Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Draft:Abudukeremu Kadier

The user Abudoukeremu is persistently attempting to create an autobiography page. In total, he has created 4 AFC submissions, 3 of which were deleted and I put a WP:AUTO notice on the 4th. This issue culminated when he successfully blanked WP:AFC and replaced it with his autobiography. I am unsure of how to continue at this point. Any Ideas? -SilverplateDelta (talk)

Kamala Kanta Dash

Kamala Kanta Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This profile has verifiable sources. The Citations are from credible sources like Monash University, Australian National University, Carnegie Council, Hindustan Times, Pioneer Newspaper, Art of Living, Telegraph Newspaper, Orisaa Post Newspaper and Orissa Diary.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Debadattaindia (talk • contribs) 12:29, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

Charles Coughlin (yes, I know he's been dead for decades)

This could be just as appropriate for the NPOV-Notice board,but that page is backlogged, and this involves a living person: Donald Trump. I am certainly no apologist for Trump, but I make it a point to check my biases at the door when editing. A user is attempting to use the Coughlin article as his personal anti-Trump soapbox, adding line upon line of media that have compared the two. Many of these are the briefest in-passing mentions, and they're not about Coughlin; they're about Trump. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any mention of Trump at all in the article, but the pile-on has become ridiculous and inappropriate. There is certainly no shortage of fora on the Internet for those wishing to express an unfavorable opinion of Trump, but Wikipedia should not be one of them. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the inclusion of Trump on the Coughlin page is a soapbox violation, though noting the Trump has been compared to Coughlin frequently in published criticism would likely be appropriate in an article about Trump and/or Trump's political stance. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Coughlin is in the news in a big way in the last year for the first time in many decades--and that is notable for his biography. It's the first time he's been compared to an (incoming) President. Comparisons are made by expert trying to put Trump in historical perspective. The connection between Coughlin & Trump has been widely noted by in the RS. The BLP rules require well sourced statements, and User:Joefromrandb simply erased statements from RS he does not want to hear. He says the quotes are too brief--which is not a Wiki criterion. He erases quotations from The New Yorker, from TIME magazine's Person of the Year cover story on Trump & a cite to the scholarly magazine Foreign Affairs. He has a false excuse: WP:UNDUE is all about fringe minority views and here we are talking TIME cover story. Instead we get his incivility & obscenity & a refusal to use the talk page. see 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757915947&oldid=755066694 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757918815&oldid=757918240 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=757919079&oldid=757918815 he calls these RS a "straw man" but he has zero support for his own vague position: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Coughlin&diff=758012074&oldid=757938770 Does User:Joefromrandb agree or disagree that the media have repeatedly cited Coughlin & made explicit comparisons w Trump? the NY Times said it in August clearly enough in a way that meets all BLP guidelines: "Hardly a day passes without some columnist comparing Donald J. Trump to Huey Long, Father Coughlin or George Wallace." Fredrik Logevall and Kenneth Osgood, “Why Did We Stop Teaching Political History?” New York Times Aug. 29, 2016 He erased that noncontroversial factual statement as well. Rjensen (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's fine on Trump (or one of his subpages) to make the comparison to Coughlin, but it is pushing a POV to put Trump on Coughlin's page. The issue is that without any other context about Trump's political beliefs, pushing that on Coughlin's page is NPOV just to name-drop. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Joefromrandb. This Trump "material" is non notable and doesn't need to be added to every historical biography. We are not the news and just because it comes from the NYT doesn't mean automatic inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

How about being featured in the TIME cover story on Person of the Year??? Not yet notable? Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can we split the baby here? There are many RS that make the comparison. Noting every one of them in the popular culture segment is over the top. Mention it once somewhere in the body of the article and be done with it. Maybe in a "legacy" section that mentions the other people he has influenced. I haven't looked, but there are probably RS about that, both in academic publications and in newspapers and periodicals. Also, since when is something involving the President-elect of the United States "popular culture"? The way it is being included now is inappropriate on multiple levels, but including Trump as a part of his intellectual/political legacy would be fine in a broader article, since it is mentioned in the sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's a good solution and I will add it there. Rjensen (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If Trump self-stated he was influenced by Coughlin, that would be one thing for a reasonable inclusion in a legacy section. But if others have compared Trump to him (and this appears to be a negative connotation in context) that is absolutely inappropriate on the Coughlin page. IT's POV and coatracking. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that this is very sensitive and should be handled with care, which is why I definitely oppose the popular culture stuff that is in there now. I think it could be developed into a more comprehensive legacy section, where Trump is not the sole individual covered, or even the primary one. I would have to see it to know if I supported it, but I don't think that mention of Trump here is necessarily taboo in itself. Basically, I'm saying that a broader legacy section in the Coughlin article would be beneficial, and that depending on how it was done, Trump could possibly be mentioned there because there have been so many comparisons made in RS. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow the complaints of User:Masem who says it's ok if Trump admitted it but NOT ok if multiple RS make the statement. That reduces wikipedia to content approved by Trump. In any case this is about Coughlin's status in US history. which in the last year became MUCH more visible because of the comparisons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

The source that appear to compare Trump to Coughlin are not positive or flattering pieces for either individual. This is the POV problem, by pushing this comparison on the Coughlin page. It is 100% fair criticism if it were on Trump's page/subpages since it is fair criticism of Trump on a page about Trump. But pushing it to Coughlin is coatracking these negative POVs about Trump, and makes it a BLP issue. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Flattering? no-- they are verifiable and that is what Wiki is all about. MASEM wants to flatter Trump and that is his POV. POV by Wiki editors is not allowed. (POV by RS is allowed by the rules.) WP:BIASED states reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. -- no the WP:COATRACK is when a new article ostensibly about X is actually all about Y. A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. Here we have well under 1% of the Coughlin article so COATRACK with its "entirely" factor does not apply. Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no POV to or against Trump, but sticking criticism of him (which the comparison to Coughlin is) in a completely different article is the essence of coatracking, even if we're talking about a relatively section of a larger article. It's a BLP issue moreso than anything else. Again, on Trump's article(s) where there is plenty of space for context, it is fine. --MASEM (t) 05:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

cOATRACKING is explicitly defined otherwise in Wikipedia. (it would cover an entire article that is supposed to be about Coughlin but actually is entirely about Trump.) MASEM goees on to invent a rule. He is saying that the statement by a RS that "Coughlin's rhetorical style was echoed by A, B and C" cannot appear in the Coughlin article but can appear in the A, B and C articles. That's a strange new policy that is nowhere laid out or followed in Wikipedia. It would of course hurt many history articles--it would mean we cannot say in the Wilson article that "Wilson's foreign policy was echoed by George W Bush" or in the Kennedy article that "LBJ promoted Kennedy's tax policies" or in the Obama article we cannot say "Trump promised to reverse Obama's climate policies." 06:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If it was the case that Trump referred directly to Coughlin's approaches as his inspiration, that would be something appropriate for inclusion here. That is not what is said by the articles being used by sources. Those reliable sources are trying to compare Trump's politics to Coughlin's approach (among others), which is written by these RSes in a negative, detracting style. That's a seriously contentious BLP statement, and to make it on a page not under Trump or subarticles is pushing those negative views where they don't below, the essence of coatracking even if it doesn't exactly fit the definition. The other thing that stands out is that no other person is given a similar connection to Coughlin in the current list as suggested by the edits for Trump, despite that Google News shows several other similar people that are claimed to follow Coughlin's path in a similar manner. That's cherry-picking Trump over any other person. Again, I stress that on Trump's page or more specifically on Political positions of Donald Trump, referring to the commentary that Trump follows Coughlin's approach is 100% acceptable as criticism of his position from RSes, and I can see backed by additional sources. But that's because you're discussing Trump's position and given how Coughlin fits within that context, necessarily to mitigate any BLP/NPOV issues with the sourcing. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ithink we'rre making progress. MASEM says the comparisons are a) negative (agree) and b) contentious (disagree--he lacks a RS who disagrees with the comparison as unfair). Now the BLP rule says that negative or contentious statements are allowed but MUST be supported by very explicit RS. That has been done by TIME in its major annual story of the Person of the Year and by NY TIMES (which states every day commentators are saying it = it's a common view) and others. MASEM says the statement is OK on a Trump page--that is he says there is no BLP violation there. GOOD! but he seems to believe there would be a BLP violation against Trump by saying the same words on the Coughlin page. MASEM's latter point is unsupported by Wiki policy & practice, I suggest because it makes perfect sense on the Coughlin page to say that Coughlin's style influenced A, B and C years later. That's a historical statement and BLP does not apply to a person dead for 80 years. Rjensen (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is significant to the Coughlin article that he has been mentioned by numerous writers on the 2016 election. There is certainly no dispute that Trump has tapped into the U.S. populist tradition in a way that no modern nominee has. TFD (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perfectly reasonable on the Trump article. Completely irrelevant and coatracking on Coughlin's. (Although strictly speaking it would not be a BLP issue as it is all reliably sourced) That Trump has been compared to Coughlin gives no insight to Coughlin, but a fair amount to Trump. Its essentially coatracking in criticisms of Trump to the Coughlin page which skews the NPOV of the article and is UNDUE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

OK perhaps we are reaching agreement that the coverage is OK on the Trump article. Does anyone here disagree? Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Its a reasonable argument to include it at Donald Trump if reliable sources have compared his politics to anothers. That does not necessarily mean it should be included. Given we are talking about the next president, the correct approach would be to open a discussion on the Trump talkpage. As most of the regulars here are unlikely to have a long-term interest in the content of Donald Trump, except in preventing BLP violations. Personally I have no opinion on the matter RE Trump. There is very little 'new' in politics so everyone is compared to someone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe, include in one of the Trump sub articles, about the election, ect., but even then, how notable is this? --Malerooster (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Its been mentioned numerous times by reliable sources to a lesser or greater degree. If there is a separate article on his politics/political career, that would be the sensible place for it to go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Political positions of Donald Trump would be the article then. I can see it being a much better fit there than in the main Trump article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry, it's just worthless opinionated trivia, go ahead try and add it wherever you want but its a WP:BLP violation adding very opinionated sources screaming antisemite. 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, given the strength of the reliable sources that have this opinion, it is completely acceptable under BLP to include these allusions to Coughlin's own political views as claims (not fact) ascribed to these sources in criticisms of Trump's political stance; the question become to with what weight they would then be given. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem or any user please let me know where you intend to add it, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of adding it, only that adding it to the Political positions of Donald Trump page as a claim with attribution falls within BLP allowances given the strength of the sourcing for it. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Masem I am grateful you state no intention to add it but you are encouraging others. It has actually nothing to do with the political positions of Donald Trump at all it is purely opinionated commentary, as an Administrator I would expect higher levels of policy understanding. I suggest if you encourage other users to add such content you open a talkpage chat requesting it be added? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"purely opinionated" is not a BLP issue. Verification by high quality RS is the standard here at BLP. Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but actually it is, WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Weeeellll, not exactly. We don't want any random John Q Smith's opinion that is highly contentious, but a highly contentious opinion shared by many top-tier reliable sources (as has been outlined here) is reasonable to include under BLP allowances, as long as it is clear this is a claim, and we attribute that claim appropriately. If only one RS made this comparison to Coughlin, I would think it would be unnecessary under UNDUE, but its been shown more than a few have stated it. There's still consensus decisions to be made about if it should still be included per other content policies, but you cannot say that it must be excluded because it fails BLP, because it meets the fundamental requirements for when contentious information can be included. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem here. WP:BLPSTYLE allows for both well-sourced praise and criticism to be included. The Coughlin piece would be interpreted by most negatively, but the fact he has been compared here is a fact. I've been brought around to Masem's view on this. Inclusion in the Coughlin article at this time is non-ideal, but political positions of Trump seems fine. It also would seem a bit odd to me for it to be in the Trump article since the political positions article exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, if you have a desired addition to an article post it to the talkpage and well open a chat there. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally not interested one way or another about writing about Trump. I'm only expressing my opinion that if someone wants to make the comparison, Political positions of Donald Trump would be the correct article and that it would be allowed by policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Grenville Kent

Grenville Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The BLP Grenville Kent has been subject to defamatory edits (unsourced and/or unreliably sourced) in August and December 2016. These are the sole contributions to Wikipedia by these editing accounts, to date. The latter edit included a deliberately "unflattering" photo of the subject (though already deleted for copyright violation). The latter edit also included an image of an alleged court case entry, which has the appearance of a screen capture of a website database. This was already removed from the page, but is it eligible for full deletion (oversight/suppression) from Wikipedia/Commons, due to its defamatory + unreliably sourced nature? Also would a warning or otherwise on the above editing accounts be justified? Or protection for the page?

Apologies if any of these questions and concerns belong in another forum — please redirect me if so (I am very rusty with Wikipedia, though I have tried to catch up on the relevant policies). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If the photo was uploaded via commons and has been deleted at commons, it wont appear in the revisions. I cant see its there in the history. See WP:REVDEL for what is eligible for revision deletion, basic vandalism generally isnt. Unflattering (but truthful) information information would not necessarily be rev-deleted. We dont use primary sources (in this case the court system) in BLP's for a number of reasons, and what commons keeps/deletes is sometimes opaque. RE the court grab - as there is nothing actually linking that directly to the subject, there is a good argument it should be removed from the revision history (worst case - there is some information that may later turn out to be true, worst case, its a similar-named person). Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculing Phyllis Schlafly and Andrew Schlafly

USER:36hourblock has created a vicious parody of the recently deceased Phyllis Schlafly in his Sandbox at User:36hourblock/sandbox in violation of warnings at wp:BLP and WP:Sandbox. [“Please do not place copyrighted, offensive or libelous content in sandboxes.”] It is a fake article titled “Phyllis-Diller Schlafly" and includes the Wikipedia photo of her son Andrew Schlafly--so his inclusion is also a BLP violation. for fake photo of the subject he uses Axis Sally and has the subject die on Hitler's suicide date 30 April 1945 Rjensen (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuking it. She died in September so I am invoking the 'recently dead' bit of BLP which can sometimes be applied up to 6 months after. I am pretty sure that wikilinking a real person with the 'Burlesque' article is against the rules, its certainly tasteless, so I am happy to take one for the team here if anyone wants to drag me to AN/I over it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: - actually BLP says " the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." Doug Weller talk 14:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. Its been awhile since I looked at that bit. I know its rarely invoked past 6 months. (I cant think of an example offhand where it has been). Do you concur its a violation? Its petty namecalling but its still a violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the pre-blanking version it looks like an attack page to me so I just deleted the sandbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. I'm sure I recall one case where I thought it might extend 2 years, effect on the family might have been the issue. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Marc Femenella

Please delete this listing Marc Femenella. This is a biography about me. I created it in the early days of Wikipedia, but it is now grossly inaccurate. I have attempted to edit/delete it in the past and it keeps reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcfemenella (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm assuming for purposes of this discussion that you are the article subject, since your account created the original article and has been registered so long, although we don't actually know that for certain. In any case, blanking the page is not proper "wiki-procedure," and I'm not locating the prior unsuccessful efforts to update it that you're referencing in the article history. But (no offense) the article contains no evidence that you're a "notable" person by Wikipedia standards and no third-party reliable sources, so under policy I believe it would be appropriate to delete it. Leaving this thread open for others to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was de-proded by an IP in 2009 [1]. I would be open to a G7 here, since the only substantial contributor seems to be the creator, but I thought the PROD worth bringing up. If it goes to AfD I'd be willing to bet it be deleted for notability like Newyorkbrad said. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

They've blanked it, and I've reverted.--Auric talk 22:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Auric: May I ask, did you revert because you believe the article should continue to exist, or purely on process? (Not that there's anything wrong with process.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Process. The article would need significant work to bring it up to standards.--Auric talk 22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Author has requested deletion, so I applied the G7 tag. Thanks Newyorkbrad, Drmies (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Lang

Amanda Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Attempts to edit inaccurate, poorly sourced and non-neutral material to the page [amanda lang] have failed. There appears to be a campaign to maintain biased information. Some of the sources are not up to policy standard. Some of the edits were also for relevance. The poorly sourced material contains slanderous content. A brief review of the edit history of this page should reveal that the restored content contains information that is likely from a single source, and one that lacks neutrality. Help is asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs)

• This editor has been trying to remove some information for a while, and never bothered to explain even in the edit summary what was going on (let alone discuss on talk page or with reverting editors), until the last edit they made to the article. It is altogether unclear to me which supposedly biased reference they are talking about--I assume it's either this or this article, but those are from reliable sources. I see no evidence whatsoever of any campaign, of any slanderous content, or of sources not being up to snuff. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The reference to unreliable source is to Canadaland, which originated the slander cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Lang#cite_note-20. The use of the word "favourable" is slanderous and contradicted by the exhaustive CBC review of all of Lang's journalism. Removal of the word 'favourable' is the edit required. That is it later repeated in subsequent articles does not make it accurate, just makes for poor journalism. And is also the grounds for those articles to be removed. There are multiple facts that are incorrect throughout the entry, including the number of days a week Lang anchors on Bloomberg, as well as the date of her separation from her husband, which was may, not august 2012 (which is sourced to an article, but which is nevertheless inaccurate. impossible to clarify without a copy of a separation agreeement which seems unlikely). But it is also an irrelevant fact in a BLP, and given the proximity to the next personal entry (Lang's current relationship - also arguably gossip) - it violates policy around BLP where relevance and gossip are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryip13579 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Elaine Pagels

Elaine Pagels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I work with Elaine Pagels, and we'd like to change the marital status on her Wikipedia page. She's been divorced from her second husband for 10 years, and we'd like her page to reflect that. Do please let me know how we can move forward with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.201.7.18 (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• This is a bit tricky since no evidence of a divorce is provided--but neither is there evidence in the article of the marriage; it does not state that she remarried, let alone verifies it. To play it safe I will simply remove the second husband's name from the infobox; if we have enough evidence for marriage and divorce--and if this is deemed relevant in the first place--we can reinstate it. I have removed her from R. Kent Greenawalt; the only evidence there was a note from 1995 saying she "will" marry him. Please give my regards to Dr. Pagels, and please thank her for her important contributions to scholarship. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the 1995 marriage was mentioned in a New York Times article. Hack (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi there. I'm not exactly sure, but shouldn't the editor have been pointed over to Template:Request_edit? Perhaps there are cases when I (and possibly other reviewers) might need to send requests here? Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

VB00, this may be the first time I've seen that template. Sure, I see your point--but I'm glad enough already that the editor found their way through our byzantine labyrinth to BLPN. I have no problem whatsoever with such questions being posed here; there's apparently a backlog for requested edits, and BLP matters are urgent enough. Well, that's my opinion anyway. Imagine landing onto Wikipedia and finding something you need corrected--it's hard to figure out. I can't even do it quickly on Commons. Hack, you have a point, and I think that references was in the husband's article, but the way I feel about it is this: yes, the marriage is verified, but the divorce is not, and I give more weight (and good faith) to the BLP request. I'm sure others feel differently--but to have your marriage verified and encyclopedically available but not your divorce, that's not right. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

K. A. Paul

K. A. Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has been adding and removing content to the article, claiming to be "Dr.GVNRSSS Vara Prasad,Advocate High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & For the State of A.P, Iam the Attorneyof Dr.K.A.Paul,as the earlier info is not genuine, i made the changes with the exact info.09949251118, gvnrsssvaraprasadgmail.com". Possible legal threat.

another IP has removed information more recently, claiming that it has "hurt his reputation & has made him loose millions that he could be helping people with". Needs more eyes.

--Auric talk 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Auric, I am removing that one claim--there is no evidence of a conviction or even a court case. I think we should play it safe. I'm also pinging Doug Weller, who had made an earlier revert in that article. Thanks for bringing it here, Drmies (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've searched a couple of times. I don't know what happened to the court case and can find only a couple of statements that he was in jail for a short while. Good revert, Drmies. There is a Prasead with that name, but I don't know if he works for Paul. It doesn't really matter though. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Emily Morse

• Emily Morse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying to keep this article neutral and factual for a while now, but I think it's time for new eyes on it. There's been a lot of challenges to Morse's PhD education and the recent uncited additions about her undergraduate experience are concerning [2][3]. - Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uncited material doesn't belong in Wikipedia anywhere, and the fact that she attended WMU before transferring doesn't seem meaningful, especially given the esitor's apparent attempt to portray the transfer as somehow meaning the article subject is less qualified or "didn't really go to Michigan." I have reverted the edits as having neither sources nor consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof, I agree with your edit (as I do with this one, Brianhe). Drmies (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Shahid Masood

• Shahid Masood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page contains promotional and unsourced material and cited sources are either dead links or unreliable sources. I've tried blanking the page but my edits are being reverted. The subject of the article raised the issue on a TV show as well so this page need attention. --Saqib (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Saqib. Continual reinsertion of unsourced puffery and promotionalism. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you keep an eye on this page User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi as I will be not very active due to travelling. --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Etdrick Bohanon

Etdrick Bohannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Repeated entry and deletion of potentially libelous material about current activities in Atlanta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.232.28.4 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed it and warned the IP. Please help watch the page as this seems to have been added repeatedly. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

William "Wild Bill" Wykpisz

William "Wild Bill" Wykpisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.90.211.9 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow what a mess. I've cleaned it up (removed joke content and depuffed). Will leave it to others to assess if he's notable or if it should go to AFD (I didn't remove any sources, so WYSIWYG). Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Javed Malik and Haider Qureshi

These two bio pages contain questionable and non-reliable references which question the neutrality of the pages. I tried several times to tag the articles but User:Justice007 keep reverting my tags and accusing me for being personally against the subjects of articles. Rather than going into edit warring I prefer to leave that matter to other editors. Please look into this. --Saqib (talk) 07:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked you to discuss on the talk page that issues, you think the sources are not reliable, which ones are that. You are also tagging the articles with the template of COI. It is serious blame to those editors, who are very neutral. I have edited and improved the article Jave Malik several times; it means you are blaming me. It is not the way to edit the Wikipedia, and you are an admin too. It looks strange. You also disclose my real identity, knowing that, it is dangerous for the editor. It raises doubtful concerns. About this, the admin professor and few others knew. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Justice007: I'm not blaming you or anyone. Kindly provide the link here where I have blamed you? It is you who was personally attacking me on my talk page and accusing me that "I'm here for some purposes". I was merely tagging the article because I think the some cited references are not reliable but It was you who kept on removing the tags rather than removing the questionable references and fix the page. And I don't think there is a case of outing or disclosing personal information here. You had yourself in the past voluntarily provided this information that you're connected to the subject of Ehsan Sehgal. See this this and this. I just cautioned you to please avoid editing this particular page because it seriously raise COI. Ehsan Sehgal seriously contains a lot of unreliable references and too much promotional material. You will soon find me fixing this entire page. If you want to contribute neutrally to Wikipedia, just avoid editing Ehsan Sehgal page. See your top edits and meanwhile see my top edits and don't forget to review the quality of pages that I edited recently. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why you are focussing that article, while I am not editing that, and that is also not the issue. Please stop that and focus that you are illegitimately tagging the tags, where simply need the templates. I do not think such edits exhibits constructive edits. Your such edits were also shown to the mainstream media as disruptive; it is disgusting and you are aware of that. Please demonstrate as a responsible admin. I do not accept to harm the project in any direction. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I never wanted to spent my time focussing on pages like Javed Malik, Haider Qureshi and Ehsan Sehgal but since you advised me to avoid these pages, I became more interested. And since No one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, including you has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page so please don't suggest me to avoid editing these articles. You're more than to welcome to criticise my work and If you think I'm moving in wrong direction, you can ways report it. --Saqib (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I really protest that you have disclosed my identy here too. In this regard previously I have privately informed the admin LadyofShalott. I take it very seriously. You have no any right to do such thing on the Wikipedia. Justice007 (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I repeat "You had yourself in the past voluntarily provided this information that you're connected to the subject of Ehsan Sehgal. See this this and this. I just cautioned you to please avoid editing this particular page because it seriously raise COI. " Also see this. --Saqib (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop, you cannot dig the old things; and why you did that? To stop me from editing because that you may know? It is information to entire Pakistani and Indian media that, who I am. Please, anyone who can take that matter seriously??? Justice007 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)