Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
::"Kafkaesque"? Oh, for the love of everything that is hyperbolic. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 04:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
::"Kafkaesque"? Oh, for the love of everything that is hyperbolic. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 04:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::You should recuse yourself from anything having to do with Ross, since your belligerence toward him is so glaringly obvious. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
:::You should recuse yourself from anything having to do with Ross, since your belligerence toward him is so glaringly obvious. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::I'm sorry you can't see the difference between objecting to disruptive, SPA behavior and belligerence toward someone none of us has ever met. The latter is an incorrect judgement and not what's happening, the former is reality and what's actually happening. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">[[User:Winkelvi|WV]]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">[[User_talk:Winkelvi|✉]] [[Special:Contributions/Winkelvi|✓]]</span> 05:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Dave Brytus]] == |
== [[Dave Brytus]] == |
Revision as of 05:09, 25 December 2015
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
I am the subject of this page.
Repeatedly, someone keeps trying to insert assertions about my departure from CNN not based in fact or supported by the cited articles.
Their insertion(s) try to smear me by saying Jim Clancy claimed Israel was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I tried to edit it by simply saying "On January 16, 2015, Clancy announced he was leaving the network after nearly 34 years.[1][2]
Both of those articles contain my notice of leaving CNN. Both cite "controversial" tweets. IMHO opinion, the best way to address it is the way I have edited it and leave the sources listed intact.
Thank You for your consideration.
Jim Clancy (Gearscout) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearscout (talk • contribs) 21:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- The content is reliably sourced. I modified the claim to better reflect the source. Meatsgains (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
That removes the smear. I appreciate your fairness.
Jim Clancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gearscout (talk • contribs) 00:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The previous claim was POV. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced entries pertaining to living people have been repeatedly added (by different editors), then removed (by me), and most recently my cleanup edit was reverted by an IP editor.[1]
In the Balkans, spurious information about someone's ethnic background may be reasonably seen as problematic WP:BLP-wise, especially in the wake of Yugoslav Wars. Therefore, my understanding of WP:BLPREMOVE, as well as WP:LISTPEOPLE, is that editors are free to remove any and all unsourced entries from such a list. The discussion about this issue can be seen in the article's talk page.
Of course, while I believe I'm free to revert all such additions as needed, before going into WP:3RR territory I'd like to hear a second opinion regarding the interpretation of WP:BLP. GregorB (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Categorization of people by ethnicity, religion, etc. is always a problem for any living person, and best practice is not to assign categories or claims which are not self-identified. Collect (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Concur. Anything that broaches on ethnicity in the Yugoslav area is highly likely to be problematic. Especially on BLP's. Agree with your removal. Its not like you didnt warn in advance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- On a related note, this seems far below the expected standard for sourcing for a BLP. Firstly its a Wordpress blog, secondly the blog does not directly call him Serbian - it starts with a paragraph about the origin of the name 'Socolovich' and only mentions in passing as the 'descendant of the Ottoman Empire'... The IP who inserted that also reverted Gregor on the above article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, inferential reasoning (i.e. WP:OR) is a problem too. Also, I'd say that poor sourcing invites more poor sourcing, just as unsourced and/or dubious entries tend to attract even more unsourced and dubious entries - all the more reason to clean things up. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Mohammad Ali Taheri
Mohammad Ali Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The awards in this page are bloated, failing to have sources cited for them, and in many cases falsified to some extend (e.g. a Gold award where as there was a special award which is mostly just a participation award!) A single award that mentions a few subject was repeated many times over trying to show that there were more awards involved. An extensive search of awards returned no result other than the self reported origins for these awards.
- I have removed some of the unsourced material, but the article is hopelessly out of balance. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Len Saunders
Len Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could a more clue-ful editor than I have a look at this article? My addition of tags hasn't helped. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- This article is a straight puff piece. I'll go through and remove some of the promotional content but a helping hand would be appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- to me, not a blp regular, the article appears entirely without sources I'm rushing off to write my own blp ... Roxy the dog, one of the worlds greatest humanitarians, was born ... -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've nominated it for proposed deletion; doesn't really seem to fit the qualities of an encyclopedic biography and a quick Google doesn't come up with anything significant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Panagiotis Kone
Panagiotis Kone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Conflicting sources about ancestry/ethnicity and I argue that apart from it being OR, one of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panagiotis_Kone#Contradicting_sources. Moreover, Kone has self-declared as being of "Albanian ancestry", but this is constantly being dismissed without explanation.
Nosratollah Momtahen
Help with the article for Nosratollah Momtahen. User:Aalborzz has twice added details of the alleged death of the subject (this user also claims to be the grandson of the subject). However, the changes have been reverted twice as they don't seem to verfify this. Now the source provided is also in Persian, which I have no knowledge of. Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source User:Aalborzz provided is the search directory for people buried in Behesht-e Zahra cemetary. However (based on my horrendous farsi reading skills), it looks like the search link he provided doesn't show any results. To double check I searched the farsi version of his name Aalborzz provided in the search engine and got no results. But given that the website was down a few hours earlier, this could just be the site acting up. @Aalborzz: Do you know any Iranian newspapers that have an obituary for him? Brustopher (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Rick Alan Ross (consultant)
Rick Alan Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following quote is out taken of context and does not reflect either its actual historical significance and/or the intention its inclusion within the Phoenix New Times article written about me (1996) by journalist Tony Ortega. The quote reads, "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas. He's been hounded by private investigators and threatened with violence. Some of his friends fear for his life." Ortega specifically reported about Scientologists, cult leaders and their operatives attacking and harassing me, hiring private investigators, threatening me, etc. This name calling was attributed to Scientology and other groups called "cults." WP:Biographies of Living Persons "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care" Also "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." And "Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself." See the original article http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/hush-hush-sweet-charlatans-6426159 From the same article explaining "reviled in print" and "blame...for the disaster at Waco," Tony Ortega reported, "In January, Freedom magazine, which is published by the Church of Scientology, carried an article suggesting that Ross was responsible for the deaths at Waco." Regarding "private investigators," Ortega reported, "Steve Kamp of the Church of Immortal Consciousness admits that the dossier of Ross documents that he gives to the press was put together by Kendrick Moxon, the Scientologist attorney representing Jason Scott." Ortega further explained in the article, "Rick Ross had labeled Kamp's Tonto Village commune, the Church of Immortal Consciousness, a destructive cult. Enraged, Kamp has followed Ross to ASU looking for satisfaction. And he's brought along his son, his attorney, the undercover investigator, the process server, the incriminating dossiers." Further reported by Ortega, "Ross is known for his facility with the Bible. His talent for untwisting the Scripture that cult leaders employ to justify exploitative or even criminal behavior has put him in great demand. And, after 13 years and some of the most notable cases in American cult history, when Rick Ross calls a group a cult, people listen." Ortega, recently wrote a retrospective about the same article. See http://tonyortega.org/2015/11/30/where-it-all-began-for-us-rick-ross-david-koresh-and-the-church-of-scientology/ Please remove this harmful and misleading quote from the Waco Siege section of my bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's correctly quoted and the source's reliable, I see no reason to remove it. KoshVorlon 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree and have removed the quote. If there are serious concerns about negative material – as there are here – we should err on the side of caution, have a discussion and try to reach some sort of 'consensus' before re-adding it. --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion with this individual has happened over and over, Hillbillyholiday. Please look at the article talk page history to get an idea of what's really going on here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- WV, I have read the talkpage discussion and I don't really see a consensus there. Others have suggested changes, and I personally think that "reviled in print" is too strong a phrase not to present in some sort of context. Collect has been involved in the discussions, so I'm pinging him to see what he thinks. --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Discussion with this individual has happened over and over, Hillbillyholiday. Please look at the article talk page history to get an idea of what's really going on here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree and have removed the quote. If there are serious concerns about negative material – as there are here – we should err on the side of caution, have a discussion and try to reach some sort of 'consensus' before re-adding it. --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's correctly quoted and the source's reliable, I see no reason to remove it. KoshVorlon 16:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- As KoshVorlon noted, the content is correctly quoted and from a reliable source. In spite of the filer's claims, it is not taken out of context. The person filing this BLPN is forum shopping and has done so previously to get the result he desires. As well as being noted by other editors for WP:NOTHERE, he also has a WP:COI as the article subject. Editors noting attempts to whitewash and skew the article go back years. No one responded (rightly) at the talk page to his demand to have the content removed, so he has come here to get the result he desires. Pinging other editors who have commented at the talk page and/or devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to the article and requests of the report filer as they should be aware of this BLPN: Jbhunley, Elmmapleoakpine, Francis Schonken, Cwobeel. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- WP: Coatrack "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person." And anyone that digs into the history of my bio will find that it has a long history of being used and abused in exactly that way in violation of Wikipedia policy. I am seeking fact based and fair editing within Wikipedia guidelines.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate that this is a long running saga, but I don't believe "Forum shopping" applies. This is a legitimate concern and BLPN (which has far more viewers than the article's talkpage) is the correct venue to discuss the matter. --Hillbillyholiday talk 17:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Coming here to get more eyes on a BLP should not be considered forum shopping. If coming here when you don't get your way on a BLP was forum shopping there is no need for this board. Every section here is because there is a dispute on a BLP and someone didn't get their way. If they keep coming back for the same concern that has previously been answered then there is a problem. -- GB fan 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- As KoshVorlon noted, the content is correctly quoted and from a reliable source. In spite of the filer's claims, it is not taken out of context. The person filing this BLPN is forum shopping and has done so previously to get the result he desires. As well as being noted by other editors for WP:NOTHERE, he also has a WP:COI as the article subject. Editors noting attempts to whitewash and skew the article go back years. No one responded (rightly) at the talk page to his demand to have the content removed, so he has come here to get the result he desires. Pinging other editors who have commented at the talk page and/or devoted enormous amounts of time and energy to the article and requests of the report filer as they should be aware of this BLPN: Jbhunley, Elmmapleoakpine, Francis Schonken, Cwobeel. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, forum shopping may not apply. That said, COI does -- especially since the filer of this report stated that he feels the in-context, unbiased content is "harmful" to him. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- And he is following the proper steps for someone with a COI, discussing on the article talk page and here, not directly editing the article. -- GB fan 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- GB fan, yes, he is taking the right steps, but if you look at the history of the article and the article subject's time in Wikipedia (which goes back several years), he has repeatedly made demands for changes to the article that benefit his online reputation rather than actually benefitting the article or Wikipedia in general. His is a WP:SPA and he is, arguably, WP:NOTHERE. Editors at the article have become tired of trying to meet his requests and demands, hence, the lack of response to his most recent demands at the article talk page. We are not required to respond to everything he wants nor are we required to make the article conform to his liking. This has been going on for years with him. When do we draw the line and say "enough"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I can't put it any better than Midsize Jake did in a recent discussion at WPO:
A cult deprogrammer like Ross would recognize the cult-like aspects of Wikipedian group behavior almost immediately, and upon realizing that the top Google result for his name is under the control of such people, it's natural that he'd be alarmed - and just as natural that antagonism would follow.
- --Hillbillyholiday talk 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi, you can say enough anytime you want to. He is a single purpose account and he is not here to contribute to any other part of the encyclopedia other than to the article about himself but no one has to work on anything other than what they want to. I think most people would fight to make sure an article about them is correct, especially when they are as controversial as this. He should be allowed to fight to make sure his article is right. He obviously doesn't think we are doing a good enough job. He is going to try to make the article as favorable to him as he can so we need to balance that, but trying to dismiss him or drive him away will never work. We need to work with him not against him. -- GB fan 19:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- GB fan, yes, he is taking the right steps, but if you look at the history of the article and the article subject's time in Wikipedia (which goes back several years), he has repeatedly made demands for changes to the article that benefit his online reputation rather than actually benefitting the article or Wikipedia in general. His is a WP:SPA and he is, arguably, WP:NOTHERE. Editors at the article have become tired of trying to meet his requests and demands, hence, the lack of response to his most recent demands at the article talk page. We are not required to respond to everything he wants nor are we required to make the article conform to his liking. This has been going on for years with him. When do we draw the line and say "enough"? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- And he is following the proper steps for someone with a COI, discussing on the article talk page and here, not directly editing the article. -- GB fan 18:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, forum shopping may not apply. That said, COI does -- especially since the filer of this report stated that he feels the in-context, unbiased content is "harmful" to him. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- The article in the Phoenix New Times in question [2] could be better summarized in that article, including material about his early youth and background information. The Phoenix New Times article is quite comprehensive. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Tend to agree, the quote "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas" seems a little unbalanced and not especially encyclopedic. Mr Ross's editing history, whether contentious or not, hardly makes this difficulty evaporate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am trying to follow through according to Wikipedia policies. The quote was relatively recently added and is misleading. It is not self-explanatory and unless someone had read the entire article written by Tony Ortega they would not understand the context. The Waco Siege section of my bio is a bit of a coatrack WP:Coatrack.It is being used to hang either "biased material" or quote something that is "superficially true," but that "leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The selected scholars quoted or referenced represent a minority view and offer "biased negative opinions." This is, in my opinion, a "fact picking device"' that provides a small faction of academics a "soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are quite justified in your concerns. It's difficult to know how the "religion hater" view can be put across without seeming to introduce bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)\
- Thank you.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you are quite justified in your concerns. It's difficult to know how the "religion hater" view can be put across without seeming to introduce bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)\
- I am trying to follow through according to Wikipedia policies. The quote was relatively recently added and is misleading. It is not self-explanatory and unless someone had read the entire article written by Tony Ortega they would not understand the context. The Waco Siege section of my bio is a bit of a coatrack WP:Coatrack.It is being used to hang either "biased material" or quote something that is "superficially true," but that "leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The selected scholars quoted or referenced represent a minority view and offer "biased negative opinions." This is, in my opinion, a "fact picking device"' that provides a small faction of academics a "soapbox that is far larger than reality warrants."Rick Alan Ross (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Tend to agree, the quote "Ross has been reviled in print as a kidnaper and a vicious religion-hater. Some even blame him for the disaster at Waco, Texas" seems a little unbalanced and not especially encyclopedic. Mr Ross's editing history, whether contentious or not, hardly makes this difficulty evaporate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
On a side note, the article appears to be more a resume or extension of Ross' marketing rather than an encyclopedia article about him. I've started a discussion and hope more editors will help. Discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ronz please restore the historical information that you deleted from the lead of my bio. Wikipedia: Citing Sources If you look at the Talk page the facts you deleted are well supported by secondary sources.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- This not the appropriate forum for such requests. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- This not the appropriate forum for such requests. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment:(I don't want the good discussion to be sidetracked with my noting other issues) I agree with Hillbillyholiday, Cwobeel, and Martinevans123 - the source is being used poorly, and the quote is too much. The quote doesn't summarize the main points of the source, let alone the source as a whole, yet that's the only time editors feel it should be used?! Rick Alan Ross was correct in coming here with the concern. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is never forum shopping or inappropriate in any way to bring a concern about a BLP here to BLPN. It is Kafkaesque to accuse a living person of having a conflict of interest in expressing concerns about accuracy, fairness and balance regarding our biography of a living person about their own life. The very first sentence of this thread is entirely correct: The quotation from the Phoenix New Times article was wrenched out of context and cherry picked to portray Ross in the worst possible light. I just read every word of that lengthy, detailed article, and that quote is in no way representative of the overall tone of the article. It is, in effect, a "devil's advocate" type of statement, summarizing the views of Ross's enemies, not the views of the writer of the article. Winkelvi, in my considered judgment, you are way out of line here and elsewhere regarding Ross, and have personalized things. You have taken a combative and confrontational stance toward Ross, and are hectoring and badgering him about his academic credentials when he has never claimed to be an academic. It is unseemly for a Wikipedia editor to treat a BLP subject this way. Please stop it now. Rick Alan Ross, I am sorry that you have been treated this way. I have the article about you on my watch list, and will do my best to ensure that it complies with the neutral point of view. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Kafkaesque"? Oh, for the love of everything that is hyperbolic. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- You should recuse yourself from anything having to do with Ross, since your belligerence toward him is so glaringly obvious. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Dave Brytus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've removed very contentious, unsourced edits from this BLP a couple of times. An example is here. Could someone take a look? EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Obvious BLP violations; highly-negative, entirely-unsourced claims about a living person don't belong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Revdel is probably called for here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Person is, however, likely notable per WP guidelines - AfD would be required not a simple Prod. Collect (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Allegations from the Paula Jones lawsuit
- Kathleen Willey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Juanita Broaddrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
We have two articles Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick that are clear BLP1Es. I don't want any information discarded, as these were the talk of a nation for some time, but they are not biographies, and they concern related allegations dragged out in the Paula Jones lawsuit (itself in sorry shape, with an unsourced section tag). I would guess it is not logistically feasible to merge all three into a mega-article about the lawsuit. I would tentatively suggest something like a merge of the two to something like Sexual assault allegations in the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton. Reprocessing to major sections about each woman should be pretty minimal, though both would benefit from an initial framing background section. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- BLP1Es indeed. My preference would be to reduce these articles to key aspects and merge that material into an article about the allegations, but it will be a hard task to do well... - Cwobeel (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see the opening sentence--it is offensives and defamatory and clearly intended to slur this woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.250.56 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Done - Clearly-defamatory vandalism has been reverted and the user in question warned. Page watchlisted. Thanks for reporting this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Lawrence Gwozdz
Lawrence Gwozdz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of the article on Lawrence Gwozdz. I am requesting that all information in the Personal Life section be deleted. If it is not possible to do so, then kindly delete the entire article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gartists (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Gartists. I see that you deleted that section yourself, and I understand why, since it consisted of negative information about your wife, not you. I will keep an eye on the article, which is very much in need of better referencing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)