This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have re-added the possible conflict of interest tag, which has been removed twice by the same user without explanation. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Is this vandalism? saw a user deleted entire information in the Infobox section in this revisionRyeo Wookiechul | Penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
if that is not vandalism, it is a careless blunder. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not vandalism - see the definition. We use the term vandalism in a specific way, to describe edits deliberately made to damage wikipedia. That's not the case here - the user believes their edits improve the article. That they may be wrong does not make it vandalism. Nor is it a "blunder", having been done more than once.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Holmes NYC, can you please explain the rationale behind removing the image and website from Sarah Phillips' infobox? Note that people have no control over their Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
