Editing
Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{short description|Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}} <noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}} {{User:MiszaBot/config | archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}} | maxarchivesize = 290K | counter = 376 | minthreadsleft = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | algo = old(9d) | archive = Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d }} == Irene Montero == {{pagelinks|Irene Montero}} This Spanish politician is being accused of 1) "advocating pedophilia" and 2) implicitly endorsing the [[Great Replacement conspiracy theory]]. It seems to me that sourcing is inadequate to justify inclusion of the pedophilia allegations, and that the use of sources to connect her remarks to the conspiracy theory involves [[WP:OR|original analysis]]. I have therefore reverted on the basis of [[WP:BLPREMOVE]]. A [[Special:Contributions/Ninever829|brand-new account, apparently created for this purpose]], has been edit warring for inclusion of both paragraphs. This account, and one other, have claimed that my opposition to this material is purely ideological, so I am inviting neutral parties to weigh in. See the current discussion [[Talk:Irene_Montero#Removal_of_“Controversy”_Section|here]], and also the previous discussion at [[Talk:Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory#Member_of_European_Parliament_undue?|Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory]]. Cheers, [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 21:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC) :The connection to replacement theory was made ''explicitly by Irene Montero herself'', not "original analysis", as you falsely claim. :You already know this, so why are you lying? [[User:Ninever829|Ninever829]] ([[User talk:Ninever829|talk]]) 22:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC) ::As far as I can tell from reliable sources like ''El Pais'', Montero was clearly making a rhetorical flourish in order to mock the conspiracy theory, not endorse it. [https://elpais.com/espana/2026-02-02/irene-montero-contesta-a-elon-musk-tras-acusarla-de-incitar-al-genocidio-las-personas-decentes-deben-reemplazarte.html] This has all been discussed at length over at [[Talk:Great Replacement conspiracy theory#Member of European Parliament undue?]] Whether some mention of the hubbub by white supremacists on Twitter is notable is a separate question, but the language you've been edit warring to include clearly misrepresents Montero's words. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 23:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC) :::{{reply to|Generalrelative}} {{tqi|As far as I can tell}} You're injecting your own interpretation. Try again. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-93171-3|~2026-93171-3]] ([[User talk:~2026-93171-3|talk]]) 01:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::I'm reading the article in English, so I suppose it's ''possible'' that something is getting lost in translation, but I don't see any way to interpret her comments as saying she was endorsing the "replacement" of white Europeans with immigrants (as the Great Replacement theory alleges). [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 17:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC) :::{{reply to|BubbaJoe123456}} {{tqi|I don't see any way to interpret her comments as saying}} You're injecting your own interpretation. Try again. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-93171-3|~2026-93171-3]] ([[User talk:~2026-93171-3|talk]]) 01:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::As per my comment at Great Replacement conspiracy theory talk page. This is a rhetorical device, using the far rights words to inverting their meaning. It's a common device used in political speeches on both sides of the political divide. The idea that she's endorsing or stating that the conspiracy theory is true are just nonsense. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC) :::{{reply to|ActivelyDisinterested}} {{tqi|This is a rhetorical device}} You're injecting your own interpretation. Try again. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-93171-3|~2026-93171-3]] ([[User talk:~2026-93171-3|talk]]) 01:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::::This is a place for third ''opinion'', see [[WP:3O]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 08:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Also see my comment here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory#c-ActivelyDisinterested-20260202212700-Alaexis-20260202211200]. That sources would, correctly, state that the conspiracy theory is a load of racist nonsense show they do not mean that she is endorsing the actual existence of the conspiracy. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 11:32, 11 March 2026 (UTC) == Patokallio children == Should the names of [[Pasi Patokallio]]'s children be included; i.e., should [[Special:Diff/1342113667]] be reverted? <small>(cc. {{ping|VampaVampa}})</small>{{pb}}I personally do not see how this adds to understanding Pasi Patokallio enough to go over the presumption for privacy—they're not known to be public figures, though his son has the same name as someone involved in the [[Archive.today]] controversy so they might be the same person; [https://www.techspot.com/news/111296-wikipedia-may-remove-almost-700000-links-amid-archivetoday.html TechSpot] and that site's operator made this connection but not any of the other 10 sources reporting on the events—so I think having "Children: 2" in the infobox should be enough. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :For clarity, I was the one who added the information. I think the conditions under [[WP:BLPNAME]] are satisfied: family members in question are "reliably sourced"[https://web.archive.org/web/20061010023730/http://www.finland.ca/doc/en/embassy/PP1cv.html][https://web.archive.org/web/20160913085829/https://www.dundernews.com/pdf/Canberran-Uutukainen-2013-02.pdf]{{rp|9}} and may well be "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" due to their public activities (the caution stemming from the fact that the identity between Jani Patokallio of the Archive.today dispute, who tried to link his adversary to Russia, and the ambassador's son is pending proper confirmation; the other son appears to hold a role with responsibility for Ukraine at the [[Crisis Management Initiative]][https://cmi.fi/2025/11/14/cmi-contributes-to-eu-mediation-discussions-and-presents-recommendations-to-eu-high-representative-kaja-kallas]). Per the same guidance, there is no requirement to remove the names if reliably sourced. Multiple biographies of public figures specify names or occupations of children, and this seems to be particularly the case when the children undertake some form of public activity that may lead to notability or a career that is not entirely dissimilar to the parent's (some examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Straw#Personal_life][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Kennedy,_Baroness_Kennedy_of_The_Shaws#Personal_life][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash#Personal_life][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Cruddas#Personal_life][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Taaffe#Personal_life_and_death][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Healy,_Baroness_Healy_of_Primrose_Hill#Personal_life]). [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 04:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :Per sources provided, I'm at "exclude" here, the CV has a hint of [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] IMO, and that + https://dundernews.com/ doesn't add up to "widely disseminated" IMO. Ping to @[[User:Gyrovagueblog|Gyrovagueblog]] if you wish to comment. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::Thanks for the ping. I have no strong opinions either way on this particular issue, but I would appreciate some extra BLP eyeballs on [[archive.today]] and its Talk page. [[User:Gyrovagueblog|Gyrovagueblog]] ([[User talk:Gyrovagueblog|talk]]) 09:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :::I would exclude. I am always wary when an editor adds family members by name without adding anything to indicate why the names are important. What good does it do that "two sons" doesn't do just as well? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Agreed. My default is not to name family members unless they're themselves notable. That's the policy for infoboxes, and I think it generally holds well for article bodies as well. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 13:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::@[[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] Can you link me that policy for infoboxes? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 14:58, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::It's in the documentation for the [[Template:Infobox_person]]: ::::::*Parents: Names of parents; include only if they are independently notable or particularly relevant. ::::::*Relatives: Names of siblings or other relatives; include only if independently notable and particularly relevant. ::::::[[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 15:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::Thanks. So per writing there, not [[WP:N]] is not an infobox-dealbreaker for parents, children, spouses and partners, but for other relatives. I still think we should exclude the names under discussion. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:11, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::::The infobox template doc states for children: {{tq|Typically the number of children (e.g., <code>3</code>); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an [[Template:Infobox person#Inline lists|inline list]]. <em>For [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names|privacy reasons]], consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable.</em>}} [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]] [[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 15:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::::From the examples of politicians I brought up above, it would seem that names of children are frequently mentioned in articles when present in reliable sources and considered to belong in the person's bio. It could have to do with the fact that notable politicians (or diplomats, for that matter) tend to appear with their families in public. The nature of the sources cited above would support this - one is published by an embassy, the other is sourced from an embassy. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 23:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::@[[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]]: I beg to differ. Main article space is not governed by infobox rules. Infoboxes tend to mention only notable people by name, e.g. doctoral students. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 23:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::::@[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]]: I have in fact noted above why the names may be important. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 23:23, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Please stop pinging me. It is unnecessary and annoying. :::::The reason you gave was bogus. The edit you made and the sources you used said nothing about the children's public activities. If you think the names of the children are relevant because of their public activities, document those activities and source them. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::Not only that but the reliable sources must connect the children and their activities with their father. Otherwise we have synthesis and [[WP:UNDUE]] weight issues. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 20:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]]: The "widely disseminated" proviso in BLPNAME applies to any "private individual", whereas the "reliably sourced" and "relevant to complete understanding" conditions deal with immediate family members specifically. I think the more specific guidance should be followed. The CV is published on an embassy website, thus effectively doubling as an official biography. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::I see no reason not to see the sons as private individuals from the WP-pov. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 05:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :::The supporting sources like the CV and the Finnish connection are both embassy documents aka [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]]. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 20:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == Guy Masterson == *{{la|Guy Masterson}} I'm not sure what to make of this article. My guess is lots of COI editing by multiple editors to promote the subject without regard to content policies. Notability is unclear. A complete rewrite or stubbing appears necessary. I've not searched for potential sources. Can someone take a look at the article? --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 18:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :Thank you for your cleanup edits! The more the merrier, and more are needed. But there does not appear to be a [[WP:NACTOR|notability issue]] to me. Your mileage may vary, which is fine, but that's for the forum at [[WP:BEFORE]]. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 20:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC) :I removed large swaths of mostly laudatory, [[WP:NOTCV]], and [[WP:PEACOCK]] claims supported solely by [[WP:BLPSPS]]. I also removed the claim that this subject won one of the [[Laurence Olivier Awards]], which was supported solely by advert-like publications. It appears to have been untrue. I also looked at the [https://officiallondontheatre.com/olivier-awards/winners/ official awards website] and found no mention of this subject even as a nominee since 1976 (unless he went by Valerie in the 80s). [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 05:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::The Olivier award appears to have been included because of Masterson's involvement with [[Morecambe (play)]]. I'm unclear that it's correct to claim Masterson won the award himself. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 15:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :Is this person actually notable? [[User:ChildrenWillListen|<span style="color:green">Children</span> <span style="color:purple">Will</span> <span style="color:red">Listen</span>]] ([[User talk:ChildrenWillListen|🐄 talk]], [[Special:Contributions/ChildrenWillListen|🫘 contribs]]) 20:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::Barely so if at all. I've tagged the article accordingly. An [[WP:NACTOR]] assessment is needed. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 16:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == Tomoko Tamura == *{{pagelinks|Tomoko Tamura}} There is an ongoing edit war in the article where an editor is repeatedly adding false or misleading statements (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1342676881]]) that are either unsupported by the cited sources or rely on outlets such as CCTV, Taiwan.cn, and China Daily, which are either deprecated or not considered reliable for Taiwan-related issues. The editor continues to insert claims such as "Tamura is a staunch supporter of Chinese Unification" and "she does not view Taiwan as an independent country", neither of which is supported by the cited source (the reference to Tamura discussing Chinese unification or the political status of Taiwan isn't even there ''at all'' in the text [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR]), as well as other statements that flatly fail verification and are in violation of [[WP:BLP]]. These edits persist despite repeated warnings and reverts. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15151-84|~2026-15151-84]] ([[User talk:~2026-15151-84|talk]]) 05:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :Pinging @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]], given their involvement. I'd be ''extremely'' cautious of using [[China Daily]] as an RS regarding ''anything'' related to Taiwan. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#China_Daily perennial sources] table, it states: :*"China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily." :I don't speak Japanese, but I would think there would be additional sources on this we could use instead. China Daily would be a good source for the "parroted" line at the end of the section. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 13:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::I’d also like to point out the edit history of this user. I don’t want to cast doubts on a legitimate editor but this looks extremely suspicious how they only made this account specifically to roll back these edits and then accuse me of BLP infringement. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 15:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :I am citing her own quotes on the issue directly with no commentary from China Daily other than it is using her statements to parrot a pro-Chinese stance on Taiwan. Because she has stated, verbatim, in quotes, several points which I also included in quotations. You can open up the sources, hit translate, and just command F what I quoted. It’s all in there, I’m not sure why you’re getting so defensive about this, especially since you created your account specifically for this. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 14:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::Can't we find any other source for these quotes, or similar? I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING China Daily says about Taiwan-related issues as reliable, even a direct quote like that. I'm certainly aware of the COI flavor of the original poster's comments and edits, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 16:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::Sure, those where just the first results that came up in English, I’ll look around when I get home from work. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 23:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :::Since I've been swamped recently I've reworked the paragraph to limit discussion to just how Chinese propaganda uses her statements, will get back to this when I can. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 00:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::No, Tamura or the JCP doesn't have "a pro-Chinese stance on Taiwan". It is bizarre to claim otherwise if you are aware of relevant facts regarding East Asian geopolitics, including the historic hostility between the JCP and the CCP where the JCP even criticizes China in its party platform (see [https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3139887/japanese-communist-party-snubs-chinas-communist-party-centenary] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20200119142118/https://japantoday.com/category/politics/japan%27s-communist-party-raps-china-in-1st-platform-change-since-2004]; there is even a Wikipedia article for this: [[Relations between the Japanese Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party]]). ::The JCP's position has always been that (a) it opposes China's use of force or threats of force against Taiwan, while at the same time (b) opposing military involvement or intervention by Japan and the United States (see the "Taiwan issue" section of [https://www.jcp.or.jp/web_policy/2024/04/post-981.html]). [[User:Scu ba]] seems to be trying to use sources that support (b) to insinuate the exact opposite of (a), where all they do is either distort or cherry-pick the source text or completely make things up, but there is no [[WP:RS]] to support that, and it contradicts everything the available sources say. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15433-25|~2026-15433-25]] ([[User talk:~2026-15433-25|talk]]) 00:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]]: If you look closely at your text, anyone can see the consistent pattern of distortion which makes it clear that what you're doing is far from simply citing Tamura's quotations: ::*{{tq|Tamura is a staunch supporter of Chinese Unification, calling the matter an issue of Chinese "internal affairs" as she does not view Taiwan as an independent country.}} – This is false and completely made up, as the source [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR] doesn't say anything even resembling that. ::*{{tq|She demanded Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi retract a statement that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would pose a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan}} – This is correct. ::*{{tq|and emphasized that she and the Japanese Communist Party where in constant contact with the Chinese Communist Party to voice their opposition to any Japanese military intervention in Taiwan to defend it from a Chinese invasion.}} – This is misleading, as the CCP and the JCP are never in "constant contact" and the source [https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/14/WS69173235a310d6866eb299c2.html] doesn't say that. ::*{{tq|When Takaichi refused to do so she personally led a protest in front of the Prime Minister's office calling for Takaichi's resignation.}} – The source [https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/17/WS691a7655a310d6866eb29c8b.html] doesn't discuss Tamura "leading a protest". ::*{{tq|She has routinely called for Japan to "respect" that Taiwan is "a part of China" and that any claim to the contrary is "absolutely unacceptable and must be withdrawn."}} – This is misleading/overstatement and the latter part fails verification. While the official position of all major Japanese parties (including the JCP) is that Japan should honor the 1972 [[Japan–China Joint Communiqué]], the JCP is still one of the most vocal critics of China's pressure on Taiwan and strictly opposes any use of force to change the status quo. ::*{{tq|Her statements on the issue are routinely parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits, such as China Daily and China Central Television, to claim that support for Taiwan is unpopular in Japan.}} – This is [[WP:OR]]. You need independent sources to verify that. ::[[Special:Contributions/~2026-15470-18|~2026-15470-18]] ([[User talk:~2026-15470-18|talk]]) 02:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC) ::{{Done}} It's been 24 hours and @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]] has not responded. I am reverting the unilateral, undiscussed revision by @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]] due to obvious [[WP:BLP]] concerns (see above) that remain unaddressed. I wonder why this editor was not given more severe sanctions during their previous block for edit warring (which was only 72 hours, later extended to one week), especially since their disruptive pattern of behavior is persisting. ::Unfortunately, articles on East Asian politics do not seem to receive as much scrutiny here as those on US politics; the editor's revision would have been instantly reverted to a stable version if this were a US politics entry. There is much greater room for obviously biased edits to slip in when the topic is niche to English speakers. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15672-96|~2026-15672-96]] ([[User talk:~2026-15672-96|talk]]) 04:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::Hi yes, I have this thing called a job, and had to work overtime for a project, sorry I wasn't able to scour google in Japanese yet, but you also don't get to unilaterally close noticeboard discussions YOU STARTED, that defeats the whole point. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 00:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::@[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]]: What are you even doing here? I have already responded to your "staunch Chinese unification supporter" claim, where I concretely demonstrated (among your other false claims) that your source [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR] doesn't contain any claim even remotely resembling the text you added, and that the "parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits" claim is [[WP:OR]] requiring independent sources. My response established a ''prima facie'' case for the removal of your text from the article due to obvious, demonstrable, and ongoing [[WP:BLP]] concerns that haven't been addressed here (see [[WP:BLPRS]]: {{tq|contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion}}). ::::What is your response to that? All you said was that you had a job and couldn't respond in time, which is fine – but it was still the right decision to delete your text given the evidence I presented demonstrating just how problematic your revision is, especially when [[WP:BLP]] is involved. Why did you restore the claim without responding to my earlier points? ::::This seems to be completely unacceptable behavior; it constitutes a massive violation of [[WP:BLP]] and warrants lengthy sanctions and blocks. Heavily mischaracterizing a living politician's positions and beliefs in a way that contradicts all her previous statements essentially amounts to [[character assassination]], where all you did was Google things online. When will [[WP:BLPADMINS]] be finally enforced against those heavily abusing the system here? [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15850-18|~2026-15850-18]] ([[User talk:~2026-15850-18|talk]]) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::exactly, I removed the contentious claims from contentious sources. Interesting that you are now going on about WP procedure after trying to close a noticeboard you yourself opened. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 14:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::No, the contentious claims (the "staunch Chinese unification supporter" claim and the "parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits" claim; the former is entirely unsupported by the source and the latter is [[WP:OR]]) are still in the article. You unilaterally restored them without responding to my points here. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15850-18|~2026-15850-18]] ([[User talk:~2026-15850-18|talk]]) 14:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC) == Arsjad Rasjid – possible BLP concern == '''Article:''' [[Arsjad Rasjid]] '''User involved:''' [[User:FrancisWidyokar]] Several recent edits to the article appear to add family-related information and references whose reliability may need review. As the subject is a living person, the article is subject to the '''Biographies of Living Persons (BLP)''' policy, which requires that material about living individuals be supported by high-quality reliable sources and handled with particular care. The added material includes details about family members who appear to be private individuals and whose inclusion does not clearly demonstrate encyclopedic relevance to the subject of the article. BLP guidance generally advises caution when including personal information about non-notable family members. Additionally, some of the links/references used may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. For reference, the article also contains a BLP notice reminding editors that: * high-quality sources should be used * tabloid or low-quality sources should not be used * contentious material without strong sourcing should be removed immediately A review from experienced editors or administrators would be appreciated to ensure the article remains compliant with BLP and reliable source guidelines. Relevant diffs: * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsjad_Rasjid&diff=prev&oldid=1342696494 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsjad_Rasjid&diff=prev&oldid=1340887393 * [[User:Sikenarikuning|Sikenarikuning]] ([[User talk:Sikenarikuning|talk]]) 10:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :{{u|Sikenarikuning}} This was AI generated(92% certain according to zeroGPT). We want to talk with you directly, not a computer algorithm. Please write in your own words without the aid of an AI. Perfect spelling and grammar is not expected. Just talk to us as one human to another. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :The article has been reverted back to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsjad_Rasjid&diff=1342771677&oldid=1342713274 last stable version], before you or [[User:FrancisWidyokar]] made edits to the article. Please also know that when you start a report at this board, your edits may be scrutinized as well, and I'm not so sure that this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arsjad_Rasjid&diff=1337572702&oldid=1334988242 promotional edit] you made isn't LLM generated, along with your comments here as well.—[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 19:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ::Okay, thanks for the feedback and input. I will try to improve my editing and reporting [[User:Sikenarikuning|Sikenarikuning]] ([[User talk:Sikenarikuning|talk]]) 06:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC) == Fobazi Ettarh == {{la|Fobazi Ettarh}} The user {{user|~2026-15253-54}} has been repeatedly {{diff|Fobazi Ettarh|prev|1342776552|adding}} an unsourced birth date (as well as other very specific birth information) to the article on [[Fobazi Ettarh]], who is recently deceased. I've been reverting those changes as BLP violations. But [[WP:DOB]] seems to be primarily talking about identity theft, which presumably isn't a concern for recently deceased people, so I'm not sure whether I should be immediately reverting these changes or not (especially since I'm approaching [[WP:3RR]] territory). The same user [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15253-54|has been adding]] unsourced birth dates and other birth information to many other recently deceased persons as well. [[User:Cadddr|Cadddr]] ([[User talk:Cadddr|talk]]) 17:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :Account has been blocked. Thanks for reporting, BLPN is the right spot for this sort of thing - you could also go to WP:ANI [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 23:02, 10 March 2026 (UTC) :The user {{user|~2026-15486-72}}, probably the same person, has now been doing the same thing. ({{courtesy ping|Ad Orientem}}) [[User:Cadddr|Cadddr]] ([[User talk:Cadddr|talk]]) 15:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC) other scammin Ingo countess@ [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15320-28|~2026-15320-28]] ([[User talk:~2026-15320-28|talk]]) 12:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC) :Indeffed both TAs. Underlying IPs blocked on the /24 range x 3 months. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 15:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC) == Harry Pettit: Attack page == I refer to the article [[Harry Pettit]]. I am actually his mother. Firstly I believe he is not a "notable person" and secondly I believe that the article has been created to defame him. There are untruths in the article: for example that he was not dismissed from Radbound University - he reached an agreement to leave (ref. 5). The article is also unbalanced: it fails to mention "several hundred lecturers and staff from various universities sent a letter to Radbound University in which they supported Pettit" (ref. 4), he self-reportedly "never calls for violence against people" (ref. 2)and there was no independent confirmation that he was the leader of the group demonstrating against Osman (ref. 7). The references themselves are mainly university internal publications and many are only published in Dutch. There is also a longer Dutch Wikipedia entry on him which I have not attempted to read as neither my son nor I speak Dutch. Thank you for your attention to this matter. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/~2026-15754-93|~2026-15754-93]] ([[User talk:~2026-15754-93#top|talk]]) </small>. : Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'm inclined to think this is a [[WP:BLP1E]] given that his notability appears to solely revolve around recent controversial remarks and his citation record looks pretty weak [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=H8ZLypkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao] and not enough to pass [[WP:PROF]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 17:28, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :: Nominated for deletion: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Pettit]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC) == Can a statement made by the subject about themselves in a video interview be used in a BLP? == If the subject is interviewed by another person, on video, and makes a statement about themselves, can that statement be used as a source? [[WP:BLPSPS]] says "Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves." Does "written by the person themselves" include "spoken by the person themselves in a video interview"? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 20:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Yes, I'd say any spoken or written claim is covered. And "never" is qualified heavily a bit further down at [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]]. So it's not never, when it's not self-serving, is germane and authentic, not about others, and not used heavily for content. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :I would expect that the video be one created by a reliable source, that would be okay. A statement made in.a CNN video, certainly. A statement made in a rand youtuber's video, where there atr potential questions of the legitimacy of the video, not so much [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::{{re|Masem}} The key point being whether there are questions of the legitimacy of the video? Or something else? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::Legitimacy of video. AI is too good that I'd not trust any random youtuber claiming to interview the BLP is legit unless we know the source is good or we have confirmation via a reliable source they consider the video legit. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Or, I would suggest, if the subject themselves promotes the video, which would erase doubts of its legitimacy. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I would still beg the question. I know of very visible cases of the BLP subject promoting clear AI/faked information about themselves. :::::Certainly if its like "Hey fans, I did an interview on XYZ's show, check it out!", sure. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::Right. That kind of thing fails [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] not because it's video, but because it's self serving and involves third parties. Imagine a video that passes BLPSELFPUB. What's the problem? Speech is speech, written or recorded. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::I'm not sure that raises any questions that wouldn't be raised by a living person self-publishing a deep fake of themselves. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::There are two concerns related to using information that someone says in a video interview with them: :::1. Is the source of the video reliable? In other words, did they actually say it? If the video were, for example, from the BBC, we can be pretty confident that it's neither doctored nor created out of whole (AI) cloth. If it's on "Bob's YouTube Channel," then we're much less confident about both. :::2. Is the statement true? Here's where the self-pub issues come in. If someone says "I'm actually the love child of Queen Elizabeth and Vladimir Putin," we definitely shouldn't be using that to say, in wikivoice "XYZ is the child of QEII and Putin." If they say "I was born in Phoenix, and my parents are both accountants," that's the kind of statement that would probably be OK. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 22:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Please see: :*[[Template:Did you know nominations/Nala Ray]], :*[[Talk:Savannah Bond#January 2026]], and :*[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves]] for related discussions. :''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::Pinging @[[User:CoryGlee|CoryGlee]], @[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]], @[[User:M.Billoo2000|M.Billoo2000]], @[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]], @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]], @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested]], [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], @[[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]], @[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], @[[User:Cortador|Cortador]], @[[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]], @[[User:FDW777|FDW777]], @[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]], @[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]], @[[User:Helpful Cat|Helpful Cat]], @[[User:Jumpytoo|Jumpytoo]], @[[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]], @[[User:NatGertler|NatGertler]], @[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], @[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]], @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]], @[[User:Some1|Some1]], @[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]], @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] and @[[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] as editors involved in prior discussions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::That's a lot of pings. I think you should assume that anyone who is interested in the BLPNB will subscribe to it. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::A lot of the prior dicussion occured at [[WP:RS/N]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 23:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Might I gently suggest a notice posted to RSN as being a better solution? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :::Because some editors might not be satisfied, or are still confused... including myself... and this topic comes again. Thank you for pinging. In the linked RSN Archive 505, I had also asked that if a new relatively new (random) YouTuber A interviews a well known personality B, and B shares clips from it on B's own social media as well, would that A's video be reliable to use as B's ABOUTSELF on Wikipedia? Also, back in RSN Archive 486, I was advised about [[WP:UBO]] as well. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 23:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Do you have a link to the Archive 486 discussion? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 23:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_486#Pakistani_news_references Here] it is. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 00:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :I believe that "written...by the person themselves" includes "spoken by the person themselves", whether in a video or audio format. Rules should be assumed not to be specific to the media or to put up barriers. We have no need on Wikipedia to be as specific as the rules around a [[holographic will]] are. The key point is: Do we genuinely, soberly, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, believe that they said exactly that of their own free will? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::Even discounting the possiblity of AI deepfakes, if we don't consider the source/publisher themselves to be generally reliable{{emdash}}a reputation for fact checking and accuracy{{emdash}}how can we be certain they haven't engaged in editing of clips so that the context of some statements is lost? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::I would think that any potentially contentious material should not be sourced to a source/publisher that is not generally reliable (think a traditional news source like MASEM pointed out). Uncontroversial statements of fact might be sourceable to a source/publisher themselves that we don't consider to be generally reliable, but it might depend on the context. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::[[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] already has that in mind. OP's question was just video vs writing. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Only when it's published by (a) a reliable, secondary, independent source, or (b) the subject on their official website, social media, or other verified platform—where we can reasonably assume that the subject has approved the content being released. There are plenty of reasons to take a conservative approach to [[WP:BLPSPS]]. Sketchy people/sites editing the video to take the person out of context has always been a concern. Or secretly recording someone and misrepresenting it as an interview. Of course, now those types of people/sites would just deepfake the interview. Another one we've seen here is interviews with low-reader/viewer niche publications, where the interviewee reasonably assumes that nobody will see it—and all of a sudden their age/DOB or sexual orientation is out there. No, for content about living persons we should always look to reputable sources or the subject's verified platforms. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 23:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::This issue is ''too'' confusing for me. At an article that I wrote ([[William and Zachary Zulock]]), the DYK reviewer did not accept a Laura Ingraham video by the official Fox News source and Laura Ingraham herself speaking (no AI – Fox News website) because of this issue. I mean, what's the problem with reliability? Is it reliability or an issue with the political positions of those who speak in the video? I think that as long as the video is verified as authentic, it should be perfectly used as a RS. [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 23:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :::It's not the political positions, but that Fox has a history of misrepresenting facts, using doctored or misleading images, lying through omission—or just outright lying. This is particularly egregious on Fox talk shows and their political/scientific content. On the other hand, I think most would agree that The Wall Street Journal has a right-leaning bias, but they're considered generally reliable on Wikipedia. Reading through [[Laura Ingraham#Political views]], particularly the sections mentioning her promotion of conspiracy theories, well, I can't say I'd trust her on any topic. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 00:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :As long as you're certain it's the subject themselves, not a deepfake or maliciously edited video, then whether written, spoken, signed, or semiphored it can be used for ABOUTSELF. The question becomes if you are certain of it's authenticity. I would say a source doesn't have to be reliable for this purpose, just certain that they wouldn't deliberately misrepresent published material. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::How are we supposed to be certain of that? <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::As with most things, editorial judgement. In nearly all cases we rely on editors own good judgement. The only valid rating of a source outside of specific context is generally reliable, editors still have to judge whether that source is reliable in context and that is editorial judgement. Otherwise it's impossible to proof beyond any doubt that any video or report is true. Let's say a professor publishes a video interview with a colleague on YouTube, I can't see they would post deliberately doctored content in that context. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Honestly this is just a situation where the wording of policies probably needs to be changed make more sense. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Second that. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 00:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::That's where I'm at. This isn't really different from an interview in a print/online magazine as long as the video is authentic. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 09:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *'''No''', assuming we are talking about {{tq|self-published}} videos, for all the reasons I [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves|stated previously at RS/N]]. {{tqq|Written}} does not apply to moving pictures. <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 00:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC) {{small|edited 01:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)}} *:{{re|Sangdeboeuf}} For those of us who have not followed your no doubt illustrious career at RSN, could you at least summarize what those reasons are? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 01:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *::[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves|The discussion is there]] for anyone to read. Given that the topic is virtually identical, familiarizing oneself with the discussion should be mandatory for anyone seeking real consensus. <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 01:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *::: Thank you for adding the link; it wasn't there when I asked, and I have to admit that searching throughout all the edits you had ever made to RSN, which no doubt would have been interesting, engrossing, and elucidating, was beyond my humble abilities. {{smiley}} --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 13:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC) * If there's no doubt about the authenticity of the interview (e.g. they appear on a famous podcast like the Joe Rogan Experience or Lex Fridman or the subject confirms on a verified account that it's them), then I don't see why not as long as it's properly timestamoed. Obviously it raises [[WP:DUE]] concerns if this detail has not been reported in more reliable sources, but it's something to consider on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *I was involved [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#h-YouTube_as_a_source_of_BIO_subjects_confirming_facts_about_themselves|in a similar discussion]]: should YouTube videos be allowed as sources where a BIO subject makes a claim about themselves. The current phrasing makes it easy to think only videos from news organizations are eligible. And not, say, podcasts. Videos where there is no reasonable doubt the subject is really there etc. The reply I got was that Perennial is under reconstruction and they preferred to postpone taking any action until after completing their work. So that's what I am doing. Waiting, until once more pushing for YouTube to become an acceptable source of claims made by subjects about themselves. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 10:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *:There are active RFC's at [[WP:RS/N]]. So if you have a good discussion question to bring, I'd suggest you don't need to wait. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *:: I don't understand. I have already started a discussion at RS/N: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#YouTube_as_a_source_of_BIO_subjects_confirming_facts_about_themselves]] This current discussion mostly just rehashes the exact same arguments. I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#c-WhatamIdoing-20260127174900-WP:ABOUTSELF_and_WP:BLPSELFPUB told to hold off]. Are you saying the [[WP:RSP RFC 2025]] process has been completed, so it's worthwhile to keep (restart) discussing? [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 12:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:::@[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], I'm saying that there are current RFCs occurring at RSN (which would potentially have an effect on [[WP:RSP]]), so I don't know why you should hold off if you think you have a pertinent question to bring. *:::If you do decide to bring a question, I'd think something along the lines of 'Are statements by interviewees on SPSs able to be used for uncontroversial statements about themselves, and if so which policies—if any—should be updated to make that clearer?' would be good. That said, I don't know that the best place for such discussion is [[WP:RS/N]]. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPSs as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves]]? Given the implications for multiple PAG, you'd might need to notify [[WP:VPP]], [[WP:VPR]] and other places of such a discussion if you went along that path. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:::: Why do you persist in suggesting I proceed with my aim to make [[WP:RSPYT]] more clearly allowing YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves even when the account isn't a news agency when I've been told RSP first needs to become subpages, so sources like YouTube can have many entries in the table, [[User:TarnishedPath]]? And how is it relevant there are current RFCs occurring at RSN - there always are; are you thinking of anything in particular? Best regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 13:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:::::Why do I persist with suggesting you proceed? Because, like you, I would like clarification from the community. <br> *:::::Why is the fact that there are current RFCs occurring at RSN relevant? Because it demonstrates that these sorts of discussions do not need to be put on hold. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 13:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC) *:::::: Which '''specific''' current RfCs harbor "these sorts of discussions", TarnishedPath, and how do you think adding another to the pile would make a difference? You haven't justified going ahead with even more discussions, even though I have explained to you I have already gotten the response "let's restart discussion when the underlying technical platform supports the nuance required". I think we're done here. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 15:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC) * As per others, if there is no question, this is a video with them (and has not been edited) answering, and as long as it is not self-serving, it should be OK. But I am unsure if any of that can be proven. At the end of the day, how trustworthy is the video publisher? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *:The OP started this topic I think because of my review on a [[WP:DYK]] nomination. See the links I provided above. One of the YouTube video's is from Charlie Kirk. Do I trust Charlie Kirk to not have engaged in selective editing? Fuck no. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *::With due respect, somewhat, but not quite. I asked the question in general, because I wanted the answer in general, and, as I am pretty sure I wrote on the DYK nomination, I don't even think Charlie Kirk applies, just like the Fox News issue mentioned by Woodroar and Cory Glee above; they may or may not be reliable, but for different reasons than this one. Permit me to make a separate section about the [[Nala Ray]] article specifically, and we'll talk about the specific article and those specific sources there, and we'll keep this about the general question of interviews in general. All right? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 13:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC) *:::I think it is a worthy question in general, given that there has been at least two prior discussions on this{{emdash}}that I know about{{emdash}}and likely more. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 05:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :I would also add a point, mentioned a few times above, that if the video source is not assuredly a reliable source (or considered by reliable sources to be valid), the best we should be pull from those are fundamental biographical facts, birthday, birth place, where they are living, etc. Any statement that has some contestable aspect that is beyond mere biographical facts, even like "I was valedictorian of my high school", that needs a far better source. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Speaking and writing about oneself should be considered the same. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Malik Stanley == {{la|Malik Stanley}} Over the last couple days, at least 15 users (mostly unregistered) have added unsourced content (or content sourced to Reddit) to this page. There are some recent Reddit comments explicitly talking about editing the Wikipedia article: [https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1rrgkhi/an_italian_streamer_in_japan_said_amiga_in/o9zuh87/ 1], [https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1rrgkhi/an_italian_streamer_in_japan_said_amiga_in/oa08tsw/ 2], [https://old.reddit.com/r/ImTheMainCharacter/comments/1rrrxqh/a_streamer_in_japan_said_amiga_to_some_fans_an/oa1wwuk/ 3], [https://old.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/comments/1rrs2vz/a_streamer_in_japan_said_amiga_to_some_fans_an/oa33ibs/ 4]. I've already submitted a request for page protection at [[WP:RFPPI#Malik Stanley]], but since the BLP violations are still coming in pretty rapidly, I figured I'd post here too. Feel free to delete this post if that's redundant. [[User:Cadddr|Cadddr]] ([[User talk:Cadddr|talk]]) 20:40, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Yikes. This might be in [[WP:REVDEL]]-land as well. @[[User:Rsjaffe|Rsjaffe]], what do you think? [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 20:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC) == Nala Ray interviews (including Charlie Kirk) specifically == Breaking this off from the general section about BLPSPS and video interview above, because [[User:TarnishedPath]] has an objection to the specific use of ''[[The Charlie Kirk Show]]'' in the [[Nala Ray]] article. {{ucfirst:{{they}}}} write: {{tq|The OP started this topic I think because of my review on a [[WP:DYK]] nomination. See the links I provided above. One of the YouTube video's is from Charlie Kirk. Do I trust Charlie Kirk to not have engaged in selective editing? Fuck no.}} As I wrote in the DYK [[Template:Did you know nominations/Nala Ray]], I don't think ''[[The Charlie Kirk Show]]'' qualifies as a self-published source. {{tq|The Charlie Kirk Show was a whole media empire, not a one man band}}. This was possibly the single most prominent US conservative religious show; Kirk did not personally and solely do his own camera work, editing, publicity, half a dozen other things, he had a whole group of people working with him. Now that in itself doesn't make the show reliable, any more than ''[[Pravda]]'' was reliable; it just makes it not a self-published source. In fact, I'm a pretty experienced editor. I've been here for over 20 years, I've written over a hundred articles <small>(which isn't actually that much for 20 years, many can do that much in one year, I'm ''slow'')</small>, and I both know and care about why we need to get people's biographies ''right''. And, well, from that ''Pravda'' reference you can guess where and when I'm from; I know a thing or two about unreliable sources.{{smiley|tongue}} I would not be citing ''The Charlie Kirk Show'' for controversial statements about a living person that that living person did not make herself. But in this case, I know she did, because I can see her making them. Sure, I can accept you don't trust Charlie Kirk not to have engaged in selective editing (obscenity). But in the specific statements I'm citing, they were either: * anodyne (where she lived, how many siblings she had) or * she made those statements on half a dozen video interviews, and I'm specifically choosing to use ''The Charlie Kirk Show'' because it was the most prominent one, and if they were edited, then they would have to have been edited by multiple unrelated interview shows, in exactly the same way, in each case without making it obvious that they were editing parts of hour-long continuous interviews, not separate clips. That's a lot to ask for; enough that I can say it's not reasonable. That's why I feel confident that these are her statements. If you would like, I can go through every non-anodyne statement cited to ''The Charlie Kirk Show'' and cite it to at least two other unrelated long, not clip, video interviews where she says the same thing. It will make the article clunky, but so it goes. Would that suffice? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 14:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Charlie Kirk should never be anywhere near a Wikipedia reference. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 14:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::Even if we were perfectly sure that it was a true statement, we should still not use it, on political principle? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 14:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::On reliability principle, yes. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User:Skyshifter|<span style="color:#6E41B5;">Skyshifter</span>]]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">[[User talk:Skyshifter|<span style="color:white"><small>talk</small></span>]]</span> 14:28, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::It might be viable for [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] but even then it's probably better to find a source that's actually reliable. [[User:Sesquilinear|Sesquilinear]] ([[User talk:Sesquilinear|talk]]) 16:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Many Wikipedia editors are too quick to entirely discard sources that they don't like (often for ideological reasons). There's no reason to doubt that a ''TP USA'' interview is reliable for anodyne about-self details. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Gianfranco Becchina - major judicial development missing, factual error about living person == An edit COI request is pending at [[Talk:Gianfranco Becchina]]<nowiki> regarding several factual issues in an article about a living person: 1. A major judicial ruling is entirely absent: on January 30, 2026, the Palermo Court of Appeal fully overturned all asset confiscations against Becchina and his family, explicitly rejecting all alleged links to organized crime. This is documented by a filed court decree (No. 159/2022 R.R.M.P.) and covered by multiple independent Italian media outlets. 2. The article currently states that Matteo Messina Denaro "claimed that he had links to Becchina" - this is the opposite of what he actually said. When interrogated in 2023, Messina Denaro stated only that he knew Becchina as a fellow townsman and explicitly did not confirm any operational links. 3. Source [17] in the article refers to a completely different case involving a different person and has no relation to Becchina. All corrections are supported by independent published sources including a March 7, 2026 press release based on the filed court decree, Giornale di Sicilia (07/03/2026), and a detailed investigative article by journalist Egidio Morici in TP24 (12/03/2026). Full details and sources are in the COI request on the Talk page. This concerns a living person and the article currently contains a statement that is factually inverted. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:WikiEditor IT Arts|WikiEditor IT Arts]] ([[User talk:WikiEditor IT Arts|talk]]) 15:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? :Your edit request is open and pending. You would greatly increase the chances a review would occur quicker if, instead of requesting all the changes you want, you proposed one at a time. Longer requests require more volunteer time to review, the shorter the request, the less time it takes, and the more likely a volunteer will want to invest their free time in reviewing it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::<nowiki>Thank you for the feedback. I am disclosing that I am acting as a collaborator supporting the subject's legal team. I understand this constitutes a conflict of interest, which is why I have declared it on my user page and am using the Talk page process rather than editing directly. I am happy to proceed one edit at a time. The single most urgent issue is Edit 1: a January 2026 Palermo Court of Appeal ruling that overturned all asset confiscations and found no evidence of Mafia links is entirely absent from the article. This is documented by a filed court decree and covered by multiple independent published sources. The second issue is Edit 2: the article states Messina Denaro "claimed that he had links to Becchina" - this is factually inverted based on his 2023 interrogation record. ~~~~</nowiki> [[User:WikiEditor IT Arts|WikiEditor IT Arts]] ([[User talk:WikiEditor IT Arts|talk]]) 16:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC) == Request for Extended Confirmed editors to look at Matt Lucas article’s content about Arab-Israeli conflict == {{la|Matt Lucas}} I understand that as I am not Extended Confirmed, I’m not allowed to discuss the Arab Israeli conflict anywhere on Wikipedia and this seems like a clear case of content on a non-protected page being about the Arab-Israeli conflict. There’s a few sentences about an incident on public transport on Matt Lucas’ page. I think they might violate some policies, specifically [[WP:BLPCRIME]] and [[WP:BLPNAME]]. Could some extended confirmed editors take a look at the [[Matt Lucas#Personal Life]] and try to improve it? I’m sorry for being so vague but being any more substantive would involve me discussing things related to the conflict so I don’t think I’m allowed to.[[User:SpelunkerOfMine|SpelunkerOfMine]] ([[User talk:SpelunkerOfMine|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Technically even this violates the restrictions; however, (mostly since you aren't too far away from 500) I will answer you in that shouting at someone is not a crime, though I would wonder if the incident is significant enough to mention at all. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::Oops! Happy to delete/strike this out on request. ::Thank you for taking a look [[User:SpelunkerOfMine|SpelunkerOfMine]] ([[User talk:SpelunkerOfMine|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::I don't think that's necessary; I just wouldn't pursue this further until you hit 500. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC) == GUNREL in stated opinions == Hi. Can anyone take a look at the tag that [[User:Cdjp1]] added to a BS statement made by Townhall's Mia Cathell about the crimes committed by [[William and Zachary Zulock]]. The user alleges (see talk page, please) that "GUNREL is GUNREL"; I just contend that the source only aims to verify Cathell's statement, as full of sh*t it is. Thx for the opinions. --[[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 21:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :Have you tried looking for a none-GUNREL source for it? -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 21:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::I considered Media Matters for America a better source than Fox itself, but Media Matters found objections itself too by the DYK reviewer. So, there's a hard unintended double standards... We don't believe Media Matters because it's left-wing, but neither do we believe the same words by Fox? Well, that's troubling! [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 21:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::MREL > GUNREL. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 21:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Exactly. That's a problem in many articles, not only the Zulocks's. We shouldn't be as narrow about it; in the end, we are neither supporting Cathell nor legitimising her crap. Only making it clear that she made that hateful remark. [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 21:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::If no outlets of decent quality reported on it, that casts doubt on [[WP:DUE|whether it's even worth including]] at all. The same goes for the opinions of Media Matters for America. Whether someone's commentary is important enough to add is determined by whether reliable sources have independently deemed the opinion important enough to report or analyze. '''[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#0c4709">Thebiguglyalien</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#472c09">talk</span>]]) 04:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == User repeatedly making BLP violation on University of Austin == {{archive top|[[WP:NAC]]: IP has been blocked after authoring 9 versions that earned [[WP:REVDEL]]. This article is protected for a week; return to [[WP:RPP]] as necessary. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)}} {{la|University of Austin}} {{user|~2025-43468-95}} has been repeatedly violating BLP on the the University of Austin page, even after a final warning. (Is this the right place to report that?) [[User:Cadddr|Cadddr]] ([[User talk:Cadddr|talk]]) 04:49, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :Take it to [[WP:ANI]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} == [[Vickie Paladino]] == {{archive top|[[WP:NAC]]: This article has been copy edited to address the unsourced descriptor. Editors should resort first to [[Talk:Vickie Paladino]], which already had a relevant, recent, and helpful discussion at the time of this post. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 19:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)}} Why are you calling her a far right republican? this is the erotic that creates divide. Nothing she has done or said is far right [[Special:Contributions/~2026-16145-06|~2026-16145-06]] ([[User talk:~2026-16145-06|talk]]) 22:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :I think the word you were looking for was 'rhetoric'. Regardless, since we don't seem to have a citation for 'far right', I've removed it. I'm sure that readers are quite capable of deciding for themselves where Paladino stands on the political spectrum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::Thanks truly for finding the right word. Thanks even more for fixing the [[WP:POV]] problem here. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 04:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC) {{archive bottom}} == Extremely negative descriptors over time in BLP articles == This is a thing I have encountered a few times, where an extremely negative / controversial descriptor was true in the past, and was extremely well sourced then, but over time the person has completely changed, but we have no reliable sources for the change. But we continue to describe the person as is as this ideology, even when we have no reliable sources for the person holding this ideology in the present day, even when a review of the primary sources (e.g. the person's own statements) shows they are no longer that way. So we have articles that say that someone currently is a thing, when we have no sources that say they are currently that thing - is it not, then, kind of a BLP issue to continue to describe someone this way when we have no sources that say they are ''still'' this way, only sources that say they were this way 10 years ago? I'm not sure. I know it is complicated. Some people may argue then we should delete the articles, but sometimes it is for people who are overwhelmingly notable and have connections in hundreds of pages. One case I encountered was an extremely notable person, who has dozens of chapters in academic press books about him in relation to the ideology he held several years ago. But then he completely changed in terms of ideology and then it was simply never covered - academia still covers him but only in reference to his activities from a decade ago, not who he is now or what he does now. And yet we are still saying, in the first sentence of his article, "x is [extremely controversial descriptor]", well sourced, to sources from a decade ago. Is this wrong? I don't know. Any thoughts? [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 16:32, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :This is a problem, and the most obvious solution is dating the statements. E.g., "X was frequently described as a white supremacist in Y year(s)." <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 18:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :Grammar, textual presentation of the claim, and context. First, to say that a living subject "has been" something (present perfect verb) is accurate even when the information is dated or outdated. It's not a past tense at all, and remains unstated or ambiguous about the present progressive state of things. Second, text presented around the claim in question lets us add "in (date)" or similar to provide temporal presentation. Third, surrounding context may be copyedited to present a similar impression while changing nothing per outdated sources (ie, doing the same but around the content, not on it). Hope this lends some copyediting ideas. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 18:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]], if you've got a few in mind, feel free to bullet and <nowiki>{{la}}</nowiki> them here. I'd like to see how this might be addressed practically. And I actually like editing. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 18:25, 15 March 2026 (UTC) == False info under persons profile inder Wikipedia == Who is editing Wikipedia for certian people? you guys are allowing fake info for people to put out there which is making you not trusted source of information [[Special:Contributions/~2026-16443-03|~2026-16443-03]] ([[User talk:~2026-16443-03|talk]]) 23:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :This is your only edit, and without knowing which article you are talking about, we can't do anything. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Jimmy Slayton - False Remarks == these links show the version with offensive, untrue remarks that could damage this reputation. Please help delete these from version history so that they no longer exist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Slayton&diff=prev&oldid=1296232286 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Slayton&diff=prev&oldid=1296232286 [[User:Kingslay725|Kingslay725]] ([[User talk:Kingslay725|talk]]) 23:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC) : I'm dubious about their notability, so I've nominated the article for deletion, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Slayton]] if the article is deleted that will solve the problem. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 00:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :In the future this sort of thing should be requested off wiki, to avoid additional attention. See [[WP:REVDELREQUEST]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC) ::I've deleted the linked edits. There's some other minor vandalism in the history, but it's not in the 'damage this reputation' category, IMO. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 00:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Adam Habib == Two sections of the [[Adam Habib]] biography - “Tenure at the University of the Witwatersrand” and “Tenure at SOAS” - raise concerns under WP:BLP. Both sections consist solely of critical material and rely heavily on weak or non‑independent sources, including student newspapers, an activist website, a petition website, and a YouTube video. Contentious claims are therefore presented with limited use of high‑quality, independent secondary sources, and without balancing or contextual material, raising issues of due weight and neutrality. In the tracked changes it is clear there have been attempts to address these issues by removing or qualifying poorly sourced contentious content. Some of these changes have been reverted by an editor who, alongside edits to improve neutrality, has also reverted edits to correct the name of a university in the article. Protection was added to the profile on 22 February in response to a series of reversions, but the issues with the content remain. Given the persistence of weakly sourced material and resistance to policy‑compliant improvement, I am requesting outside input on whether the current content complies with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:BLPSTYLE. Relevant diff where a number of primary sources were reintroduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Habib&diff=1339885424&oldid=1339493037 Further diffs can be provided if needed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/~2026-16547-13|~2026-16547-13]] ([[User talk:~2026-16547-13#top|talk]]) 11:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Unjustified undisclosed paid editing tag on [[Wolfgang Löscher]] — subject created article himself == {{Collapse AI top}} I am requesting community review of the <nowiki>{{undisclosed paid}}</nowiki> tag on [[Wolfgang Löscher]], a biography of a living scientist ranked #1 worldwide in epilepsy research (ScholarGPS 2025). '''The core issue:''' The article bears a warning banner implying paid editing, but '''the subject himself created the article''' and has no connection to any paid editing service. '''Verified facts from Wikipedia's own records:''' {| class="wikitable" |- ! Claim !! Evidence |- | Article creator || IP [[Special:Contributions/175.101.144.171|175.101.144.171]] — '''Professor Löscher confirms this was him personally''' |- | Professor Löscher's contribution || 12,412 bytes (88.2% of article) — [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wolfgang_Löscher XTools] |- | Andcentra's contribution || '''1 byte (0.007%)''' — page rename only (added German umlaut) |- | AfC review || Passed review by [[User:Bkissin|Bkissin]] on Feb 12, 2020 — '''before''' Andcentra's edit |- | References || 20 unique references |- | WikiProject assessments || 6 projects |} '''Timeline:''' * '''Feb 4, 2020:''' Professor Löscher creates his own article (IP 175.101.144.171) * '''Feb 12, 2020:''' Article passes AfC review (Bkissin) * '''Feb 25, 2020:''' Andcentra renames page "Wolfgang Loscher" → "Wolfgang Löscher" (+1 byte) * '''Oct 12, 2021:''' Andcentra blocked for paid editing on '''other articles''' * '''Jan 28, 2022:''' <nowiki>{{undisclosed paid}}</nowiki> tag added by [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] * '''Jun 18, 2025:''' Professor Löscher appeals on Talk page — '''zero responses for 8+ months''' * '''Jan 2026:''' Formal OTRS request submitted — no response after 1+ month '''Why this matters:''' * The warning has been seen by ~3,200 visitors over 4 years * Professor Löscher is a member of the German National Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina) * The tag implies financial impropriety with '''no supporting evidence''' * [[WP:BLP]] requires removal of unsourced contentious material about living persons '''Andcentra's actual paid editing pattern:''' When Andcentra did paid work, he added thousands of bytes: * Richard John Pentreath: +6,935 bytes * Ardem Patapoutian: +1,785 bytes * Wolfgang Löscher: '''1 byte''' (rename only) The [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andcentra/Archive|Sockpuppet investigation archive]] does not mention Wolfgang Löscher as a paid article. '''Request:''' Remove the <nowiki>{{undisclosed paid}}</nowiki> tag as unsupported by evidence and contrary to [[WP:BLP]]. All evidence is verifiable via: * [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wolfgang_Löscher XTools Article Info] * [[Special:Contributions/175.101.144.171|IP Contributions (article creator)]] * [[Special:Contributions/Andcentra|Andcentra Contributions]] * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_Löscher&action=info Page Information] [[User:OleksiiAgent|OleksiiAgent]] ([[User talk:OleksiiAgent|talk]]) 17:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :So you're saying we should change it to a [[WP:COI]] or [[WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY]] related tag? [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::Thank you for your response, JFHJr. ::With respect, I must decline the suggestion to simply replace one warning tag with another. Let me explain why this would not be a just resolution. ::'''The Core Issue: An Innocent Person Was Wrongly Accused''' ::Professor Wolfgang Löscher — ranked #1 worldwide in epilepsy research (ScholarGPS 2025), member of the German National Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina), with over 50 years of scientific contributions — has had his Wikipedia article branded with a warning implying financial misconduct for over 4 years. ::This accusation is '''completely false'''. The evidence from Wikipedia's own tools proves: ::* Professor Löscher created his own article (88.2% of content) ::* He never paid anyone ::* The only "connection" to paid editing is that user Andcentra — who contributed '''1 byte''' (a page rename) — was later blocked for activities on '''other articles''' ::* The [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andcentra/Archive|Sockpuppet investigation]] does not mention Wolfgang Löscher ::'''Why Replacing Tags Is Not Justice''' ::Suggesting to replace {{undisclosed paid}} with {{autobiography}} or {{COI}} misses the point: ::# '''The original tag was placed in violation of Wikipedia policy''' (no Talk page discussion, no evidence, no investigation) ::# '''The subject has suffered 4 years of reputational damage''' (~3,200 page views with the false accusation) ::# '''His appeals have been ignored''' (Talk page appeal June 2025: zero responses for 8+ months; OTRS request: no response for 6+ weeks) ::# '''Simply changing the tag does not address the injustice''' ::'''What Wikipedia Policy Actually Requires''' ::Per [[Template:COI]] and [[Template:Autobiography]] documentation: ::''"If you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. '''If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning.'''"'' ::MarioGom placed the {{undisclosed paid}} tag in January 2022 '''without''': ::* Starting any Talk page discussion ::* Explaining what was non-neutral ::* Investigating the actual edit history ::* Verifying that Andcentra's 1-byte edit constituted "paid editing" ::Per [[WP:BLP]]: ::''"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately."'' ::''"Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."'' ::Per [[WP:BURDEN]]: ::''"The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the disputed material."'' ::No evidence has ever been presented that Professor Löscher paid anyone for Wikipedia editing. ::'''What I Consider Fair Resolution''' ::Given that: ::* An innocent person was falsely accused ::* Wikipedia's own policies were violated in placing the tag ::* The subject has suffered years of reputational harm ::* Multiple appeals have been ignored ::I request: ::'''1. Complete removal of the {{undisclosed paid}} tag''' — not replacement with another tag. The article passed independent AfC review, contains 20 reliable references, has been assessed by 6 WikiProjects, and 6 years have passed. There is no policy basis for any warning tag. ::'''2. A formal acknowledgment''' that the tag was placed improperly, without following required procedures. ::'''3. A reminder to the tagging editor''' (MarioGom) about proper procedures for tagging BLP articles, specifically: ::* The requirement to start Talk page discussions ::* The requirement to present evidence ::* The requirement to investigate before accusing living persons of misconduct ::'''4. An apology to Professor Löscher''' for the negligent handling of his biographical information and the disrespect shown to a distinguished scientist who has dedicated his life to helping people with epilepsy. ::'''Conclusion''' ::Wikipedia's mission is to provide accurate, neutral information. For 4 years, Wikipedia has displayed a false accusation against a living person without evidence. This is not a minor procedural matter — it is a violation of Wikipedia's core principles regarding biographies of living persons. ::The question is not "which warning tag should we use?" The question is: "Will Wikipedia correct an injustice, or will it perpetuate it?" ::I respectfully request that the community address this matter with the seriousness it deserves. ::All evidence is independently verifiable: ::* [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wolfgang_Löscher XTools Article Info] ::* [[Special:Contributions/175.101.144.171|IP Contributions (article creator)]] ::* [[Special:Contributions/Andcentra|Andcentra Contributions]] ::* [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andcentra/Archive|Sockpuppet Investigation Archive]] ::[[User:OleksiiAgent|OleksiiAgent]] ([[User talk:OleksiiAgent|talk]]) 09:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC) {{Collapse AI bottom}} :::[[WP:AITALK]] might be relevant here. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 09:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Do we talk to robots? - Say the word and I'll hat this - I haven't only because it's a noticeboard. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Walter''' ]]<small>not in the Epstein files</small> [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''Ego''']] 09:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::Just fill in the captcha...and yes, imho we can hat this as the whole thread was llm from the start. If you'd be so kind :). [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 09:21, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::I’m disappointed by your responses and lack of support. My posts are written in a legal style—just the facts, no fluff. And I’m sad that instead of getting to the heart of the matter, you’re changing the subject. If you’d like to speak with me personally and see for yourself that there’s a real person behind these posts, I’m open to talking. And meet with you online or in person. [[User:OleksiiAgent|OleksiiAgent]] ([[User talk:OleksiiAgent|talk]]) 09:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Well, you're being much more formal than is necessary. :::::I don't see where the IP admits to being the subject; and even if they did, any IP can claim to be any individual. :::::It does not violate BLP to suspect paid editing. Speaking of paid editing, if you are his agent, that is paid editing that you nust disclose. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::That's actually more LLm...please see the message on your talk-page. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 09:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::This is a reply to Lectonar. I fell asleep! - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Walter''' ]]<small>not in the Epstein files</small> [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''Ego''']] 21:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :I note that, despite OleksiiAgent's statement above, {{noping|Wloscher}} (who claims to be the article subject) {{em|does not}} confirm that they were the IP that created the article. They say that they {{tq|edited the article to remove errors and update my current positions}} – that seems to describe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolfgang_L%C3%B6scher&diff=1280581575&oldid=1241974186 these three edits] by the IP 193.15.5.49 (who also claims to be Dr. Loscher [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CanonNi&diff=prev&oldid=1307219472 here]). :It does {{em|not}} seem to describe the IP that created the article. The IP address that created the article is [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/175.101.144.171 from India] (unlike the German 193 IP, which fits with Loscher being German). Between November 2019 and February 2020 (the period in which the Loscher article was created), the Indian 175 IP heavily worked on several articles on apparently unrelated academics. Three of those ([[Robert Steffen]], [[Reid Ewing (planner)]] and [[Martin S. Fiebert]] were also edited by {{noping|Andcentra}}. And the 175 IP which edited Fiebert's article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_S._Fiebert&oldid=940046021 admits to being paid by Fiebert]. The UPE tag looks to be correct. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 10:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == Banksy's identity == For those interested: [[Talk:Banksy#Identity]] and [[Talk:Banksy#Identity should no longer be disputed]]. [[Reuters]] recently released this investigative report into [[Banksy]]'s real identity: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/ The question now is whether we should state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that Banksy is "Robin Gunningham, who later took the name David Jones". Personally, I don't think so, since Banksy himself has never confirmed the name(s) to be his. But others disagree and believe that Reuter's report is enough to say definitively that Banksy is Robin Gunningham/David Jones and that it should be stated directly in the the first sentence in wikivoice. What do you think? [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 23:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC) :Jerry Seinfeld never confirmed, himself, that his name is Jerry Seinfeld. :We should not have to wait for that in order to refer to someone as their own name. No double standards. [[User:SlapperDapper|SlapperDapper]] ([[User talk:SlapperDapper|talk]]) 02:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::Banksy is an extremely well known person and the fact that he has not identified himself (herself?) is also well known. If there is information about Banksy's identity, multiple reliable sources will comment. Wikipedia has to wait for that. We don't do breaking news, and BLP articles don't breathlessly report what one report might say. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::Leave the guy alone. His stuff is cool, why go out of our way to make him feel bad. I'm sure that he doesn't want us to delve into his personal identity, to the point that he would probably submit a ticket asking for a takedown, if he even know about tickets or even the Wikipedia iteself, and had the time and energy to bother when it's all over the world by now anyway. So for my part I'm gonna approach the matter as if he had submitted a ticket. Be like me. :::Let me put it like this: Banksy's his name. John Smith or whatever is his [[deadname]]. Who feels that way? He does. That's a pretty good reason not to out him. Let's not be the sort of publication that thinks outing people is cool. Don't give me this or that [[WP:FOO|WP:RULE_WE_HAVE_TO_FOLLOW_MINDLESSLY]]; [[WP:IAR]] supercedes all those, cos it's a wiki, we can publish or not publish what we want. And there's no "Ah, it's all over the internet anyway" exception for [[WP:BLP]] -- or for being nice. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 05:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::Wow, comparing this to deadnaming is absolutely not appropriate. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-99390-8|~2026-99390-8]] ([[User talk:~2026-99390-8|talk]]) 13:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::Why not? It's a name that he was previously known as and has since stopped using and intentionally avoids/obfuscates. Also in a situation that is distinctly different from e.g. faking one's death. If someone went around parading the name(s) that I used to go under and saying that's my real identity I would be pretty miffed about it. The name I use now is my name. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 15:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::From the article: ::::{{tq|The people and institutions who seek to shape social and political discourse are subject to scrutiny, accountability, and, sometimes, unmasking. Banksy’s anonymity – a deliberate, public-facing, and profitable feature of his work – has enabled him to operate without such transparency.}} ::::This is not about how cool his stuff is or his personal preferences about his identity. This has been reported by a trusted source and it's not our job to wait for a public figure's blessing to include relevant information in his Wikipedia page. [[User:Bocanegris|Bocanegris]] ([[User talk:Bocanegris|talk]]) 19:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::I agree with Johnuniq that the operative principle here is [[WP:NOTNEWS]]. If this reporting is consistently cited by others in the future, or a bunch of independent sources verify its findings, it will probably be due for inclusion. But as of now the bar for including this contentious material in a BLP has not been met. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 20:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC) ::::This report has been relied upon by other reliable sources: ::::- [https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/17/arts/design/banksy-identity-robin-gunningham-david-jones.html The New York Times] ::::- [https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/culture/banksy-unmasked-real-name-ukraine-b2939567.html The Independent] ::::- [https://www.thetimes.com/culture/art/article/banksys-real-name-revealed-in-26-year-old-police-report-2lxssfgml The Times] ::::As I said in [[Talk:Banksy#Identity should no longer be disputed|the Talk page]], unless a reliable source contests the information or a consensus against this is reached over time within the Wikipedia community, we should default to the established policies. ::::I suggest we choose one single thread to have this discussion (preferably the Talk Page), otherwise we're going to have a lot of duplicate arguments and information. [[User:Bocanegris|Bocanegris]] ([[User talk:Bocanegris|talk]]) 21:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I've replied to you over on the article talk page. [[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] ([[User talk:Generalrelative|talk]]) 22:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC) It very likely is Robin Gunningham/David Jones, but it should not be in the opening sentence and stated as a fact as it does not come directly from him. Instead, the lead should say something like "Banksy's identity has been reported by news media sources as Robin Gunningham/David Jones."--'''''[[User:ianmacm|<span style="background:#88b;color:#cff;font-variant:small-caps">♦Ian<span style="background:#99c">Ma<span style="background:#aad">c</span></span>M♦</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ianmacm|(talk to me)]]</sup>''''' 20:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == Jiang Xueqin == Request for input from those more knowledgeable about the relevant policies about a debate over BLP-sensitive claims being attributed to opinion pieces at [[Talk:Jiang Xueqin#Content removal]]. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 13:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == BLP violation on [Connections of Jeffrey Epstein] regarding [Philippa Sigl-Gloeckner] == '''Description of the issue:''' A section regarding "Epstein documents" has been added/kept on this page despite violating multiple core policies. '''Arguments for removal:''' <nowiki>*</nowiki> '''WP:BLP & WP:RS:''' The claim is based on a single article from a Turkish website that contains documented factual errors. No reputable national or international media outlets have reported on this, indicating a lack of verifiability and relevance. <nowiki>*</nowiki> '''WP:UNDUE:''' The individual was an uninvolved third party whose name appears only because of a former employer. Including this here creates an irresponsible over-weighting of an irrelevant detail. <nowiki>*</nowiki> '''WP:NOR:''' No reliable source connects the individual’s appearance in these documents to the work of Dezernat Zukunft. '''Previous Discussion:''' I attempted to remove this per BLP policy, but it was reverted with a claim of "whitewashing" without addressing the sourcing or policy violations. [[User:Veerstomsk|Veerstomsk]] ([[User talk:Veerstomsk|talk]]) 09:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :Also at [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Whitewashing_attempt:_Philippa_Sigl-Glöckner_in_Connections_of_Jeffrey_Epstein_and_Dezernat_Zukunft]]. Interested editors should participate at [[Talk:Connections_of_Jeffrey_Epstein#Removal_of_Philippa_Sigl-Gloeckner_–_WP:BLP_and_Sourcing_IssuesEpstein_section_(WP:BLP_and_WP:RS_violation)]] [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 10:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == David Hirlav - AI use, likely COI == *{{la|David Hirlav}} Undisputed AI use to create the article, and COI/UPE behavior in editors focus on removing tags rather than basic content policy such as verification. The references are all either public relations pieces published within a month or two of the article creation, or primary sources. The non-primary references have been trimmed back to only four. I'm unclear if any of them should be used beyond for basic facts: *{{cite web |title=Adopting Crypto Payments Before the Mainstream: A European Business Case |url=https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/newsroom/adopting-crypto-payments-before-mainstream |date=2026-02-23 |author=Financial Tech Times |publisher=TheStreet |access-date=2026-02-25 }} *:Appears unreliable. The byline is "By Financial Tech Times Part of the Grit Daily Group." Gritdaily.com and financialtechtimes.com are not used anywhere in English Wikipedia as sources. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *{{cite web |author=Market Realist Team |date=2026-02-09 |title=Inside David Hirlav’s 2026 Net Worth and Business Holdings |url=https://marketrealist.com/news/david-hirlav-net-worth/ |website=Market Realist |language=en-US |access-date=2026-03-15 }} *:Marketrealist.com has 99 uses as a ref. Same owner as [[WP:DISTRACTIFY]] and greenmatters.com (68 uses) --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *{{cite web |title=How Competitive Sport Shaped David Hirlav's Professional Trajectory |url=https://financefeeds.com/how-competitive-sport-shaped-david-hirlavs-professional-trajectory/ |website=FinanceFeeds |date=2026-02-25 |language=en-US |access-date=2026-02-25 }} *:65 uses. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *{{cite magazine |last=Louise |date=2026-02-05 |title=Who is David Hirlav and what is his Background? |url=https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/who-is-david-hirlav-and-what-is-his-background/ |magazine=The European Business Review |language=en-GB |access-date=2026-02-24 }} *:36 uses. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) I've never seen multiple editors struggle with basic verification like this. I'm assuming that the ai just threw in references without the ability to actually match them to content for verification purposes. A newly-created SPA account has been helpful with cleanup, but has still overlooked verification problems. I'm not one for AfD, but stubbing seems reasonable without far better sources. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 17:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :So you verified that the sources listed do not support the content in the article? Because at a quick glace, they do seem to. Questions on reliability should be taken to RSN. But what is the AI concern, do you have anything supporting they are hallucinations or just unreliable sources, because they do appear to be real. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-11223-58|~2026-11223-58]] ([[User talk:~2026-11223-58|talk]]) 17:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::Given your personal problems interacting with me, apologies if I don't assume good faith. For those that are working in good faith, look at the article history. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 18:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :::@[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] Please stop claiming that someone has something against you every time they prove you wrong. It is possible that you are mistaken. Which is clearly the case here. [[User:FactArchivist|FactArchivist]] ([[User talk:FactArchivist|talk]]) 01:31, 19 March 2026 (UTC) : Looks like vanity bio spam, I would recommend taking to AfD. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :: I've nominated it, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hirlav]]. I've also nominated an article on his company created by the same user [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanpoint]]. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 23:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::@[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] Sorry, this user Hemiauchenia appears to be clearly biased and possibly a close associate of Hipal. Is there any independent admin that could have a look at this who is not Hipal or his friend? [[User:FactArchivist|FactArchivist]] ([[User talk:FactArchivist|talk]]) 01:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC) :::Most contributors here are normal volunteers, not necessarily or even usually admin. If you need admin, or if there's a user behavior you need to discuss, you might try [[WP:ANI]]. That said, I had a look at the articles and agree with the characterization of sources here, with the [[WP:BEFORE]] assessments, and with the deletion nominations. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC) {{user|FactArchivist}} and {{user|CodeThornton}} have been blocked as socks. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 02:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC) == Was this really a BLPN violation? == [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canary_Mission&curid=58350872&diff=1344156826&oldid=1335575601] Thanks.[[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 20:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :Just looking at the diff, I'd assume that it is a BLP vio: a link to a blp article, and other person's names, were apparently removed because it was verified by primary sources. [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]], apparently. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 01:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC) ::Ok, it just seems odd as the names seem correct. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC) == Minami Yoda == An editor has been insisting on adding primary-sourced, unencyclopedically detailed, and promotional content to [[Minami Yoda]] and has become extremely incivil in repeated restoration of their bad edits. More attention welcome. This appears from the talk page to be part of a WikiEd initiative so I'm pinging the editors listed as responsible for the behavior of their students: {{ping|FLMorellato}} {{ping|Brianda (Wiki Ed)}}. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :I've reverted the edits and left messages at the article and user talk pages. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 23:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :Or you could look at it as a student editor adding whatever information they could find reliable references for to an article about a woman engineer. Students in that course are all working on articles about women in engineering (which I find wonderful so I am not unbiased here). Rather than explaining your concerns in edit summaries it would be better to to take the issue to the talk page and explain what we mean by promotional editing. Universities put all sorts of flowery PR language up about their faculty these days, so it sounds to a new editor like the right things to say. And it would have been helpful to not keep reverting every word they added, no matter how they changed them in response to your comments. Student edits don't have to be perfect and can be kept and cleaned up to our standards. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 23:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::If an edit makes a BLP worse, I think that the feelings of the BLP subject whose article is made worse are significantly more important than the feelings of the inexperienced editor who made the article worse. We should not coddle the editor and harm the subject. For this reason, I think BLPs are a bad topic to throw inexperienced WikiEd editors at. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 23:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :::I agree. BLPs are probably the worst possible place for an inexperienced editor with a grade to earn or compete for. This particular student (at minimum) should be offered alternatives to work on. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 00:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC) :::@[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]], I am talking about being kind to editors, not coddling. If they don't know to go to the talk page, then we should go to the talk page and explain. However we are not required to use our editing time teach them how to edit - if the changes needed the aren't easily explained or fixed, tell them that the material isn't acceptable as written and refer them to their instructor for more information. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 02:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC) :If, hypothetically, a student gets all the way to [[WP:ANI]] sanctions for [[WP:EW]] and [[WP:BLP]] vios, do you suppose they still get full marks? [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 23:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Eurovision Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Eurovision Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages included on this page:
User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count
(
edit
)
User:Amalthea/RfX/RfB count
(
edit
)
User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage
(
edit
)
User:MiszaBot/config
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/randomunreferenced
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/randomunreferenced/format
(
edit
)
Template:-
(
edit
)
Template:Ambox
(
edit
)
Template:Archive bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top
(
edit
)
Template:Archive top/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Article links
(
edit
)
Template:Autobiography
(
edit
)
Template:COI
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion/core
(
edit
)
Template:Centralized discussion/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Cite magazine
(
edit
)
Template:Cite web
(
edit
)
Template:Clear
(
edit
)
Template:Collapse AI bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Collapse AI top
(
edit
)
Template:Collapse AI top/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Courtesy ping
(
edit
)
Template:Diff
(
edit
)
Template:Done
(
edit
)
Template:Em
(
edit
)
Template:Em dash
(
edit
)
Template:Emdash
(
edit
)
Template:Encodefirst
(
edit
)
Template:End
(
edit
)
Template:Flatlist
(
edit
)
Template:Hlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Ifsubst
(
edit
)
Template:La
(
edit
)
Template:Main other
(
edit
)
Template:Navbox
(
edit
)
Template:No ping
(
edit
)
Template:No redirect
(
edit
)
Template:Noping
(
edit
)
Template:Noticeboard header
(
edit
)
Template:Noticeboard links
(
edit
)
Template:Pagelinks
(
edit
)
Template:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Template:Paragraph break
(
edit
)
Template:Pb
(
edit
)
Template:Ping
(
edit
)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-move
(
edit
)
Template:Pp-move-indef
(
edit
)
Template:Preview warning
(
edit
)
Template:R/superscript
(
edit
)
Template:R/where
(
edit
)
Template:Re
(
edit
)
Template:Red
(
edit
)
Template:Reference page
(
edit
)
Template:Reply to
(
edit
)
Template:RfA watchlist notice
(
edit
)
Template:Rp
(
edit
)
Template:SHORTDESC:Wikipedia noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck
(
edit
)
Template:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Template:Side box
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Small
(
edit
)
Template:Smiley
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline with italics
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline with quotes
(
edit
)
Template:They
(
edit
)
Template:Tq
(
edit
)
Template:Tqi
(
edit
)
Template:Tqq
(
edit
)
Template:Trim
(
edit
)
Template:U
(
edit
)
Template:Undisclosed paid
(
edit
)
Template:User
(
edit
)
Template:User link
(
edit
)
Template:Yesno
(
edit
)
Module:Arguments
(
edit
)
Module:Check for unknown parameters
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist
(
edit
)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:DecodeEncode
(
edit
)
Module:Effective protection expiry
(
edit
)
Module:Effective protection level
(
edit
)
Module:File link
(
edit
)
Module:GetParameters
(
edit
)
Module:List
(
edit
)
Module:Message box
(
edit
)
Module:Message box/ambox.css
(
edit
)
Module:Message box/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:MultiReplace
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:No ping
(
edit
)
Module:PageLinks
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/config
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/rfd
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect
(
edit
)
Module:Plain text
(
edit
)
Module:Protection banner
(
edit
)
Module:Protection banner/config
(
edit
)
Module:Redirect
(
edit
)
Module:Reply to
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/config
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Side box
(
edit
)
Module:Side box/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:String
(
edit
)
Module:String2
(
edit
)
Module:TableTools
(
edit
)
Module:Toolbar
(
edit
)
Module:Unsubst
(
edit
)
Module:User
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks/config
(
edit
)
Module:UserLinks/shared
(
edit
)
Module:Wikitext Parsing
(
edit
)
Module:Yesno
(
edit
)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Project page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit source
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Page information