| Revision as of 07:04, 27 April 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof/Archives/2015/April) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:41, 8 May 2015 edit undoStarkcasted (talk | contribs)33 editsm Are you looking at OnLive BLP?Next edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farshad_Fotouhi&diff=prev&oldid=657794030 | http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farshad_Fotouhi&diff=prev&oldid=657794030 | ||
| Since you already know the history of this page, can you please take a look? Thank you. ] (]) 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | Since you already know the history of this page, can you please take a look? Thank you. ] (]) 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == OnLive BLP article == | |||
| Last week on the reliable source noticeboard I asked you what the next steps were regarding BLP. My read of BLP is that the article should be immediately removed, since the article is about a living person, identifies no sources, is not corroborated by any other article I can find or anyone has suggested, does not state any effort was made to contact the subject of the article to comment on the facts, and we can see that at least one highly credible publication has removed a link to it. You said there was no need for me to do anything and you would be looking at the reliability of the article from a BLP standpoint. Have you had a chance to do this? Or should I post it on the BLP noticeboard or doing something else? As I mentioned, I agree with MIT Technology Review that the article's lack of reliability is clear-cut in non-Misplaced Pages journalism, so I'm increasingly intrigued to see what the outcome is on Misplaced Pages and I'd love to write about it, particularly as we are taking a closer look at the credibility of journalism in the wake of the Rolling Stone scandal. Thank you for your time on it so far, and let me know if I should seek out another editor to help me through the process if you are too busy. Thanks! ] (]) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:41, 8 May 2015
AN filing
NorthBySouthBaranof, while I didn't mention you by name, I did refer to one of you edit's in my AN filing. I'm giving you a heads up about it in case you want to add anything to this or comment on it. The AN filing is here . KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 11:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for your work to improve Vanessa Lynne Bryant. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to experience disruption from IPs on a regular basis. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Hillary Rodham Clinton - Move Discussion
Hi,
This is a notification to let you know that there is a requested move discussion ongoing at Talk:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton/April_2015_move_request#Requested_move. You are receiving this notification because you have previously participated in some capacity in naming discussions related to the article in question.
Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Farshad Fotouhi
As soon as the protection level was changed on Farshad Fotouhi the sockfarm was activated again: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Farshad_Fotouhi&diff=prev&oldid=657794030 Since you already know the history of this page, can you please take a look? Thank you. Dr wiki editor (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OnLive BLP article
Last week on the reliable source noticeboard I asked you what the next steps were regarding BLP. My read of BLP is that the article should be immediately removed, since the article is about a living person, identifies no sources, is not corroborated by any other article I can find or anyone has suggested, does not state any effort was made to contact the subject of the article to comment on the facts, and we can see that at least one highly credible publication has removed a link to it. You said there was no need for me to do anything and you would be looking at the reliability of the article from a BLP standpoint. Have you had a chance to do this? Or should I post it on the BLP noticeboard or doing something else? As I mentioned, I agree with MIT Technology Review that the article's lack of reliability is clear-cut in non-Misplaced Pages journalism, so I'm increasingly intrigued to see what the outcome is on Misplaced Pages and I'd love to write about it, particularly as we are taking a closer look at the credibility of journalism in the wake of the Rolling Stone scandal. Thank you for your time on it so far, and let me know if I should seek out another editor to help me through the process if you are too busy. Thanks! Starkcasted (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)