsewhere with a Google search, and are likely dubious. Quatloo 04:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this user seems to be more widespread. The user also came off a 99 hour block a few days ago, and since then has been making substantially the same kinds of edits that the block was issued for. - Crockspot 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also appears to be a static RoadRunner address, same pattern going back a year. - Crockspot 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dennis Rader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Controversial and unsourced comments have made its way into the article. The article needs to be checked for sources, as it is in a extremely bad shape, and unsourced comments needs to be removed. Seeing the article is about a serial murderer, particular care is needed. Thanks. --DarkFalls 06:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing most of the controversial statements can be traced to this link which is cited but not as a footnote. ←Ben 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably is, but inline citations are probably needed instead of using external links, as the article is of a incredibly sensitive nature... --DarkFalls 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Anne McCaffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the candid, unposed snapshot of Ms McCaffrey currently used on her bio page. I consider it disrespectful to use one which displays an eminent, respected, highly successful, and much loved author in what may be discomfort and/or confusion. At very least, she is unaware that someone is taking her photo. Yes, she's getting old, but is that a reason to deprive her of her dignity? I first complained about the photo on the discussion page in January, 2006. It has not been changed, nor has anyone responded to my comment. I believe that a more appropriate photo should replace it. The one which appears at Fantastic Fiction http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/m/anne-mccaffrey/ is recent enough to be illustrative of her age, but in it she is groomed and poised.

I seriously question whether she would approve the use of that snapshot, were she aware of it. I feel sure her agent would gladly supply or authorize a different photo. --Tygerbryght 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we sure have a lot of such photos. Can you contact her agent and ask for another photo to be released under the GFDL or a commercial Creative Commons license? ←Ben 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've written requesting permission, and suggested either of two photos on her website, both candid. One is receiving the Lifetime Achievement award, the other is in her garden.--Tygerbryght 01:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Chris Langham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Category:Convicted child sex offenders states it is for "people who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child or minor, have publicly admitted offenses, or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor". Langham was charged with sexual offences but acquitted of these charges. He was found guilty on charges of possessing child pornography, but they aren't classed as "sexual offenses", if they were, the media wouldn't be stating that Langham was acquitted of the sexual offences // 172.141.208.196 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Category removed. - Crockspot 04:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually this is incorrect. In the UK, anyone convicted of a sexual offence - including downloading child porn, for which Langham was convicted - is placed on the Sex Offenders' Register. He hasn't yet been placed on the SOR because sentencing hasn't yet taken place, but he certainly will be; it's automatic. See for a comparable case. The categorisation seems appropriate given the quoted scope of the category. -- ChrisO 06:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is incorrect - he was placed on the register on the day of conviction, he signed the register at the court at the order of the judge. --Fredrick day 12:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see anything in the article that confirms this, so I have removed the cat again. - Crockspot 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this whole category is problematic - on quick examination of 10 articles, several have no references. This needs to be responded to quickly; otherwise WP:BLP requires the deletion of these articles. Risker 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nom the CfD? ←Ben 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be nominated for deletion. It's a bit tabloidesque. SlimVirgin 07:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing taloidesque within a uk context, if you go on the sexual offences register - you are a sex offender - that is the accepted terminology within the UK to describe such people. Chris Langham is a convicted sex offender - that is easy to cite from good quality sources 1, 2. If it's not sourced then remove the cat (as was done with Chris langham) but I don't see anything wrong with the cat itself. --Fredrick day 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If he had been listed in the cat "Convicted sex offenders" then you would be correct. He was listed in another category entirely, and the grounds for his inclusion there are shaky at best - no evidence of child molestation was involved in his conviction. I concur with SlimVirgin about deletion of the category, but it is important to make sure that all the articles currently in this category are either properly sourced or deleted. Risker 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But the category does not mention Child Molestation. Look at what it actually says This is a list of people who have been convicted of a sexual offense against a child or minor, have publicly admitted offenses, or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor, as defined by their local law. Within the UK, possession of pornographic images of children being raped and tortured is considered an offense against a child. He had admitted his offense, he had been placed on the UK Sex Offenders register. Which criteria for the inclusion in that cateogory as it is written does he not meet? --Fredrick day 13:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree he fits the definition of the category. The problem here seems to be that part of the category's definition is UK-centric. It does not match the category's name in countries that differentiate between possession/distribution/making of child porn, at least in terms of placement on the sex offenders register. Avb 16:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS To put this into some perspective for non-UK editors: see this Misplaced Pages article and http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,951373,00.html Avb 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those confirm that Pete Townshend is a child sex offender. As I explained below, Pete Townshend was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for child porn, but he isn't placed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders. As other editors have proposed, I also support the nomination of this problematic category for deletion. Crazysuit 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Avb 02:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Further - acceptable sources refer to him as As a child sex offender, a 'nonce' in jail parlance, the actor can expect rough treatment from other prisoners. He will be probably be housed in a special wing of the prison and is likely to be on suicide watch. 1 --Fredrick day 14:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only 22 Google results for "child sex offender" + "Chris Langham". In fact, there's only one source that refers to him as a child sex offender, and that is in the informal sense, rather than the legal definition. Crazysuit 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• The important text in the category is placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor. I assume whoever edited the category intended involving a minor to refer a sexual offense against a minor. Pete Townshend was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for child porn, but he isn't placed in Category:Convicted child sex offenders because, like Langham, he isn't a convicted child sex offender. It does seem ridiculous that Chris Langham is classed with Jeffrey Dahmer. Crazysuit 20:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion. - Crockspot 17:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Kim Dabelstein Petersen continues to insert libelous material into this subject's biography, or to remove material that might render the libels less harmful. Note that one of the links that has been inserted in the subject's biography is to a libelous article that was later followed by a correction. In accordance with Misplaced Pages's policies to remove obviously libelous material, this link and any reference to it in the text should be deleted. It should also be a matter of policy that details of libel settlements should not appear in biographies.

It is not clear that discussion of the subject's views on the single issue of climate change should be so prominent at the center of what is otherwise a straightforward biography of a public figure with a wide-ranging career. We recommend that to avoid future disputes the entire section on "Philosophy or political views" and all related links should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.230.46 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

These claims are absurd, as was pointed out when an IP user claiming to be Monckton repeatedly vandalized this article in the past. The mythical Guardian settlement of 50,000 is mentioned nowhere that anyone can find. It is wrong to call Monckton's rebuttal in the Guardian a correction. Further, the Guardian article is still on their website and makes no mention of any correction. They don't even link to Monckton's rebuttal. If Monckton had won a judgment of libel, the Guardian would be required to remove Monbiot's piece. The claims of a libel settlement appear to be false.SeaAndSand 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This article had its history deleted last December for similar reasons. I'm not convinced that it's libelous to link to a libelous article, given the differing standards for libel in US and British courts. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the article is giving undue weight to Lord Monckton's views on global warming, and per biographies of living persons we really must err on the side of caution. Wholesale deletion of the aforementioned section may be avoidable--Monckton appears to be a prominent figure in the skeptical movement. On the other hand, the section represents a synthesis of his articles and counter-articles, which probably constitutes original research. Certainly things can't go on as they have. I would also suggest that both KimDabelsteinPeterson and the apparent representatives of Lord Monckton voluntarily refrain from editing the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful to know who "we" are in the phrase "We recommend that to avoid future disputes..." Is this Mr. Monckton's legal firm or other official representative? Raymond Arritt 01:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i just noticed this one. The following quote is the main reason that i've reverted a couple of times - citing lack of references:

He won £50,000 libel damages from The Guardian, a UK newspaper, in respect of an article by George Monbiot falsely claiming that he had incorrectly treated the Earth as a blackbody in his calculations. The Guardian was compelled to print a correction drafted by Lord Monckton (New Law Journal, June 2007).

I've checked with Google and other resources - and i cannot find a single mention of such a lawsuit, which would have been highprofile - and would at least have been mentioned in the Guardian, i've also checked the New Law Journal (a strange place for this) and i can find no such mention in their reference for Jan-Jun 2007 - nor that anyone has won anything. Currently this is libel against Mr. Monbiot - And should go.

I've had no edits on the article - except to revert vandalism, and to keep out blatant POV statements.

I also have to say, that despite complaining several times - Mr. Monckton (or his secretary - or whatever it is) has never substantiated what the complaints against the current article is. --Kim D. Petersen 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides the issue that Mackesen alludes to, which was entirely unrelated, and deleted. There is also this one . --Kim D. Petersen 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Natascha Kampusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about the level of hostility that seems to be apparent in the article and talk pages for this woman. It seems particularly inappropriate for an article about a crime victim. But I'm unsure how far to go in deleting/editing content and comments, especially since there are some prominent negative press articles. I would appreciate assistance/guidance from people more experienced with BLP. Thanks // SiobhanHansa 21:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• • The article seems fine, now. The talk page I only skimmed. What are some of the specific concerns you have? ←Ben 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you, or someone who monitors your talk page, come look at Michael Savage (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I know you left a message on the article's talk page some time back and removed some content. This article will always be somewhat contentious, but I worry that some of the content is unecessarily inflammatory. For example, One postcard mentions his "thought of inserting my camera's lens in your A-hole to photograph the walls of your rectum." I would truly like to see this article move to GA status, but I do not see any way it can in its current state. Ursasapien (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• David Strathairn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is citing WP:BLP as a reason for persistently removing a website called "David Strathairn Online" from the external links section. This website is a "fansite" of the kind commonly included in link sections of celebrities. It contains no derogatory information. Can someone who follows this page please weigh in? --Mantanmoreland 14:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

it's a non-notable fansite and I have removed it. In regards to BLP - the issue might be a marginal one but I agree with the argument put forward on the talkpage of that article. --Fredrick day 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for removing that site? It is a useful source of information on this actor. There is no policy against listing fan sites as links. --Mantanmoreland 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a perfectly fine external link, with no BLP concerns at all. There were no actual BLP concerns raised on the article's talk page, either. It's fine. ←Ben 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed by Mantanmoreland for reasons pertaining to WP:COPYRIGHT already pointed out by others and discussed on the talk page of the article; please see updated discussion on Talk:David Strathairn for the full discussion and also the discussion re: fansites in Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Fan sites addressed in this policy?. BLP concerns involve the verifiability of fansites and their reliability; they are "self-published" sites and such sites are not generally allowed in biographies of living persons (as sources and/or as external links), unless the sites are official sites of the subject. These are content and quality of content matters as well as copyright infringement matters as they concern the content of biographies of living persons. External links are part of that content. Please consult WP:V and WP:V#Sources, particularly ], which do pertain to such articles that are biographies of living persons; that is why WP:BLP is cross-referenced there. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Does SourceWatch meet the criteria for inclusion on BLP’s, even when used as an external link in BLP’s? I would say no, as it is an open source Wiki, but I would appreciate some feedback. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's an open wiki. Certainly not a reliable source, but it seems to be okay for an WP:EL provided it has more info than the article would if it reached featured status. I don't see how it could be a BLP problem; what are your specific BLP concerns? ←Ben 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I gathered from stalking your edit history that it's James Inhofe and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe -- I read that sourcewatch page, and although there's a lot of political criticism, I didn't see anything that was anywhere near libel or defamation. Is there something specific? People like to link politicians to all the political rating sites (on the left and right, I see pro-life and 2nd amendment ratings all over too.) ←Ben 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• As an open wiki, it is not a reliable source for citing. As an External Link, it may be appropriate if, as already mentioned, it adds value to the article beyond what would already be in an article reaching Featured Article status. Considering that much of the content at SW originates from Misplaced Pages, I would think that the cases where it would be appropriate as an EL would be few and far between. In BLP articles, we have to be especially careful with sourcewatch, as they do not have a NPOV policy. - Crockspot 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don Schrader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please clean up this article, or delete it again as necessary. It is a contested expired prod. It is claimed he is notable, but the article is pretty smelly at the moment. Viridae 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted all the weird and possibly defamatory unsourced stuff. ←Ben 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• This should have stayed deleted. He's just a colorful local character who writes lots of LTTEs. Fails WP:BIO. I'm nominating it for AfD. - Crockspot 15:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Don Schrader. - Crockspot 16:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Casey William Hardison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Completely unsourced, and removing the unsourced material and OR would remove the entire article. There's lots of unreliable SPS on the web about him, but questionable notability otherwise. THF 15:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. At the moment I'm inclined to speedily delete it under a combination of CSDs A7 and G11. Let's see if I feel the same way after dinner. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Listed at AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to take the bold action of blanking the page, and will post a link to the last version at the AfD page. - Crockspot 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And was immediately reverted. :( - Crockspot 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If no other editors beyond the one who reverted me object, I am invoking WP:IGNORE and reblanking, per WP:V and WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it live so that another editor can try to source it. But even if well sourced, I don't see how it is going to get around BLP1E. - Crockspot 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Victoria Silvstedt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although this is not usual to remove stuff from talk pages, I think that the talk page Talk:Victoria Silvstedt should be edited. What is allegated in this discussion is libelous by itself and should be removed, of course from the article, but also from the talk page. Hektor 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly usual and complete proper to remove libellious stuff from talk pages, both the BLP policy and arbitration decisions agree Nil Einne 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed all unsourced and poorly sourced negative commentry from both the article and the talk page per BLP. Check out the edit histories Nil Einne 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Hektor 18:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be resolved now, so tagging resolved. If someone reverts Nil Einne, feel free to revert back citing WP:BLP. If it becomes a problem, remove the resolved template above, and ask for help here. - Crockspot 15:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nathan Hecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please disregard my previous comment, which resulted from hitting "send" prematurely.

I edited the article about Justice Nathan Hecht to make it objective. The existing text is quite unbalanced, both in tone and content. It primarily emphasizes Justice Hecht's brief national appearance as an advocate in favor of White House counsel Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. The length of this discussion, as well as discussion of its sequel in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, was quite out of proportion and was written in a way that reflected bias against Hecht. I hope that the revisions present a neutral bias.

Justice Hecht has been a district and appellate court judge for decades, in which he authored hundreds of important cases. None of these are noted, while a brief media event is documented at length. This is bad policy in a biography.

The Judicial Conduct Commission complaint was rather unceremoniously reversed by a special state court appellate panel that was appointed under the same special constitutional provision that created the Commission. Reiterating the allegations of what turned out to be baseless only reflects bias on the part of the biographer. I admire Justice Hecht, so if writing on my own I would wax eloquent as to his many achievements and contributions to Texas law. Obviously this would not be appropriate in a Misplaced Pages entry. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, I simply reduced the material--I hope--to a balanced summary of his career and an abbreviated summary of the Miers incident.

I also eliminated all of the controverted cross references, whose inclusion suffers from the same defects as the text.

My elimination of the references to Justice Hecht's appeal for funding of his defense costs was done for the same reasons. There is nothing out of the ordinary or unlawful about such a request. For example, does anyone doubt that governmental officials who are falsely accused should be compelled to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars from their own pockets? Justice Hecht has lived for decades on a meager judicial salary, and his style of life is spartan. He could never afford to pay for the kind of legal services required to defend himself against charges of this kind.

However, if the ommitted matters must be mentioned in the biography, fairness would compel inclusion of thousands words necessary to add balance and counter the innuendo of the original text and references.

The controversies featured in the bfor the same reasons as the attacks regarding the Miers event. Under these circumstances, keeping the biography balanced and of reasonable length suggests removal of most of the material altogether.

If the material I edited out is allowed to go back in, I will need to clean up the slanted wording of the original text and also to add balance by supplementing the total biography by thousands of words,including case law references, quotations from the appellate court decision in Conduct Commission case, etc. I hope this will not become necessary.

You should be aware that Justice Hecht continues to be subject to unremitting political attack, most recently in the form of litigation asserted by a plaintiff-lawyer group that is seeking to keep the supposed "ethical" issues alive through various frivolous lawsuits and legal complaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barrister noir (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

This looks like innocent Misplaced Pages:Recentism to me, but editors have stepped in an apparently resolved the BLP issues. ←Ben 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• John Kosmina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a living person and it is poorly written, unreferenced and quite possibly damaging. The history seems to indicate a string of edits and reversions. I don't have the knowledge or time to tidy this up, but it needs to be done. Some of it quickly I think.Jim77742 02:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• An editor has stepped in to make some improvements. Let's see how it goes over the weekend. - Crockspot 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• List of Chinese dissidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is entirely unsourced, but much of it is obvious. Removing the unsourced claims would simply delete the article. I don't object to the list, but someone familiar with this needs to take time to source it very carefully. 90% of these people are still alive and we are publishing they are subject to arrest in various jurisdictions because of their political beliefs. SchmuckyTheCat

• The section header: To be dealt with "according to circumstances of the situation" does not indicate where that quote comes from either. This one needs a lot of help. Would it be appropriate to move the contents to the talk page, and move individuals back as they are sourced? - Crockspot 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Move all unsourced to talk. Maybe ask the help from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_China as they may me knowledgeable on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Done and done. - Crockspot 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Karla Homolka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been repeated postings that Karla Homolka, a living person, has recently been involved in a relationship with a particular man who also has a Misplaced Pages article. These postings keep getting made despite being repeatedly deleted. I have also deleted the corresponding claim from the article about this particular man. There have been no reliable references posted to back this claim up.--Dash77 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be an Internet rumor, and I see that the Misplaced Pages article has been used as a source. This is a serious allegation. The page should be semi-protected at least. Have so requested on WP:RFP.--Mantanmoreland 04:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Both articles have been semi-protected for a period of one week.--Mantanmoreland 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Khalid bin Mahfouz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The subject of the article has sued numerous times in response to allegations of terror financing. In 2004, wikipedia received legal contact about our article.

I recently had a look at the article, and found that some portions of the article were unsourced or cited an unreliable source. I also found some cases where the article might not be of encyclopedic tone.

I'm not as active with wikipedia these days as I wish I could be, so could someone with more spare time than me check that all of the statements made in the article (and mentions of him elsewhere in the encyclopedia) cite reliable sources, and that we aren't citing anything that has since been retracted?

Thanks, Andjam 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A Mahfouz representative had at one point objected to portions of the article, it has been rebuilt several times since then. As with other controversial figures accused of funding terrorism the article appears unbalanced due to the relative scarcity of sources for fleshing out biographical detail in contrast to the abundance of documented allegations. However, I assure you that no source has been misrepresented. ˉˉ╦╩ 05:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• John Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been a whole lot going on with this one, so anything I say right now would be out of date in 5 minutes. Suffice it to say that the guy is apparently very controversial in Australia, and a lot of stuff is getting put in which seems to violate undue weight or be very tangentially related to the person himself. It could certainly use some eyes. Seraphimblade 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Tom Jakobek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced rumors of political corruption inserted into text. --221.114.141.220 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He does not seem notable enough for an article in the first place. He was only a city councilman. Steve Dufour 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks kind of ugly, but Jakobek was budget chief for 10 years - not exactly a random alderman. WilyD 23:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind about the article since the space given to the controversy has been reduced. I now think it's ok for WP.Steve Dufour 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we say he's a freemason?

There is a dispute over whether he is or is not a Freemason, and the statement's inclusion in the article.

• ComeOnBoro (talk · contribs) claims to be a representative of Jeff Winter, who (it is claimed) asserts that he is not a mason.
• Refsworldlee (talk · contribs) believes that the information should not be censored.

Either ComeOnBoro is telling the truth, or perhaps Winter would like to conceal the fact that he is a freemason.

The published source: http://www.mqmagazine.co.uk/issue-12/p-41.php seems to be relatively trustworthy, and very much appears to be official publication from the Freemasons.

Can anyone with more experience on such matters advise whether the statement should be included, on grounds that Misplaced Pages does not censor, or removed?  slυмgυм  17:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to attribute to a source. It shouldn't be in the lead. I've cleaned up the page a little, though I question the WP:WEIGHT if the subject of the article disagrees with the claim. I leave that decision to other editors. THF 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is it about footballers? I can't imagine another sport in which a referee is considered such an important figure. :-) Steve Dufour 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted the questions below to Crockspots administrator election and editor Tbeatty keeps removing it. What is the problem?

More questions from Bmedley Sutler

15. I saw on your home Misplaced Pages userpage that you are a member of a group called Conservative Underground, so I went there. It is a disturbing site with a lot of hate, against many groups but mostly Gays and Liberals, IMO. I looked at some of your posts. I fear that you maybe aren't right to be an administrator when you make homophobic claims like : "Pretty much any dude with "bear" in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass." Link. Could you explain that claim a little more? Isn't that pretty homophobic? And this one "I've noticed what seemed like an organized, or at least coincidentally coordinated, effort on Misplaced Pages to scrub any citations of Bill O'Reilly criticizing liberals. They pull every possible justification for it out of their asses, like "O'Reilly not a notable person", "spam links", "O'Reilly is not a reliable source, neither is Fox News.", etc. ad nauseum." Is that a canvassing? The O'Reilly Soros thing was one of your biggest battles Link Another thread called "Fags and Firearms" Link that you posted in is full of homophobic hate. Is that the sort of NPOV we need from an administrator? Will you keep posting homophobic hate there if you become an administrator? Is your possible homophobia the reason you have fighted so hard to keep claims of homosexuality from the Matt Drudge article? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing people as homophobic without a reliable source is a BLP violation as well as a personal attack. --Tbeatty 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The article has zero references, and has been tagged as such since Feb 11, 2007, but said he was an "alleged gang member" as well as the owner of a car used in a murder and incarcerated awaiting trial for another murder. I blanked the article, even though it was up for AFD, and even though some of the statements may be sourceable to news stories. This seems to be in accord with the WP:BLP policy to immediately remove unreferenced allegations of criminality. Edison 19:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Terry Gerin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there are a number of people, no need to name names, who do not believe that WP:BLP needs to apply to living subjects they are interested in. Please review the history of this article for details. Burntsauce 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Personal_attacks_by_Moe_Epsilon and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.onlineworldofwrestling.com. You still haven't proved you're right. Your blanking non-contentious material, which was not in violation of BLP. A BLP vio is when contentious material, good or bad, is written on an individual. Nothing you blanked was in violation, and you have proven in the past as Rodney Anoai and Warrior (wrestler) to make the same mistake. — Moe ε 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Anna Svidersky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article concerns a murdered teenager and includes her present family amongst other people. This highly offensive edit summary needs to be deleted and the editor who left it warned to refrain from such abusive language in future. Tyrenius 10:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cecelia Cichan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about to be mentioned on the front page. On August 16, 1987 (when she was four years old) she was the only survivor of a plane crash that killed the rest of her family. I kind of wonder if she should have a WP article at all, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to nominate it for deletion. Steve Dufour 03:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone else nominated it: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cecelia Cichan -Steve Dufour 11:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Barbara Schwarz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry to have to mention this article again. The latest thing is that the regulars want the first thing mentioned to be her immigration status. Steve Dufour 04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A bigger problem is your personal attacks on the other editors on the talk page of the article. Redddogg 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that her nationality may not be important enough to be the first sentence in the article, but on the other hand, it's also not important enough to bring here as a BLP matter. wikipediatrix 21:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please ask yourself why they are so insistent to have it be the first thing said about her. Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What on earth could possibly be pejorative about saying someone is a German national living in the United States? Many if not most bios start with a statement like "Joe Bloggs is a Scottish mole preener..." To test this I looked for three names at random (Henry Cowell, Jackson Pollack, and Paul McCartney) and all three mentioned nationality in the first sentence. In Schwarz' case nationality is not straightforward, because she's a citizen of one country but lives in another. Raymond Arritt 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the great majority of the people who edit the article are people who would like to do something to hurt her personally has something to do with my objection. Please look over the talk page. Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It would have helpful to say so in the first place instead of focusing on the nationality issue. Please provide diffs to specific BLP concerns; merely saying that the editors don't like her isn't giving us anything to go on. Raymond Arritt 22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one by the leading editor of the article saying that the subject's life had been nothing but trouble for society. Steve Dufour 23:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've got someone being vaguely critical of her actions on a talk page. (BTW that person wrote "...or Scientology," not "...or society.") If you can't come up with anything more damning than that, I'm going to close this matter as groundless. Raymond Arritt 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of the article has been to harass its subject. In an earlier version of the article, which was removed by an admin, the opening sentence started out saying that Barbara was an "illegal immigrant." Steve Dufour 13:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of your harassment of your fellow editors. Redddogg 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Stick to the issue at hand, please. Raymond Arritt 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand, as I see it, is that WP doesn't enforce its policy against attack articles. Steve Dufour 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reported your talk page comment about the other editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts -Redddogg 15:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Desiree Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I was not sure whether to post this here or at COI. This article was originally written like a complete piece of fancruft and was almost speedily deleted due to notability concerns. Through the cooperation of a number of editors, this article has established some notability and cites some sources. However, some editors have continued to be war over the inclusion of "unduly self-serving" information from blogs dedicated to her. Most of these editors are SPAs (some with names like Fanofdesiree & Fanofdesiree2. Could an administrator provide some intervention on this page? Ursasapien (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a tag to the page, which is in appalling shape, but there really aren't BLP problems. THF 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Velupillai Prabhakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has a lot of problem with it. For example view of one person is given a lot of room in this article (Specially because this person is an enemy of the person on the biography). Lots of questionable citations and some citations have been twisted around (This person's education where one citations claims one thing and another claims another) where one citation is preferred over another. Velupillai's organization LTTE's atrocities/criminal activities are also given a lot of room in this article but no citation appears to ever link him to the atrocities. Please take a look Watchdogb 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently protected during an editing dispute. THF 15:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Paul Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User "brainchannels" had vandalized the above page, adding libelous information and adding opinion. Can anyone help?

I know nothing about that entry but have done (what amounts to) a slash and burn on material that is a) unsourced and b) problematical from a BLP point of view. Can others review my actions and add back anything they think is OK but please provide sources for such additions. --Fredrick day 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Simon Mol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a poorly sourced libelous article. IMHO it should be deleted. —זכי 11:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If what the article says is true then he is a bad person, but not notable. I see that it is proposed for deletion now. Steve Dufour 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{prod}} has been removed at this point. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is now Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Simon Mol Steve Dufour 02:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who both prodded and now put the article up for deletion. My reasoning can be found on the AfD.--Sethacus 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Helen Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there, I have noticed some vandalism of content on Helen Clark's biography page. Please delete this, I have no idea where to begin editing it! People are silly sometimes.

Nothing to see here. Random ridiculous vandal edits from an IP. I've reverted the changes.--Sethacus 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :)

• Kasey Kazee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the news recently as "The Duct Tape Bandit" with his name and face plastered all over the place. I don't think it's a major problem to have the article existing right now but in the long term I doubt it will be notable. The question is whether it violates BLP, which it may well do. I'll go along with a blanking or support an AfD on this one. violet/riga (t) 15:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say delete it, by any means, the sooner the better. Looks like local news. Also, Misplaced Pages isn't "America's Dumbest Criminals".--Sethacus 15:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone and done it now. I'll leave this open to allow for any comments should anyone have any. violet/riga (t) 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Anne Foy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

sorry, new to this! not very pleasant wiki entry, see below Jump to: navigation, search Anne Foy (born January 1986 in Langold, Worksop) is a children's television presenter for the BBC. She speaks like she's injected herelf with smack, and is too sarcastic for TV in all honesty. 82.26.126.192 17:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I've fixed it. Childish vandalism like this is unfortunately all too common. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merle Terlesky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

This biography is utterly lacking in sources and some of the material may be libellous (I removed one bit). There is a tussle going on between two editors, one of whom seems to be the subject of the article. Reginald Perrin 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello I want to truly thank who ever it was who stopped this page from going on. My name is Merle Terlesky. As I said in the last discussion there are some very gross allegations on that previous page and they need to be corrected. A few notes are as follows. 1. I was never detained by the Police for honking my horn, I was simply given a traffic ticket and it was later dismissed in court. 2. There is no evidence that I ever did any paint bombing and thus it is defamatory. 3. There is no evidence of any criminal charge against me for solicitation in Toronto and thus it is defamatory. 4. I only sent one email to the communist party, I do NOT spend much of my time on that and have not contacted them in over 6 months and it was only to share my past experiences and the dangers of communist ideology. 5. I never ever, ever implied that the gay man beaten in the park deserved what happened, that is a complete lie. It was the Vancouver SUN that later reported the same man was semi naked in that park.

6. Finally-I am working on a legal action against Joyce Arthur and the Pro-Choice action network for their libelous and defamatory piece of literal garbage article on me and I would appreciate if wiklepdia did not link it with a page to my name

I can always be reached at merlet@shaw.ca

thanks,

Merle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merlet (talk • contribs) 02:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

• Michael Kay (sports broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joey Salvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am having a bit of trouble with Heartinthebayou (talk · contribs) and anonymous IP's on these articles. I removed all the unsources, disparaging information that I could, only to have it resotred constantly with insufficient sourcing by said user and/or IPs. I have semi-protected the Kay page, and as of today, blocked Heartinthebayou (talk · contribs) for continued violations, but I would appreciate a few extra eyes on these articles. Thank you -- Avi 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Religious Freedom Watch‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article about a non-notable amateur website designed to smear and slander people who have spoken out against Scientology. It's already been deleted once and has been re-created with no new sources or valid reasons for its re-creation. While this in itself makes the entire article an inherent BLP concern to me, User:S. M. Sullivan is determined to insert into the article the names of some of the people being slandered (some of whom are Misplaced Pages editors), along with his own personal opinion that "Viewing the articles is likely to reveal a mixture of unsourced allegations, IRC logs, 'he-said/she-said' accounts, and reliable sources like sworn affidavits, court transcripts and legal records", thus putting the POV spin on it that the slander is based somewhat in fact. wikipediatrix 03:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• John M. Fabian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am this person. Highly slanted and derrogatory information has repeatedly been added to my bio. I am a retired astronaut and environmental activist. Adverse information concerning my appointment to the Washington State University Board of Regents is highly slanted and ignores the facts of my resignation. The information concerning my brief voluntary leadership of the county democratic party is also highly slanted. These inputs have been repeatedly inserted by advocates for a huge industrial maritime complex and strip mining operation proposed for Hood Canal in Washington.

65.117.226.96 18:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

John Fabian fabianj@olympus.net

Some content was in violation of our policies and I have removed it. Tagged as unreferenced. violet/riga (t) 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I find no reference on the World Wide Web about Alton Brown's Death Today. Please note the following from your entry for Alton Brown. This is a cruel and sick joke.

Alton Brown Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a recently deceased person.

Some information, such as the circumstances of the person's death and surrounding events, may change rapidly as more facts become known. Alton Brown

Born July 30, 1962 (1962-07-30) (age 45) Los Angeles, California, USA Died August 20, 2007 (2007-08-20) (age 0) Los Angeles, California, USA Cooking style American, Southern Education University of Georgia, New England Culinary Institute TV Show(s) Good Eats Iron Chef America Feasting on Asphalt Feasting On Asphalt 2: The River Run

Alton Brown (born on July 30, 1962, died August 20, 2007 in Los Angeles, California, USA) is an American food personality, cinematographer, author, and actor. He is the creator and host of the Food Network television show Good Eats, the miniseries Feasting on Asphalt and the main commentator on Iron Chef America. Brown is also the author of several cooking how-to books and a regular contributor to Bon Appétit and Men’s Journal magazines.

He brings molecular gastronomy (the application of science to culinary practices) and a humorous approach to his cooking shows. Bon Appétit magazine named him "Cooking Teacher —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.206.165.230 (talk) 04:44, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

• J. Michael Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has been the subject of coverage in the New York Times: ; the piece mentions WP article explicitly. Semi-protected already, but an alert, new editor has pointed out that there are significant violations of policy on the page. More eyes are needed: the NYT article is the most emailed from their website currently. In addition, there does not seem to be the standard warning and link to BLP and this noticeboard atop the talkpage. (Can someone handle that?) Hornplease 10:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Barbara Pierce Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An hoax about how she has an engagement ring on that was given to her by the Pope and how the Vatican is quite proud. NO reference is given for the claim and the claim is constantly restored. An example of the claim being restored is here: Example of restoring claim that Pope gave one of the Bush daughter's an engagement ring. Nonsense. --Getaway 18:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• LifestyleAuto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This appears to be a vandal-only account (with the exception of some spam edits it made); I've reported it to AIV, and it has been indef-blocked. THF 19:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

thesuperficial.com is a tabloid blog. Click here http://www.domaintools.com/enwikipedia/thesuperficial.com and it shows it's linked all over wikipedia. I checked the first article, Pamela Anderson, to see where it was linked not as an external link but linked as a reference -- that's a notability violation. I assume it's like that on the other articles. I don't want to go willy nilly removing links all around and I think it's better to post it here. Juanita Hodges 21:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed all references in mainspace articles. Hornplease 23:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Marsha Skrypuch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is poorly written, POV vanity page written by the subject herself. Full of claimes with no citation, (eg, The first female to sell industrial supplies in canada)and weasel words. Tried to fix it but some bot reverted it. http://en.wikipedia.org/Marsha_Skrypuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.125.214 (talk) 09:42, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

• John Travolta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark Ebner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor is persistently adding material to the articles on John Travolta and Mark Ebner about John Travolta's child. The material concerns tabloid allegations about whether or not the child suffers from autism. It has been pointed out that Travolta's child is not a notable figure, and that WP:BLP requires sensitivity in relation to such matters. The editor claims that Travolta's child is a notable figure, on the grounds of the existence of some newspaper coverage of the "story," but this low-level coverage of unproven allegations does not at all establish the notability of this celebrity's child. This material should be excluded on the grounds that Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper (as Jimbo Wales is quoted as saying in WP:BLP), as well as on general BLP sensitivity requirements in relation to non-notable or barely notable individuals, especially children. BCST2001 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both articles seem to have no problems now. One odd thing, though, is that on the talk page of Travolta's article it says that it is part of Project Scientology, as does every Scientologist who has a WP bio. Steve Dufour 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Helen Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the Helen Clark page there is an inappropriate section at the beginning. I ask that this section be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.221.169 (talk) 04:33, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

• There are a couple of vandal accounts inserting the material. I reported them to AIV. - Crockspot 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• In the future, this sort of obvious vandalism can be handled by AIV. This page is for good-faith (and not-so-good-faith) content disputes and less obvious vandalism. THF 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a situation where a notable individual is claimed to be dead (largely by anonymous IP-number editors), but the only sources are blogs or anonymous press releases. See Talk:Aaron_Russo#Concern_about_crappy_sources for details. Quatloo 20:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone located a reliable source. Closing. - Crockspot 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Matt Drudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Here is the diff

We cannot directly access the New York Post "Page Six" article mentioning the lawsuit threat (archive function not so good at their website), but we have reliable secondary sources (IMDB, MediaLife Magazine) proving, to my mind, that it was published. Please say whether this edit is ok or not. Thanks.   Skopp   15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cites are here

1. "Baldwin-Drudge spat may lead to lawsuit" (html). Media Life Magazine. 2002. Retrieved 2007-08-26.
2. "Drudge Threatens Baldwin Over Gay Slur" (html). IMDB. 2002. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
3. "Howard Stern Show Archives" (html). MarksFriggin.com. 2002-08-05. Retrieved 2007-08-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
4. Richard Johnson, 2002-08-06, Page Six, New York Post

It's not that we cannot directly access the "Page Six" article on their site but that the archive search doesn't turn up any article mentioning Baldwin or Drudge for 8/06/2002. IMDB and MediaLife both use the Page Six article as the basis for their articles and the Stern archive listed above is a fansite called MarksFriggin.com and makes no mention of the lawsuit. I think we should track down the article before including the material. --PTR 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• We have now found two major regional newspapers supporting the text, so case closed. See Matt Drudge Talk for further information.   Skopp   00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)