Contents 1 Kelly Gray (musician) 2 Bahar Mustafa 3 Jorge Alberto Rodríguez 4 Sally Yates 5 Patrick Brown (politician) 6 Dannielynn Birkhead 7 Darius Guppy 8 Speculation about a living person not formally charged 9 Please Remove My Biography. It's Inaccurate & Outdated. 10 J. J. Redick 11 Bullet Club 12 Dana Loesch 13 Jan Blokhuijsen 14 ebenezer fowobaje 15 Disambiguation: Jennifer Rode 16 Lutz Bachmann 17 Jameis Winston 18 Pyo Chang-won

Kelly Gray (musician)[edit] Kelly Gray (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There is a defamatory statement made by Scott Rockenfield in a declaration, that claims Kelly Gray Was fired from the band Queensryche due to substance abuse problems. This statement is unsubstantiated, supported only by hear say evidence and should be permanently removed from the page. I have deleted the statement from the wiki page before, but the statement has been re inserted within a few weeks of the change. I personally know this case and can confirm the information is unsupported. Thank you Howard David Gray— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamoneofyou (talk • contribs) 23:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC) In light of supporting the process of determining whether this claim should be counted as defamatory, I am including the text from the referenced source. Emphasis has been added. My personal opinion on the matter is neutral, meaning I would have nothing against either keeping it on the page or omitting it. Awaiting decision, I am retaining the edit by Iamoneofyou, who omitted the statement. Page 4, lines 17-25: "Our stage manager and monitor tech Kelly Gray’s claim that he and Geoff Tate do all the work is completely false. Q2K (2000) was when we added Kelly to the band to play guitar. He was also hired as a producer/mixer for the CD. Producing and mixing a CD has many added requirements and Kelly Gray handled them well. However, his claims that he and Geoff Tate wrote the entire CD is completely and utterly false. Kelly Gray and I spent many weeks at my home studio writing a large amount of songs, and Michael Wilton and Eddie Jackson did the same. Because of everyone’s complete involvement, it was easily decided that we should just split all credits equally amongst the five members." Page 5, lines 1-9: "Kelly Gray’s biggest claim to fame is producing the band Candlebox’s first CD. After that, Kelly Gray worked on some other much smaller projects and as such, does not have a very credible list of credits to his name. Also, because of Kelly Gray’s personal abuse habits and ongoing problems, he was fired from Queensryche back in 2002 and replaced with Mike Stone. Kelly Gray is now working alongside Geoff Tate and has been hired by Geoff Tate to produce his solo CD. Also, in several Internet forum posts from Jason Slater, Kelly Gray and Jason Slater’s working relationship together is very distraught and this has been affecting the Queensryche brand for many years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddyspeeder (talk • contribs) 11:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) These claims rely on trial transcripts, which are primary sources that we should never use to support assertions about other living persons. (See WP:BLPPRIMARY.) I've removed all of the trial documents and their associated claims, leaving one claim by Gray and about Gray as allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF. Woodroar (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Bahar Mustafa[edit] The article about this topic is currently at Bahar Mustafa race row (formerly "incident"). This title seems to advance the POV that Bahar Mustafa (no wiki bio, evidently not a notable public figure) is solely responsible for a "race row", which implies violent rioting, according to Oxford dictionaries. There was no rioting; this was a media kerfuffle with commentators throwing around accusations of racism and sexism based on public statements by Mustafa, then an officer at Goldsmiths. There were criminal charges that were dropped, resulting in more media commentary. A requested move in January didn't go anywhere. Nevertheless, the tabloidish "Bahar Mustafa race row" seems like a clear WP:BLPSTYLE problem. Should the title be changed? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Please note that: a very recent Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#Requested move 12 January 2018 by the filer failed ro gain consensus - on a talk page with a concurrent RfC. The row in question revolves around Mustafa's comments regarding race and sex and were not related to the University besides Mustafa's role in the student body. As a directly elected official (by a electorate of close to 10,000 citizens), Mustafa is a PUBLICFIGURE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The election referred to is evidently the election of Goldsmiths Students' Union officers by the student body (see "Elections"), not the public. Where does this "10,000 citizens" figure come from exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC) For comparison, Oklahoma City bombing is not titled "McVeigh/Nichols bombing", and with good reason: Wikipedia is written impartially, without emphasis on the guilt or innocence of any one person. We let reliable sources do that. See also WP:1E: The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC) We do not ascertain or imply any guilt, merely cover the events. The size of the electorate in the direct elections for this position is easily sourced. The event in this case, was focused on this PUBLICFIGURE and not on the university. To imply that the university was in any way responsible for the statements of this individual would misleading and possibly even slander.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC) So then the title implies responsibility when it names the university, but not when it names the person? How is linking Mustafa with a "race row" not also "slander"? The proposed title simply refers to where the incident took place. See again Oklahoma City bombing, also Wounded Knee Massacre, Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, etc. etc. If Students' Union officials (elected by a body of around 8,500, not 10,000, and in their capacity as students, not citizens) are public figures, I suppose we can look forward to biographies of the current ones as well – what were their names again? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) We could find just as many examples of incidents where an individual's name is found within the article title (Dreyfus Affair, Profumo affair, Munroe Bergdorf race row incident, Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Abu Omar case, Mark Foley scandal, Jeremiah Wright controversy, Lissette Ochoa domestic violence case, need I go on...). There is therefore plenty of precedent for including Mustafa's name in the title of the article. It was she, and not the university whose student union employed her, who was at the heart of this "race row" (to be clear, I think that there may be a better term than "race row" and would be happy to discuss that further at the Talk Page). Thus, referring to the incident as a "Goldsmiths race row" would not be appropriate nor particularly accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I've renamed the heading as this article is about the controversy relating to a BLP, not a University (if it was really about the University you'd never have posted it here as a University isn't a BLP). Iffy★Chat -- 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC) We don't have a BLP on the person, and the existing title is contested on BLP grounds, which is why I used a different heading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Meh, the heading of this discussuion isn't that important, what concerns me more is your WP:FORUMSHOPPING to try and get your way on this article. You moved the page yourself last month, then when that move was reverted, you did the right thing in going to WP:RM to try and build consensus for your preferred title, but it went against you. Today, you've returned with a less controversial move without any discussion, some controversial edits and now you're here trying to get the article moved to your preferred title again. I'd advise you to drop the WP:STICK on the article title, and to let consensus build for your edits. Iffy★Chat -- 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I think that Iffy's comments are a fair assessment of the situation here. I have no strong objection to a name change of the article, but the best thing is to suggest changes via an RfC. I'm a little concerned by some of Sangdeboeuf's more unilateral actions when it comes to changing the article name or removing parts of the article's contents. They are clearly well meaning, but the appropriate procedures should be followed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The appropriate procedures are summarized at WP:BOLD, and I followed them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC) IMO, this article is a sledgehammer for what ought be a small section in the article on the organization proper. As it stands, the singling out of one person verges on BLP1E, and is of UNDUE weight for such a person. The person seems remarkably unremarkable other than the accusations of racism in themselves. Collect (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I agree with Collect on this. It's a relatively minor situation regardless of if or how the media did or didn't blow it up. To focus on one person who doesn't pass WP:GNG utterly fails WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (and BLP1E). A redirect to the main article on the organization with a short paragraph would suffice and would solve the BLP issue. freshacconci (✉) 14:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I agree. The issue is that the article exists at all, not what it's called. Neiltonks (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I'd be more than happy with a redirect to Goldsmiths Students' Union, since this event was a relative flash in the pan, with no substantive coverage of the person or the controversy that I see since 2015. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC) The media did not blow this up. A situation in which a public figure allegedly excludes a class by race and sex from events, and futhermore even allegedly called for the killing of said class is a serious series of incidents - which led to extremely wide coverage in British and international press.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) A serious series of incidents - which led to extremely wide coverage in British and international press – one story in The Washington Post on the initial furor and an interview with Vice. That's all the "international" coverage cited (not counting RT and The Washington Times – hardly the most reliable). Whether the events were "serious" or not is a matter of opinion. What's relevant here is the amount of coverage they received. Where is the later coverage of the repercussions of this "public figure's" actions? I see nothing since 2015, because evidently there were no repercussions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I disagree strongly with this suggestion. What is being proposed, essentially, is that the article be deleted because some editors do not think that the topic is worthy enough for a Wikipedia article. That's deletionism at its most extreme and is borderline "I don't like it". Now I'm not saying that this incident was a world shattering event (it wasn't), but it was an incident that attracted a fair bit of discussion and debate within the United Kingdom and gained some attention from foreign press too. For that, it warrants an article (and indeed has one, which is fully and appropriately referenced and of decent quality). We have plenty of articles, many rated GA or FA status, that are devoted to incidents of comparable significance (Hands Across Hawthorne, Murder of Dwayne Jones, and the Death of Leelah Alcorn are FAs that spring to mind) so there is really no strong argument for deletion here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I think the argument is to merge and redirect, not delete. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a strong argument either. Are you suggesting that a relatively brief media brouhaha over one activist's controversial statements is comparable to a murder or an assault? (note that Midnightblueowl was the article creator in this case.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Let's be honest here, describing it as a 'merge and redirect' is just a cover for what is, in effect, deletion. We are talking about a whole, fully referenced article being carved down into a single paragraph (if that) and slotted into another article. That means that the vast majority of the article's content will be deleted. That's de facto deletion. I also reject the idea that this incident is intrinsically not "comparable to a murder or an assault". The fact is that is received far more media coverage than the vast majority of murders and assaults that take place in the United Kingdom. And that's the point: it received significant media coverage, both domestically and internationally. It is thus notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You are more than welcome to feel that the incident is inconsequential—that's perfectly within your rights as a free-thinking human being. But the fact that you hold that opinion does not mean that the article should be deleted. I personally think that a great many of the sports tournaments, matches, and personalities that are covered on Wikipedia are inconsequential, but I can appreciate that others might disagree and I don't try to get those articles deleted. As Icewhiz pointed out, you have been trying to change the article repeatedly now, through bold edits, a little bit of edit warring, an RfC at the talk page, and now this. This is textbook WP:FORUMSHOPING. I know that you mean well but it really is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. We all have far more important and worthwhile things that we could be doing than re-hashing these arguments again and again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC) In terms of LASTING and focus on Bahar Mustafa - these two books - The Feminist Fourth Wave: Affective Temporality, Prudence Chamberlain and Collisions in the Digital Paradigm: Law and Rule Making in the Internet Age, David John Harvey show lasting impact of the incidents around Mustafa in 2015. (there is also - [1] - but I think I wouldn't see this as RS, though it does show continuing references to this).Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Accusations of beating horses are unwarranted here. In fact, it appears as though Midnightblueowl is the one who is ignoring consensus. Reading the above comments, one will see three other contributors suggesting that the existence of the article is WP:UNDUE. My original suggestion was simply to change the title, but now the possibility of a merge has been suggested, which I would also support. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC) I'm not opposed to a name change, but we would have to be careful which name we chose and such a change would have to be decided upon via an RfC, which you can initiate over at the Talk Page. Obviously, the last RfC on the issue got nowhere but I'd be more than happy to take part if you wanted to try again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorge Alberto Rodríguez[edit] Jorge Alberto Rodríguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fabricated biography. Sources do not corroborate the article or do not even exist; e.g. "DEA Congressional Testimony, October 23, 2011" (Not listed among DEA Congressional testimonies in 2011). See: Talk:Cali Cartel#False claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC) The BOP number in the article seems to confirm his name and release, at least (search with 09086-017)--Auric talk 12:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, but so what? As stated in that Talk: Cali Cartel -page, Jorge Alberto Rodriguez Herrera (a real relative of the Cali Cartel brothers) is a different person! The identities are deliberately mixed-up. Every bit written on the Jorge Alberto Rodriguez article is unsourced, misleadingly sourced or leads to two different identities of whom very little is actually known. And what is known is relatively mundane. Consider the rather extravagant, unsourced claims regarding "The 400". Absolutely nothing links said claims to Jorge Alberto Rodriguez, our inmate number 09086-017. Worse, this fakery has infested even the far more visited Cali Cartel article. Jorge Alberto Rodriguez is mentioned throughout but try checking the sources. I just did a Google Books search on Ron Chepesiuk's The Bullet or the Bribe, a source provided for Seizures, one of the sections mentioning Jorge Alberto. Zero presence of Jorge in that book. Another source, this time from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Nope, nothing there either. And this is a consistent pattern. "Jorge Alberto Rodriguez", as presented in his namesake article or the Cali Cartel article, is nothing but a product of someone's imagination. FWIW, I researched these things months ago and tracked that someone. Judging by several social media accounts--that seem to have since gone dark--it seems the fabricator used Wikipedia to acquire fake bragging rights or some such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sally Yates[edit] There is a cabal of editors who are tag-team reverting this page to remove the accurate and fully sourced word "fired" in favor of the inaccurate and unsourced word "dismissed". This is a violation of WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." Xerton (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC) No, that's not how it works. "Fired" is the contentious word being used here, not "dismissed". What you are engaging in is an editwar and I suggest you read through this policy before any more editing. Meatsgains(talk) 02:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Please explain how the word "fired" if backed up by verbatim quotes from copious numbers of reliable sources is deemed innately contentious and therefore, non-usable? By that reasoning, it's impossible to accurately write an article which reflects what the news actually reported. Did you read the links I posted on the talk page? See them here: Talk:Sally_Yates#A_preponderance_of_Reliable_Sources_state_that_Sally_Yates_was_fired Xerton (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Because this is a WP:BLP and we must edit from a neutral point of view. Meatsgains(talk) 02:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) It's not a NPOV violation to accurately quote the major media, which all report this as "fired" - please read the links on the talk page. Xerton (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Yes it is if a more neutral and equally accurate term can be used instead. Meatsgains(talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) When four or five different editors all tell you that you are wrong, it may be that you are wrong and you should reconsider your actions. Or you can call them a "cabal." Up to you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) If they use differing justifications (which they did), that's not indicative of consensus, that's indicative of group-think conclusions. True collaboration requires consensus on the correct reasons too, not just the outcome Xerton (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Wait, what? When people reach similar conclusions but have different reasons, that's "indicative of group-think"? I think you're using words you don't understand. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I fail to see how using an accurate and neutral term like "dismissed" can possibly be contentious or possibly be a BLP violation. This is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news site or a talk radio show. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Ms. Yates bravely stood up for her principles and was summarily fired for it. That's how it was reported and that's what happened. To sugarcoat her firing by refusing to quote the actual major media outlets which reported it, does Ms. Yates' biography a disservice and is inherently inaccurate. Xerton (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC) We do not use the term "fired" in the BLPs of Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn or Rob Porter, even though countless reliable sources say that they were fired. There is nothing inaccurate about the term "dismissed". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) So in referring to "we", are you saying that there is a group of editors deliberately enforcing that word in contravention to what the reliable sources say? Xerton (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) If you persist in assuming that everyone else editing Wikipedia is part of a vast conspiracy, you will not enjoy your experience here. "We" are a community of people working together to build an online encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Implying that I might persist at doing something which has not been established that I'm doing is sort of like asking me "have you stopped stealing candy bars yet?" It suggests a conclusion not found in evidence. But what is in the record is that I asked you a question. That you answered it snidely is on you, not me. Xerton (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Looks to be a minor content dispute. I don’t see how this is a BLP issue. (And, I would caution the OP for using words like cabal when describing editors. WP:ASPERSIONS). O3000 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I used the word "cabal" in the literal sense, which means "a secret political clique or faction", but I will avoid that word in the future. Xerton (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC) For Pete's sake, Xerton, when I used the word "we", I was referring to multiple Wikipedia editors expressing their judgment through consensus, informed by policies and guidelines. If this was driven by a "secret political clique", that cabal would be imposing different standards on what are perceived as pro-Trump and anti-Trump figures. Yet, the standard is the same, applied across the board. None of those BLPs use the term "fired" even though reliable sources often do. BLP and NPOV policies are the reasons why we are scrupulous about using neutral terminology. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC) This is not a BLP policy issue. That said, "dismissed" or "terminated" adheres to an encyclopedic tone; "fired" is colloquial. - MrX 🖋 03:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Xerton has just been blocked for edit warring. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I'm assuming this is an American thing? Dismissed = fired everywhere else. I cant think of a place where 'dismissed' means anything other than 'company firing employee'. Its more encyclopedic in tone and we are expected to use the appropriate tone rather than colloquials. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC) No, not an American thing (except perhaps the idea that one is more PC than the other, which in many cases is rather arbitrary). They're synonyms. If you look them up in the dictionary, we find that "dismissed" means, "to order or allow to leave; to send away; to discharge from employment, to treat as unworthy" (as in, I completely dismissed all "cabal" comments). "Fired" means, "to dismiss from employment." Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Brown (politician)[edit] Patrick Brown (politician) was the leader of the opposition in Ontario (Canada) until last month. That is sort of like the Nancy Pelosi of the Canadian state of Ontario (ok, province, but that is like a state in the USA). He was then accused of bringing an underage girl to his house and asking her for oral sex, put his penis in her mouth, she sucked, then said she didn't want to do it. I am not making this up. Newspapers report this, a few even using the word "penis". (This is the one that used the word "penis" but there are quite a few that mention lie detector - - I did not use this reference because of the penis reference and because I wanted prestigious references, not something like the NY Daily News) He stopped. The second accusation was that he took a co-worker to his house, showed her travel photos on his bed, then they started kissing with him lying on top of her. She felt his erection through the clothes. She said she had a boyfriend so he stopped and drove her home. He denies both of these incidents. Later, the first woman said she was actually not underage and legally old enough to drink. Brown then took a lie detector. The Toronto Sun said he passed it, which was given by a respected expert. Armed with that information, he went to the press and said he was cleared and, just before the deadline, entered the leadership race for leader of the opposition, sort of like a political party's primary. There are several material facts in this saga. The accusation, the lie detector, the re-entering the race. I believe that BLP requires that we must write this in a neutral fashion but not omit key details, like that he took a lie detector test. We are not here to prove how accurate the lie detector is, simply to state that it happened (because it is a key factor in Brown re-entering the race to replace him). To cast doubt, I used the word "claims" to clear him but another editor wants no mention of the lie detector. That would make the story inaccurate (he was accused, he resigned, he now is running again). Please help. We're discussing this on the talk page. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dannielynn Birkhead[edit] Her article tells us that Dannielynn Birkhead is a "tabloid sensation and reality television personality" who "has been the focus of media attention since her birth". If I understand it correctly, she was a focus of tabloid attention for/in the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case, she did some non-trivial modelling in 2013, and her name still occasionally pops up. And that's about it. Given that an article on the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case is merited (which surprises me, but is what an AfD decided), I think that Dannielynn Birkhead should redirect there. I could of course be bold and do this, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be long before some trivia-lover (or promoter) would revert this. (This or similar has already happened. See the article history.) This person could claim with justification that I hadn't obtained consensus, blah blah. And no, I don't want to cite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern for this move, because somebody might claim that her tabloid-sensation-ism, media-attention-cynosure-ness, etc, have increased considerably in the intervening eleven years. (I doubt this.) So here I am, seeking consensus for redirecting and (in order to stop wasting yet more time) fully and indefinitely protecting the redirect. What say? -- Hoary (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) OK, I'll start off. I'm in favour of a redirect. There's a huge crossover between this article and the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case one, and I'm not sure there's a need to go over the saga of her birth when that aspect already has its own article. I don't see that she's been written about enough in her own right to be considered WP:NOTABLE, which is the only reason to keep an article about her as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. We also need to be aware that she's a minor (she's 11) and I'm not sure that including stuff like a medical condition she suffered from is appropriate. If you take out the birth saga and the medical stuff, there's not a lot left! Neiltonks (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Neiltonks. As it happens, I agree with all that you say. Others are most welcome to agree or disagree. -- Hoary (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) User:Black Kite has just now made the article slightly less terrible (perhaps as just the first step toward a major transformation, perhaps not). Black Kite, can I infer from this that you think an article is worth keeping? (If so, where's the notability of its subject?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC) I'd rather merge the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case article into the Dannielynn Birkhead#Early life and paternity section. I'll be putting up appropriate {{Merge to}}/{{merge from}} tags to explore that possibility. There seems to be some notability in her own right (maybe not enough in itself for a separate article, but probably enough when combined with the paternity case content); in 2007 (AfD resulting in the "paternity case" article) there was no "in her own right" notability whatsoever, so it might be a good idea to check whether WP:CCC applies 10 years later; A merge in this direction seems to have been suggested in 2016 (Talk:Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case#Wrap-up?); some of the "paternity case" content seems to have been referenced to too ephemeral sources (long gone celebrity gossip blogs etc) so the "paternity case" content may probably be trimmed mercilessly to make it fit in a single section at the bio article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Let's assume here that at least some of the content of the article Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case is encyclopedia-worthy. (Actually the content looks to me like prototypical junk food news, but an AfD decided that it needed retention.) This (non-)story then involves the mother, the daughter, and three (or more) putative fathers. Each of these five has an article. If there's no article Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case for each to refer to, I fear that more about the case will end up being included in each of these biographies: more repetition. -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Merge" in the direction I proposed would imply that Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case remains a fully operational bluelink wherever it would be useful: it would redirect, after the merge, to Dannielynn Birkhead#Early life and paternity (or whatever the section title would have become after the merge), so less "repeat" of celebrity gossip content across multiple articles (at least the Dannielynn Birkhead and Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case articles would stop repeating each other's content). I suppose that after this merge the article on the mother would rather use the Dannielynn Birkhead link (no need to link to a case that only got significance after her untimely death); and for the lesser-known would-be fathers the "... case" link could be used (no need to use a link only mentioning the person with whom they had no physical relation after all). All in all quite some overlinking and repetition of similar content avoided if you ask me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Fine with me. -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) And me. Neiltonks (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC) When I look through the article Larry Birkhead, I fail to experience any glow of notability. Ditto for the article Howard K. Stern. And for that matter, Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt and Michael L. Baird. Till today, I hadn't bothered to look at any of these. (Celebrity sleaze isn't really my thing.) Now that I do, I think that all except the Anhalt article, as well as the article Dannielynn Birkhead, should be turned into redirects to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. (Anhalt is a socialite whose very minor celebrity has been longer lasting.) What do you think, Francis Schonken? -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Not really my thing either, trying to make it short: Larry Birkhead article: still seems easier to merge to Dannielynn Birkhead (many bio articles have some words about less-than-GNG relatives) than to the "... case" article. I'd proceed with that merge ASAP. Again, explicitly this type of merge: "mayor trimming of original separate article". Will post merge suggestion tags – hoping they don't need to be up for too long. Michael L. Baird article: take to AfD I'd say (assuming that PRODding or CSD type of deletion would not be technically possible?), where I see little chance of the article surviving (Media consultant in O. J. Simpson case? what are we going to have next: articles on make-up artists for TV commentators on court cases?). Anyway, I'll be taking the liberty to remove this person from the {{Anna Nicole Smith}} navbox, where he is listed now among associated people: too much of a stretch to say he is "associated" with the mother: afaik he only entered the scene after the mother was buried. "von Anhalt" article: as you said. Nothing much needs to be done there from the Dannielynn perspective I suppose. The article is tagged for some other problems which might need to be addressed first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Careless writing above. I wrote "I think that all except the Anhalt article, as well as the article Dannielynn Birkhead, should be turned into redirects to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case." I didn't mean that the article on the daughter should be an additional exception; I meant that it too should redirect to the article on the paternity case. (I still fail to see her notability outside this.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Darius Guppy[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (same user) I decided to take this here rather than WP:EWN or WP:ANI. The IP above has repeatedly attempted to restore an obviously inappropriate/non-WP:BLP compliant version of the article for Darius Guppy (four times in the last month). Guppy is notable in relation to the press coverage surrounding a 1993 insurance fraud, and also the coverage surrounding a 1990 telephone call between Guppy and Boris Johnson. This user's favoured version is one that includes irrelevant prattle and speculation about the subject's personality, and details about his political views. Their writing style is also wholly inappropriate for a biography (and for an encyclopedia). Their changes specifically fail the WP:NPOV requirement of WP:BLP, and the requirement that articles should not promote the subject (WP:BLPSTYLE). For example, the user wants the article to emphasise the subjects' "notable ancestry and his unconventional opinions and writings", and how "extremely well planned and very carefully executed" the insurance fraud was, etc. I referred the article to WP:BLPN last year, and among the editors who participated in the discussion there was an implied consensus in favour of the current, neutrally worded version. I have tried to explain the problems to this user, and have left links to the relevant policies and guidelines on their talk page, and on the article talk page. So far their strategy has been to ignore the advice and to spuriously question my motives, such as suggesting that I am "a journalist duffed up by Mr G". They have a history of doing this. Having to keep returning to the page to restore the WP:BLP-consistent version is becoming very tiresome. The user is currently incapable of understanding why their changes are inappropriate, and won't pay attention to any further advice. A short block of a month or so may get the message across. Besides the BLP issue, there is also the edit-warring, obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and also WP:IDHT behaviour in relation to their refusal to take any advice on the correct way to approach BLPs on Wikipedia. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) There are definitely huge problems with the IP's additions, most noticeably the poor quality sources, such as the Daily Mail, blogs, a site called "nobodylikes"... The list goes on. If this behavior is persistent, then you will likely need admin intervention. I suspect a block may not work for an IP that can switch addresses at will, but perhaps page protection for a while may discourage this behavior. Either way, you need an admin to look at the problem and decide. You may actually have more luck with that at ANI, simply because more admins patrol that page. (A lot of us here are just regular users who, for whatever reason, take an interest in BLP.) There is always a chance that some admin will stumble across it here, but if you take it to ANI, and say clearly and concisely that a user is persistently inserting non-RS material into a BLP, you may get a faster response. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS) look like proxies to me, does anyone agree? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is an anonymous proxy. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks. The page is now semi-protected, so this is resolved. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Speculation about a living person not formally charged[edit] At Murder of Amy Mihaljevic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there is a section about Dean Runkle being a suspect in the murder, although, Dean Runkle has never been formally charged by the investigators. The whole section has only one reference by a single journalist. I think the whole section must be removed as speculation and a violation of WP:BLP. Please see also the discussion at the talkpage of the article. Dr. K. 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I agree. I'm not familiar with Scene, so I don't know if they are a reliable source in general, but this article used as a source is definitely and opinion/speculation piece. It's basically a story, written in a very descriptive, novelesque, 1950s Dick Tracy style, about how this writer playing detective solved the case, and how the bumbling FBI has failed to charge the man the writer feels is guilty. The biggest lead is apparently that he "looks more like the composite sketch than anyone before him." I mean, this is like a grocery-store burrito, wrapped in layer upon layer of description with almost no beans inside. I definitely say this should be removed for lack of RS and any factual basis other than some writer's hunch. Keep in mind that the writer of this "news" article is actually an author of a book about the murder, and this source reads like an ad for that book (as well as more than a bit harassing to its subject.) Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I went ahead and removed the section, as the burden for inclusion rests upon those who want it in. Left notice at the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Thank you very much Zaereth both for your policy analysis, and also the removal of that section. Best regards. Dr. K. 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Please Remove My Biography. It's Inaccurate & Outdated.[edit] I want to request that you delete my biography from Wikipedia. It is inaccurate and outdated. Thank you! If you want my accurate biography, you can find it here: If you want independent press confirming the facts, you can find it here: Sincerely, Steven S. Hoffman — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenHoffman (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

J. J. Redick[edit] J. J. Redick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Page recently became unprotected. Two registered accounts are working together to add defamatory content on the BLP disguised as "refs" which do not back up their claim. The content added is poorly written and likely copied from elsewhere (as it introduces the subject of the article by full name and occupation as if it weren't already on his Wikipedia article), however the BLP-violating part is the suggestion that he intentionally made "racist remarks", despite none of the sources saying he did so, but only describing an incident in which he stumbled in speech and said something that sounded like it could be. It's a BLP vio to outright say in Wikipedia's voice, that this constitutes racism, does it not? I can't remove this misleading section because of 3RR. JesseRafe (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bullet Club[edit] I have been sent here after I tried to get my account confirmed but it was refused. This can't wait four days and I can't edit the article as it is semi protected. There is a BLP violation at the Bullet Club where Gino Gambino has been added as a member. The source used in the edit seen here does not confirm that he is a member - only that he was in a tag team with a member, Bad Luck Fale. It needs to be reverted straight away as a violation of WP:BLP. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC) How exactly would that be a "BLP violation", I don't think that term means what you think it means. If this person is listed incorrectly as a member of a wrestling team, that is something that needs fixing, sure (I haven't looked at the source yet to see), but what imminent harm to the subject is being done by the listing? TheValeyard (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC) The rules of BLP make it clear that anything that is not true about an individual should be removed "immediately". And in bold as well. This is indeed listed incorrectly as a member of a wrestling team. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC) The text at WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." An issue of membership in a wrestling team is not "contentious material". TheValeyard (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Ah actually it is, but it doesn't matter now because someone else has reverted it. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Your tone thus far has been combative and rude, and quite unappreciated. You also seem to be incorrect, as sources say this person is a member. Australian Wrestler Gino Gambino Joins the Bullet Club, Gino Gambino Becomes The 13th Member Of The Bullet Club, and others. TheValeyard (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Both of those sources are listed at WP:PW as unreliable. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I took a look at the source in the article, and it doesn't say anything about someone joining any group. In fact, it doesn't really say anything at all, being a site that apparently gives nothing more than times, dates, and locations of wrestling events (not a RS). I think on those grounds alone it should probably be removed. However, NotMemberofBC, while I agree with you on the lack of sourcing, I also think TheValeyard has a point. BLP rules are meant to protect people from harm, so I'm not going to rush right in until others have a chance to weigh in. If these other sources are good, then maybe it is true, but I don't have time to look at them all right now. I might also add that your user name seems to suggest a possible conflict of interest or a specific purpose for your interest in this matter. If not, that may make it more difficult to become confirmed or to edit this particular article. If so, then it is best that you disclose the COI (if any exists). Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC) None exists. I only thought of it on the fly as I was really forced to create this account when I didn't really want to in order to fix this up as BLP clearly states that incorrect information about a person must be removed immediately. Nothing more than that. Thanks for your support on the sourcing. NotMemberofBC (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Lemme explain why we have BLP. It isn't simply as a courtesy to article subjects, it's to make it harder to sue Wikipedia. Now, what court would even consider a case over Gino Gambino being listed as a member of Bullet Club? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC) In this day and age - you never know. There are that many precious people around who will sue on a whim, and win as well. I agree with your sentiment and 20 years ago you'd probably be right. I don't think so nowadays. NotMemberofBC (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I have no comment on the substantive issue, but a couple of clarifications are in order. @TheValeyard: the posts by NotMemberofBC to this noticeboard have absolutely not been combative and rude. @Ian.thomson: we do not have the BLP policy simply to make it harder to sue Wikipedia, it also serves the purpose of considering, and where possible avoiding, the possibility of harm to living subjects. MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Hence isn't simply as in "not only." And again, what potential harm requires the urgency that was displayed here? I agree that the ValeYard was wrong to say that NotMemberofBC was combative and rude, but there was an undeniable urgency as if something bad was going to happen. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC) People seem to take their favorite sports terribly seriously. Personally, I would only treat an error in reporting of a cricket factoid with such terrible urgency. Of course, unlike all other sports, cricket is terrifically important. MPS1992 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC) At least cricket is actually a sport, whereas wrestling is choreographed dancing. TheValeyard (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC) That's hilarious. Either way, too slow for me. I'll take fencing any day; one to three seconds of the most intense workout ever. (Not even the strongest coffee will wake you up like someone trying to stab you with a sword.) Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Dana Loesch[edit] Dana Loesch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article refers to the subject as a" Piece of garbage" . I don't agree with her politics, but I believe that everybody needs to be treated with respect. comments like this degrade the respect the wikipedia has and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC) You're referring not to a stable version of the page, but a version that had been vandalized. I've protected the page for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jan Blokhuijsen[edit] Claims of racism, POV, content not in the source and unreliable sources. I think the controversy has a place on the article (maybe) - as I showed with my edit, but saying he is racist and insensitive and putting comments such as "Many people remain insulted by his words" doesn't really seem suitable for a Wikipedia article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Yes, I am concerned with this edit by Wpa7 and I left him note at his talkpage. It is mixed of sourced content and synthesis at the end and that is contentious material, more over in contentious "controversy section" . –Ammarpad (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC) I think a lot of the problem comes from the sources. Whereas a neutral source might state "person X caused controversy in Korea" those sources with a touch more bias tend to say "evil person X, insulted the entire history and culture of Korea, with racist statements" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

ebenezer fowobaje[edit] Ebenezer Fowobaje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) He is a professional football player born in Nigeria ,he has played in many clubs home and abroad such as stationary store, first bank fc,Julius Berger fc,obanta fc and Toulouse fc in France and has played for Nigeria National team under 17 and under 21, before he traveled to USA on a football scholarship . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebenezer Fowobaje (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC) He also doesn't have an article on here.--Auric talk 15:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Jennifer Rode[edit] Hello, The name Jennifer Rode needs to be disambiguated. Jennifer Rode is a German sports player and currently has a page. However, Jennifer A. Rode is also a Senior Lecturer at UCL, a well-published scholar, and a disability rights activist. I would appreciate it if they could be disambiguated. I do not know how to do this myself. [1] [2] [3] Thank you, BunnyProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnyprof (talk • contribs) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC) References ^ ^ ^ @BunnyProf: I see a page for Jennifer Rode, but not one for Jennifer A. Rode. If you want to create the page for the scholar, I suggest going to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and using WP:SECONDARY sources, not her UCL profile, Google Scholar profile, and Twitter account. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC) To be clear - disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles, not people. We only need disambiguation (either with a disambiguation page or with notes at the top of articles) when there are articles for more than one similarly-named topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Lutz Bachmann[edit] Lutz Bachmann is the founder of the far-right and anti-immigrant German PEGIDA movement. He became famous for, among other things, a photo he posted on facebook in which he made himself look like Hitler (while neo-Nazis were attending his political rallies). All that said, I have objected to the opening description of Bachmann in our article on him: Lutz Bachmann (born 26 January 1973) is a German criminal and the founder of the PEGIDA movement... As I explained in a talk page post [2], Bachmann has indeed been convicted of a whole variety of criminal offenses (he spent jail time for some, later fled Germany, and was deported back into the country). Nevertheless, I find it strange to WP:LABEL Bachmann as first and foremost a criminal in the first sentence of his bio. In fact, he is mostly known as the founder of PEGIDA. Furthermore, if we applied this approach to other articles on Wikipedia we would immediately find ourselves denouncing a great many people as criminals in the first sentences of their bios. Sandra Bland, for instance, owed money for various fines and had a DUI [3]. It would be absurd to begin her article, "Sandra Bland was a debtor and drunk driver who was found hanged in her cell..." Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I agree with what you've done in terms of the lead - describing him as first and foremost a criminal was a bit WP:UNDUE. I'm also concerned at the amount of the article that's sourced to an interview he gave to Britebart, so I might remove some of this later when I have more time. Neiltonks (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Jameis Winston[edit] Seems to have relatively minor accusations and incidents routinely added to his BLP, and editwarred to retain in that BLP. Eyes to ascertain which items are, in fact, of actual weight for inclusion would be helpful. Collect (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyo Chang-won[edit] Pyo Chang-won (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The article is written by someone with an obvious bias. Most of the edits appeared to be done by one "Veritas et aequitas Korea" and contains loaded terms; "self-taught and self-proclaimed", "assertive speech", "taunted the journalist of his inability to verify plagiarism in English dissertations and publications", weasel words; "well known for causing many political scandals". Sections on "Seongju Speech on Francis Spaight" and "Group Rapist Accusation of Political Opponents" has been given undue weight, considering nothing is written about this individual's work other than supposed controversies. Furthermore, "Mediawatch", which seems to be a sole reference to the supposed "additional plagiarism" and appears fishy, to say the least. The website is run by Byun Hee-jae, political pundit and member of the far-right Korean Patriots' Party, and is not in any sense of the word mainstream publication in South Korea. Spring3390 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Retrieved from "" Categories: Wikipedia noticeboardsWikipedia dispute resolutionHidden categories: Noindexed pagesWikipedia move-protected project pagesNon-talk pages that are automatically signed

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditNew sectionView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages فارسی Edit links This page was last edited on 24 February 2018, at 07:52. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.280","walltime":"0.431","ppvisitednodes":{"value":2256,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":79565,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":4945,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":16,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":6,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 189.227 1 -total"," 44.04% 83.327 1 Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Header"," 14.99% 28.366 6 Template:IP"," 11.65% 22.044 1 Template:Shortcut"," 10.65% 20.150 2 Template:Navbox"," 9.41% 17.805 1 Template:Pp-move-indef"," 9.12% 17.251 1 Template:Noticeboard_links"," 9.09% 17.208 6 Template:Toolbar"," 8.69% 16.438 1 Template:Cent"," 7.03% 13.310 1 Template:Centralized_discussion/core"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.039","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":1603056,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1326","timestamp":"20180225031913","ttl":86400,"transientcontent":true}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":67,"wgHostname":"mw1332"});});

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard More Links

Wikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsTemplate:Noticeboard LinksTemplate Talk:Noticeboard LinksWikipedia:NoticeboardsWikipedia:Request DirectoryWikipedia:DashboardWikipedia:Administrators' NoticeboardWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/IncidentsWikipedia:Bots/NoticeboardWikipedia:Bureaucrats' NoticeboardWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Requests For ClosureWikipedia:Education NoticeboardWikipedia:Main Page/ErrorsWikipedia:WikiProject On Open ProxiesWikipedia:OTRS NoticeboardWikipedia:Requests For OversightWikipedia:Requests For PermissionsWikipedia:Media Copyright QuestionsWikipedia:Copyright ProblemsWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardWikipedia:External Links/NoticeboardWikipedia:Fringe Theories/NoticeboardWikipedia:Neutral Point Of View/NoticeboardWikipedia:No Original Research/NoticeboardWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardWikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource RequestWikipedia Talk:WikiProject SpamMediaWiki Talk:Spam-blacklistMediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelistWikipedia:SVG HelpMediaWiki Talk:TitleblacklistWikipedia:Pages Needing Translation Into EnglishWikipedia:Requests For History MergeWikipedia:Proposed MergersWikipedia:Requested MovesWikipedia:Requests For Page ProtectionWikipedia:Requests For Page ImportationWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Articles For DeletionWikipedia:Redirects For DiscussionWikipedia:Categories For DiscussionWikipedia:Templates For DiscussionWikipedia:Files For DiscussionWikipedia:Miscellany For DeletionWikipedia:Requests For UndeletionWikipedia:Long-term AbuseWikipedia:Conflict Of Interest/NoticeboardWikipedia:Contributor Copyright InvestigationsWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit WarringWikipedia:SanctionsWikipedia:Editing RestrictionsWikipedia:General SanctionsWikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor HelpWikipedia:Sockpuppet InvestigationsWikipedia:Usernames For Administrator AttentionWikipedia:Administrator Intervention Against VandalismWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia:Arbitration/RequestsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Edit Filter NoticeboardWikipedia:Edit Filter/RequestedWikipedia:Requests For MediationWikipedia:Editor Assistance/RequestsWikipedia:Help DeskWikipedia:TeahouseWikipedia:Reference DeskWikipedia:WikiProject Articles For Creation/Help DeskWikipedia:Requests For Comment/AllWikipedia:Village Pump (idea Lab)Wikipedia:Village Pump (policy)Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)Wikipedia:Village Pump (technical)Wikipedia:Village Pump (miscellaneous)Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/ProposalsCategory:Wikipedia NoticeboardsWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsDefamationHelp:DiffHelp:Archiving A Talk PageUser:ClueBot IIIWikipedia:PurgeWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Biographies Of Living Persons/Noticeboard/archive TocWikipedia:Biographies Of Living PersonsTemplate:BLP NoticeboardWikipedia:Requests For Comment/BiographiesWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary SanctionsTemplate:BLP NoticeboardTemplate:BLP NoticeboardWikipedia:BLPPOTENTIALWikipedia:Database Reports/Recently-created Unreferenced Biographies Of Living PeopleWikipedia:Database Reports/Biographies Of Living Persons Containing Unsourced StatementsCategory:All Unreferenced BLPsCategory:BLP Articles Lacking SourcesWikipedia:BLPFIXWikipedia:ABFILSpecial:AbuseFilter/39Special:AbuseFilter/339Special:AbuseFilter/189Special:AbuseFilter/117Wikipedia:Database Reports/Living People On EN Wiki Who Are Dead On Other WikisRein WillemsWikipedia:BLPUser:AnomieBOT/RandomPageWikipedia:RANDUNREFWikipedia:Blocking PolicyWikipedia:3RRNOWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion Sorting/Living PeopleWikipedia:Centralized DiscussionWikipedia:Requests For AdminshipWikipedia:Requests For AdminshipWikipedia:Village Pump (policy)Wikipedia Talk:Notability (organizations And Companies)Wikipedia Talk:AdministratorsWikipedia Talk:Banning PolicyTalk:Sarah Jane BrownWikipedia:Village Pump (policy)Kelly Gray (musician)Talk:Kelly Gray (musician)Wikipedia:SignaturesUser Talk:IamoneofyouSpecial:Contributions/IamoneofyouWikipedia:SignaturesUser:EddyspeederUser Talk:EddyspeederSpecial:Contributions/EddyspeederWikipedia:BLPPRIMARYWikipedia:ABOUTSELFUser:WoodroarUser Talk:WoodroarBahar Mustafa Race RowRacismSexismTalk:Bahar Mustafa Race RowTabloid JournalismWikipedia:BLPSTYLEUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufTalk:Bahar Mustafa Race RowUser:IcewhizUser Talk:IcewhizGoldsmiths Students' UnionUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufOklahoma City BombingWikipedia:1EUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufUser:IcewhizUser Talk:IcewhizOklahoma City BombingWounded Knee MassacreSuper Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show ControversyUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufDreyfus AffairProfumo AffairMunroe Bergdorf Race Row IncidentClinton–Lewinsky ScandalAbu Omar CaseMark Foley ScandalJeremiah Wright ControversyLissette Ochoa Domestic Violence CaseUser:MidnightblueowlUser Talk:MidnightblueowlUser:IffyUser Talk:IffyUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufWikipedia:FORUMSHOPWikipedia:RMWikipedia:STICKUser:IffyUser Talk:IffyUser:MidnightblueowlUser Talk:MidnightblueowlWikipedia:BOLDUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufUser:CollectUser Talk:CollectWikipedia:GNGWikipedia:NOTPUBLICFIGUREUser:FreshacconciUser Talk:FreshacconciUser:NeiltonksUser Talk:NeiltonksGoldsmiths Students' UnionUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufUser:IcewhizUser Talk:IcewhizThe Washington PostVice (magazine)RT (TV Network)The Washington TimesUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufDeletionism And Inclusionism In WikipediaWikipedia:Arguments To Avoid In Deletion DiscussionsHands Across HawthorneMurder Of Dwayne JonesDeath Of Leelah AlcornUser:MidnightblueowlUser Talk:MidnightblueowlWikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSUser:MidnightblueowlUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufWikipedia:FORUMSHOPWikipedia:Drop The Stick And Back Slowly Away From The Horse CarcassUser:MidnightblueowlUser Talk:MidnightblueowlUser:IcewhizUser Talk:IcewhizUser:MidnightblueowlWikipedia:UNDUEUser:SangdeboeufUser Talk:SangdeboeufUser:MidnightblueowlUser Talk:MidnightblueowlJorge Alberto RodríguezTalk:Jorge Alberto RodríguezTalk:Cali CartelWikipedia:SignaturesSpecial:Contributions/ Talk:AuricTalk:Cali CartelJorge Alberto RodríguezCali CartelWikipedia:SignaturesSpecial:Contributions/ YatesWikipedia:BLPUser Talk:XertonWikipedia:EDITWARUser:MeatsgainsUser Talk:MeatsgainsTalk:Sally YatesUser Talk:XertonWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:NPOVUser:MeatsgainsUser Talk:MeatsgainsUser Talk:XertonUser:MeatsgainsUser Talk:MeatsgainsWikipedia:TINCUser:NorthBySouthBaranofUser Talk:NorthBySouthBaranofUser Talk:XertonUser:NorthBySouthBaranofUser Talk:NorthBySouthBaranofUser:Cullen328User Talk:Cullen328User Talk:XertonUser:Cullen328User Talk:Cullen328User Talk:XertonUser:NorthBySouthBaranofUser Talk:NorthBySouthBaranofUser Talk:XertonWikipedia:ASPERSIONSUser:Objective3000User Talk:Objective3000User Talk:XertonUser:Cullen328User Talk:Cullen328User:MrXUser Talk:MrXUser:Cullen328User Talk:Cullen328User:Only In DeathUser Talk:Only In DeathUser:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethPatrick Brown (politician)Nancy PelosiOntarioUser:Vanguard10User Talk:Vanguard10Dannielynn BirkheadDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseDannielynn BirkheadWikipedia:Articles For Deletion/Dannielynn Marshall SternUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseWikipedia:NOTABLEWikipedia:NOTINHERITEDUser:NeiltonksUser Talk:NeiltonksUser:NeiltonksUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryUser:Black KiteUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseDannielynn BirkheadTemplate:Merge ToTemplate:Merge FromWikipedia:CCCTalk:Dannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseJunk Food NewsDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseDannielynn BirkheadDannielynn BirkheadDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseDannielynn BirkheadUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryUser:NeiltonksUser Talk:NeiltonksLarry BirkheadHoward K. SternFrédéric Prinz Von AnhaltMichael L. BairdDannielynn BirkheadDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseUser:Francis SchonkenUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryLarry BirkheadDannielynn BirkheadMichael L. BairdTemplate:Anna Nicole SmithUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenDannielynn BirkheadDannielynn Birkhead Paternity CaseUser:HoaryUser Talk:HoaryUser Talk: Talk: Talk: GuppyBoris JohnsonWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:BLPWikipedia:BLPSTYLEWikipedia:BLPNUser Talk: WormwoodUser Talk:L.R. WormwoodUser:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethUser Talk: Talk: Talk:Malcolmxl5User Talk: WormwoodUser Talk:L.R. WormwoodUser:L.R. WormwoodUser Talk:L.R. WormwoodMurder Of Amy MihaljevicTalk:Murder Of Amy MihaljevicMurder Of Amy MihaljevicWikipedia:BLPTalk:Murder Of Amy MihaljevicUser:Dr.K.User Talk:Dr.K.User:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethUser:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethUser:ZaerethUser:Dr.K.User Talk:Dr.K.Wikipedia:SignaturesSpecial:Contributions/StevenHoffmanJ. J. RedickTalk:J. J. RedickUser:JesseRafeUser Talk:JesseRafeBullet ClubBad Luck FaleWikipedia:BLPUser Talk:NotMemberofBCUser:TheValeyardUser Talk:TheValeyardUser Talk:NotMemberofBCWikipedia:BLPUser:TheValeyardUser Talk:TheValeyardUser Talk:NotMemberofBCUser:TheValeyardUser Talk:TheValeyardWikipedia:PWUser Talk:NotMemberofBCWikipedia:COIWikipedia:SPAUser:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethUser Talk:NotMemberofBCUser:Ian.thomsonUser Talk:Ian.thomsonUser Talk:NotMemberofBCUser:TheValeyardUser:Ian.thomsonUser:MPS1992User Talk:MPS1992User:Ian.thomsonUser Talk:Ian.thomsonCricketUser:MPS1992User Talk:MPS1992User:TheValeyardUser Talk:TheValeyardUser:ZaerethUser Talk:ZaerethDana LoeschTalk:Dana LoeschWikipedia:SignaturesSpecial:Contributions/ Talk:MuboshguUser:Spacecowboy420User Talk:Spacecowboy420User:Wpa7User:AmmarpadUser Talk:AmmarpadUser:Spacecowboy420User Talk:Spacecowboy420Wikipedia:SignaturesUser:Ebenezer FowobajeUser Talk:Ebenezer FowobajeSpecial:Contributions/Ebenezer FowobajeUser:AuricUser Talk:AuricWikipedia:SignaturesUser Talk:BunnyprofSpecial:Contributions/BunnyprofJennifer RodeWikipedia:Articles For CreationWikipedia:SECONDARYUser:MuboshguUser Talk:MuboshguUser:NatGertlerUser Talk:NatGertlerLutz BachmannWikipedia:LABELUser:DarouetUser Talk:DarouetWikipedia:UNDUEUser:NeiltonksUser Talk:NeiltonksJameis WinstonUser:CollectUser Talk:CollectPyo Chang-wonTalk:Pyo Chang-wonKorean Patriots' PartyList Of Newspapers In South KoreaUser Talk:Spring3390Help:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia NoticeboardsCategory:Wikipedia Dispute ResolutionCategory:Noindexed PagesCategory:Wikipedia Move-protected Project PagesCategory:Non-talk Pages That Are Automatically SignedDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link