Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
 Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:


Richard Stallman[edit]

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

I have attempted to add this content to the article. Before doing this, I expressed my intention to do so on the talk page. Since nobody objected, I added the material about a week later. Upon doing this, a user reverted it, claiming no consensus and violation of BLP. I left a message on their talk page asking for an explanation a few hours ago and then reinserted the material. Upon doing this, another user reverted it and left a message on my talk page saying that if I want the content to be included, I have to make a submission here.

I have read through the BLP policy and I cannot see how my addition violates it. The statements are on Stallman's personal website; it is evident that he does not think that the comments are anything private or negative. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY allows for self-published/primary sources where they are about the primary source. So Stallman's personal website would be reliable for his opinions. However the sources do not actually support the statement 'supportive'. They indicate he has commented on the subject, and he thinks it is exaggerated, but that is not 'supportive' absent reliable secondary sources that say as such. To include the statement as you have worded it in wikivoice, you would first need a reliable secondary source commenting on his opinions and describing them as supportive, and then you could use the primary sources. Absent secondary sourcing, what you have is someone saying on their website 'this is overblown' on a contentious subject. Generally this would heavily fail WP:UNDUE as well. BLPPRIMARY touches on this with "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I will say there is a bit of a double standard that was brought up in 2013 on the talk page - whole paragraphs of the 'personal life' section are entirely sourced to his own website. If we dont have secondary sources to indicate his opinion on underage sex is notable, why are we including his opinion on Christmas? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(ec)Accusations and imputations of paedophilia, support of child pornography, and the like are intrinsically "contentious claims." Thus such require extremely strong sourcing. By the way, a page which is not widely followed may mean that your "proposed edit" was not seen by anyone who recognised its substantial problems in any BLP. (adding) Opinions about Christmas are not intrinsically contentious to the same extent at all. Really. Collect (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this as any sort of accusation or imputation -- rather, the subject's own words are being used to convey what he actually believes. I can imagine that if someone else accused him of holding these views and there was no evidence from Stallman himself that he does have those views, you'd object vociferously (and in my view rightly). I suggest not trying to have it both ways... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity: Stallman explicitly comments on 'voluntary' rather than 'involuntary'. While legally there is no difference (underage cannot voluntarily yadda yadda) he is making a comment on the social difference between someone willingly participating and being an unwilling participant. His comments do not reflect a statement he is 'supportive' of 'pedophilia'. I personally dont think the information should be included, not because of the subject, but because its not relevant. Like almost all of the rest of the crap in the personal section sourced to his blog. Tempted to take it all out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't really object to that -- I suppose the word "supportive" is a very slight interpolation. Anyway an even-handed approach, not focused on deletion only of "contentious" stuff, strikes me as fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just found this article, which makes things more confusing. Orthogonal1 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but a neutral wording of 'Stallman has also commented on <subject X>' absent any support/condemn commentary would not be contentious as such, because its clear he has done so on more than one occasion. As written, the OP's suggestion is obviously not going to happen, however the pushback appears to be 'we shouldnt include his comments on the subject because of the distastefulness of the subject' which isnt actually a violation of BLP. UNDUE/Neutrality yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This link contains the statement 'Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography"'. Unfortunately, the site he links to is down for me at the moment, so I can't confirm that Stallman is actually mentioned in the article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
https://xifrat.pirata.cat/forum/discussion/277/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/p1 and http://syria-personally.beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/09/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade-2449306.html may be mirrors of that page (with the usual possibility that they may be an edited, later, or earlier version), --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've made some minor cuts to the article, along the lines of what User:Only in death suggested. The wording in the proposed (and rightfully reverted) edit was not adequately verified in the somewhat loosely strewn around comments in the subject's archive. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I've put some of the folk music stuff back in - although its tangential to what he's really all about, it is mentioned in book sources, so I feel it can stay. I am aware of some of the comments he has made about paedophilia in the past, and I think he was trying to say something like consenting paedophilia should be allowed - which doesn't really make sense. However, Stallman has a fearsome reputation for strong and blunt opinion that would make some gruelling Arbcom cases look like trivial nonsense, and might have been simply trying to justify an open mind and put his foot in it. He also doesn't like the Beatles and hates pictures of small children, which means we're not going to see eye to eye. Where was I? Oh yes, the trims look good - leave the controversial stuff out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, @Drmies:, I don't see why you wanted to remove the selected publications. Many articles on academics have such a section, where people can find out more about their research and concepts. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ritchie, it's part of my regular MO: we're not a resume bin. If scholars get their articles listed, the end is near. Books, typically, yes, but preferably only when sources (with secondary sources--reviews). Academics typically have web pages anyway for their resumes. But listing articles a. frequently turns into a kind of linkspam and b. invites the comparison with an article on a musician listing every song they ever wrote, for instance. That's poor article writing, and even without the links it gets spammy. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting at, but this isn't just any old academic, this is somebody who may well be one of the most important software programmers that ever lived,[weasel words] and things like "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" and "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource" I think would be genuinely interesting to the layman reader. (In particular I've heard this "free encyclopedia" thing is popular) Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for making those edits. I'm happy that the policy is being applied to non-contentious material as well as contentious material. Orthogonal1 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Getting back to the question at hand, I reverted a claim that "On his personal website, he has made several comments supporting child pornography and pedophilia". Looking at the actual cited comments, I see Stallman commenting on a couple of different issues, none of which math the description given:

  • " Rick Falkvinge joins me in demanding an end to the censorship of "child pornography", and points out that if in the US you observe the rape of a child, making a video or photo to use as evidence would subject you to a greater penalty than the rapist. The article does not mention that it's common practice for teenagers to exchange nude photos with their lovers, and they all potentially could be imprisoned for this. A substantial fraction of them are actually prosecuted."[1]
  • "Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition. The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness. Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today. For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants)."[2]
  • "Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization. I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "[3]

I find it interesting that wikiquote has four quotes by Stallman on pedophilia, but only three were used. The missing one is:

  • " There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children. Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "[4] In the original quote (but not in the wikiquote version), he hyperlinks to [ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light ].

So we have two issues here, one is the claim that the above are "comments supporting child pornography and pedophilia", which appears to be WP:OR and a BLP violation. The other is whether a more accurate and nuanced description of Stallman's views on this would be appropriate for his Wikipedia page.

Note: I have to rewrite the above a couple of times in an attempt to maintain WP:NPOV. Like many people, I have a visceral and emotional reaction to the subject but at the same time logic tells me that there are differences between, say, an adult having sex with a 16-year-old and a 6-year-old, that there are differences between statutory rape and forcible rape, and that pointing out that these differences exist is in no way the same thing as "supporting" statutory rape of 16-year-olds. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that last quote, and I think that it further justifies my position. In that case, it's clear that he's not talking exclusively about 16 year olds. As to the question of whether this is notable enough, it is similar to Jimmy Wales and Bomis. Bomis would not have been notable by itself, but given that Wales met notability guidelines on other bases, the company could be mentioned in his article. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that, as best I can find, no independent reliable source has written about his views on pedophilia. On such a topic, we should rely on outside commentary rather than our own interpretations of his writings. Fences&Windows 14:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:BLPSELFPUB states that self-published primary sources may be used as sources if the below conditions apply. All of the below conditions are satisfied, so a secondary source is unnecessary:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have misread what WP:BLPSELFPUB says. You claimed "...self-published primary sources may be used as sources if..." but the actual policy says "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (emphasis in original). The material in question is not Stallman talking about about Stallman. It is one of Stallman's many published opinions about various subjects. I see no reason to single out this particular opinion and not, say, his opinions on GMO or global warming -- especially when no reliable source has done so. In particular, I see no reason to post original research not supported by the sources as you did here:[5] This was explained to you in detail at Talk:Richard Stallman#Quotes on significant social issues (RMS still holds). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"The material in question is not Stallman talking about Stallman":

A person's opinion is definitely something about themselves. You could argue that "My favourite colour is yellow" is not a statement about me; it is a statement about the colour yellow, but I think that we can see that this would be unreasonable.

"I see no reason to single out this particular opinion and not, say, his opinions on GMO or global warming"

As I have also discussed on talk page, his opinions on GMOs and global warming are not unusual. We shouldn't say "Stallman has 10 fingers", if the only source discussing this is a personal webpage, but if he had 12 fingers, this would be something to include in the article, even if the only source was his personal webpage.

"In particular, I see no reason to post original research not supported by the sources as you did here"

I agree that the wording might need to be changed for accuracy, as discussed in your previous messages. Fine. What about:

"On his personal website, he has made several comments supporting the legalisation of child pornography distribution, though he has stated that the creation of child pornography, if it involves sex with a child, is wrong. Despite this, he has expressed doubt that child sex is harmful, so long as it is voluntary."

If you don't like this, will you at least tentatively agree to the first sentence? Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No. Please stop trying to think of different ways to sneak in original research that is not found in any reliable secondary source. The Wikipedia community will never allow that to happen.
Stallman has many unusual opinions, He thinks that Israeli is engaging in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, that we should impeach God, and that the "Obama regime" wants to kill 10 million people with HIV by pressuring India to stop making generic drugs, making Obama "literally worse than the Nazi leaders convicted at Nuremberg of crimes against humanity." Like his opinion on child pornography, we will only include information on those opinions if they have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I've read the policy on original research, and I can't see where it says that all content that does not have a secondary source is original research.
The Israeli-Palestinian dispute is way too controversial to be able to have a sensible discussion about. Suffice to say that there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the discussion, so whatever Stallman's opinion, it will not generally be notable.
His mock desire to impeach God is an expression of his atheism, and atheism isn't obscure.
The example you gave about the "Obama regime"'s supposed conspiracy to kill 10 million people was, as far as I can tell, something that he said once. Not repeatedly over the course of more than 10 years.
Anyway, regardless of all of this, if he has any other extremely strange opinions that he repeatedly writes about over a long time on his website, then yes, they should go in the article. I am by no means trying to make an exception just for this opinion. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be no consensus on this. On one side we have me, Only in death does duty end
("Absent secondary sourcing, what you have is someone saying on their website 'this is overblown' on a contentious subject. Generally this would heavily fail WP:UNDUE as well. [...] I personally don't think the information should be included, not because of the subject, but because its not relevant. Like almost all of the rest of the crap in the personal section sourced to his blog. Tempted to take it all out."),'
and Collect
("Accusations and imputations of paedophilia, support of child pornography, and the like are intrinsically 'contentious claims.' Thus such require extremely strong sourcing. By the way, a page which is not widely followed may mean that your 'proposed edit' was not seen by anyone who recognised its substantial problems in any BLP. (adding) Opinions about Christmas are not intrinsically contentious to the same extent at all. Really.")
and on the other side we have you, Nomoskedasticity and Ritchie333 This is, of course subject to my interpetation of the comments by those individuals, which may be flawed.
If you really want to keep trying to get it in, I am willing to post a neutrally-worded RfC so we can get a definitive answer on consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, we're probably going to need an RfC. Whatever the outcome is, everyone should accept it. Since that will be pseudo-precedent, do you think it would be a good idea to let Stallman know that an important decision involving him is going to be made, and giving him the opportunity to comment? I don't think that this would be against policy, but I might be wrong. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon's analysis of the issue is correct, and while anyone can start an RfC, it is not clear that an RfC should occur. The real point is that Stallman has extreme views about personal freedom and he would hate to condone governments interfering with such freedom unless it were to prevent infringements on others—that is what the article should be saying (if sourced). Stallman has not written anything extensive about sex—all he has done is to apply the principles I just mentioned to that topic. The only reason to highlight a few of Stallman's words is to wink at readers with the suggestion that his views are despicable, and a secondary source qualified to comment in that area should be found before such decorations are added to the article. A secondary source can comment on what else Stallman has said or done in the area in order to show what beliefs are involved. Stallman is known for campaigning regarding freedom, but I have not seen suggestions of campaigns related to sex. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

While that may be so from a theoretical perspective, it's irresponsible to suggest that children actually voluntarily consent to these things in any ordinary circumstances. I'm not trying to take away children's agency. I am a supporter of the youth rights movement and believe that youth should be allowed to vote and drive, and not be subject to curfews, just to name a few things. But it's safe to say that practically all children don't want to have sex with old men. Talking about children voluntarily consenting to these things without explaining how extremely extremely extremely unlikely this is makes people imagine that there are a lot of children out there who really want to have sex with old men, and the government is taking away their freedom, when this is just ridiculous. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No one here is using those words, and indeed if any editor were to put those words on their user page they may very well be indeffed per WP:CHILDPROTECT. There are lots of worthy causes and your's is a particularly good one, but Wikipedia is not the right place to promote good things (see WP:RGW). When there is a secondary source with some encyclopedic information, it can be added to the article. Meanwhile, arguments about the ridiculous nature of what someone put on their website should not occur at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia isn't the place to talk politics or advocacy (if you look at my edit history, you'll see that my main areas of interest include world legislative bodies, Australian constitutional law and the island of Tokelau), and I'm sorry that my last comment ventured into the political. My purpose was to state that even if Stallman did support the libertarian principle that no person's liberty may be restricted except to prevent harm to others, as you suggested, then his position on this particular issue would not necessarily be a consequence of that. In any case, Stallman has a pro-State gland, and his website has many comments supporting government intervention, so the personal freedom argument is probably not worth having. Orthogonal1 (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I had never heard of Stallman until a few hours ago and as I've been reading this thread, I keep changing my mind to agree with whoever's comment I'm reading at that moment. I think everyone has made the valid arguments. Orthogonal1: I would definitely support including it if/when it's addressed by a reliable third party source, because then presumably we'd be able to appropriately contextualize Stallman's statements. Right now, the only way it could included would be to directly quote and attribute Stallman's blog, which really just leaves it hanging, so I think pedophile apologists would perceive it as confirming their biases and I truly think it would have more of backfire effect than anything else. —PermStrump(talk) 10:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seasick Steve[edit]

I have inserted new and wholly verified information about this subject, in the section 2016 biography, but it has repeatedly been deleted. There are independent and authoritative sources for everything I have stated. This article as it stands is highly inaccurate and misleading. Date of birth, name, and discography are all inaccurate. Other editors are meddling with new material they do not understand, and have clearly not ready thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoboLow (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • It has been reverted since it's a clear case of promoting a brand new biography written by a, by Wikipedia's standards, non-notable author. Made by not only one but two single-purpose accounts plus an IP. And HoboLow's only contributions on en-WP so far are repeated attempts to add a large block of material about the biography and its author on Seasick Steve, plus the creation of an unsourced (as in not a single source to support the notability of the subject of the article, only a link to the publisher's page about the book, and links to articles about Seasick Steve) article about the author of the biography. Thomas.W talk 20:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree it's trying to promote this book, but it shouldn't be reveted in its entirety, some of the sources introduced would be considered reliable. GiantSnowman 20:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, but not under a heading saying "2016 Biography" promoting the book. The sources, and the material they support, should instead be added to more appropriate sections of the article. Thomas.W talk 20:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Like I have just (albeit quickly & poorly) done! GiantSnowman 20:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you guys think the page needs a semi-protection for a few days to discourage the re-addition of the material? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually just went ahead and protected it for a week. I figure that although it seems to have tapered off a little, it's extensive enough to where a semi would be warranted. On a side note, it looks like there are quite a few new accounts signing up and making comments about the book. It might be worthwhile to open up an SPI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Correction, some of them only look new. Still, it seems like some of them have only edited about this topic or have been away for an awfully long time, just to come back and try to add this information or argue for the inclusion of the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Thomas.W: I actually opened one before I saw this. What made me concerned was that the IP seemed to be editing in the same fashion as HoboLow and claimed that they were separate people. It's an awful lot of editing around the same point in time on the same topic. It's open now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoboLow and I've already notified the IPs and HoboLow (I didn't include THPB91), so might as well let it run its course. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield[edit]

I have, at least twice in the past, corrected accounts and edits that have been entered in an order that does not support chronological sequences, nor do the misorderings aid comprehension. I have, once again, removed redundant statements when they repetition seems to confuse a reader into believing the same event, occurs on at least two separate times instead of the single occurrence those accounts represent. In fact, the misorderings does seem consistent with an intentional attempt (or more than one) to change the context of the representation, and using misrepresentation of the sequence of events to support that (or those) attempts.

I do believe Wikipedia garners an unfair negative reputation when such activities occur...I don't expect any kind of retribution against those who made the changes...but I simply can not serve as a watchdog all by myself in at the very least, this one single article. I suggest that all future edits are reviewed for accuracy, consistency, redundancy, correct citation, and so on; before permitting the saved edits to appear on Wikipedia; and the number of times that the defamatory changes have occurred in the past should be the reason for this escalation of normal Wikipedia policy.

I can not even be sure that the citations I used in my attempts to correct the wrongs in this article, are up to Wikipedia standards, and would be appreciative if Wikipedia reviewed the corrections I made to day to ask for whatever support I may have missed. I think that my most likely oversights would occur in areas that I had corrected so many times before, that I would have overlooked re-correcting some supporting information.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.20.116 (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I just checked a few of your edits on Jeremy Mayfield and none of them were supported by the cited sources, in fact some were contradicted by the cited sources. Where are you getting your information? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Gal Costa[edit]

Needs better sourcing. Costa's mother listened to classical music during her pregnancy for example -- no source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.68.67 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

T. V. John Langworthy[edit]

T. V. John Langworthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am wondering if some others would mind taking a look at this article. I'm not sure if it's intended to be a hoax or if this person really exists, but the way it is written does not seem for the most part to comply with WP:BLP. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I have undone some attack-style edits that were done today. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look NatGertler. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

maggie wheeler[edit]

Maggie Wheelers filmography is missing a 2016 credit for her appearance on the show Maron on IFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:803:401:DD4D:3058:430F:EB07:606A (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Roosh V[edit]

Should something like this result in a revdel or block? In general what do I do when I see one of these? [6] Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove it stating in the edit summary its per the BLP policy (so people know its exempt from 3rr/edit warring rules) and report to ANI (in that case). For some edits leaving a warning on their talkpage is enough, but I dont think there would be any point with that editor. Block is warranted, but its not severe enough that an immediate WP:REVDEL is necessary, personally I think its just common insulting, although some may think it falls under "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." If an admin thinks it needs to be deleted after reporting to ANI they will do it. If you think it should be revision deleted when you spot something like it, follow procedures here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ralph Snyderman[edit]

More eyes please. I removed some very promotional style and content, but the article still needs a lot of work. I suspected he was not notable due to the high level of peacocking, but it turns out he is a member of the National Academy of Medicine, which seems like a solid pass on WP:PROF. Delta13C (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Jebamalai Vinanchiarachi[edit]

A standard issue; a new biography, probably written by COI accounts, that relies in part on copyright violations from the subject's Linkedin entry, resume-style listing of honors, and public relations prose. I've added templates, but wonder if this is eligible for speedy or something less draconian. At any rate, given that multiple accounts are puffing this up, this could probably use some attention. Thanks in advance. 2601:188:1:AEA0:68C6:2CD6:BBB7:7FB2 (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Stevo Todorčević‎[edit]

I am having a dispute with Vujkovica brdo on the BLP of mathematician Stevo Todorčević‎ over whether it is acceptable to list his research accomplishments without providing secondary sources for the claims that they are indeed accomplishments. Third opinions welcome. Probably the talk page of the article would be better than here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Before this notice was posted here I've already asked Eppstein to address his concerns on the article talk pages. My contributions to this biography are fully supported by valid and online accessible references, earlier and now.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=727627279"