User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Blp clarification

Hi Morbidthoughts, hope you're doing well. I finally had the time to properly review your edits and arguments of these edits (diff1, diff2). I would like to draw your attention to this source and how it doesn't violate WP:BLPPRIMARY. Page 50:

• "Within the next 25 years there will be no state of Armenia in the South Caucasus"
• "Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians"''

You claimed that the documented violated BLPPRIMARY, but as this link on page 50 proves, it's not a primary source. The primary sources were "Azerbaijan News Service via BBC Monitoring, March 22, 2002)" and "Realny Azerbaijan, February 17, 2006)". The document published by the US government intentionally called attention to those quotes. Thoughts? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A government transcript of a congressional hearing falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY's "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." We have no idea how Joseph Knollenberg went about verifying his attached AZERBAIJANI RHETORIC QUOTE SHEET. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC).

Yo @Bishonen:, please explain the differences between DS/Race and Intelligence vs. DS/BLP because they are not obvious when the only reason I looked at these articles was through the BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The differences..? I think you know the two are totally different. But if you'd like a BLP DS alert also, here it is:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 09:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC).

So you can't? Funny. when you bitched at @DGG: for abusing templates.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You have shown a lack of good faith in your post above.

With all your experience you still don't know about either good faith or what a DS alert is. There is absolutely no abuse of templates here. The DS alerts are absolutely appropriate and there is no way to give them to you without a template. I haven't used a template here for this warning because I don't have to. Your question about the difference is incomprehensible. The only similarities I can see is the wording and the fact they are both DS alerts. They cover very different areas even if they can intersect at times. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to assume good faith yourself if you could not comprehend the question. Yes, I've been editing 15+ years and still do not understand if there is a difference between DS about specific topics. For clarity, I am asking if the range of sanctions available to an administrator is different between those two topics and how so without having to decipher the wall of text of the linked ArbCom decisions. In my experience, DS Alerts templates are unhelpfully indistinguishable, and they are only used to set up the predicate of applying sanctions later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, was that it? The range of sanctions is the same for all topics under discretionary sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 18:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC).

Your edit summary "let's not kid ourselves here about the the intent of DS alert templates" [2] is doubling down on failure to assume good faith. And I find your characterization of Bishonen's warning to DGG as "bitching" to be extremely uncivil. Do you not even realize what a sexist term that is? DGG had a serious lapse in judgment, for which he has apologized. I suggest you do the same. Generalrelative (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Did that lecture about my unwoke vernacular make you feel better? DGG is their own person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Baker (producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMG. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I noticed you reverted this per WP:BLPUNDEL. The book had all the primary sources directly from Aliev's website, but if that's not enough, I found other completely third-party sources quoting Aliev [3], [4]. Hope this is enough for restoring the edit. Have a nice day! ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those sources are much better. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad it was an improvement. Have a good one. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, how we going to refer Neil Hauer as a source to support statements about the President of Azerbaijan? Neil Hauer is well known for being hugely biased and holding strong anti-Azerbaijan position.

ZaniGiovanni, I could not find the source for the "diseases", it is mentioned only in Anti-Armenian Xenophobia, but Anti-Armenian Xenophobia refers to 47 Ibid and I could not find what is that and where.

Moreover, I believe statement should be rephrased to be more encyclopedic and less toxic:

President Aliyev made number of remarks inciting inter-ethnic hatred. He labeled Armenian soldiers(as per source) with derogatory terms such as "diseases" and "dogs" and called Armenia a "Fascist state".[127][128][129]

--Abrvagl (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased. (WP:BIASED) The publisher must have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control. However if you have an issue with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in general, there are journal articles and books by reputable publishers that discuss these types of remarks [5][6]. Please discuss refinement on the actual article talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Cantlon

Multiple independent reports all verified in the Reason article not good enough for you? Based on what? To me this is you and other editors whitewashing what happened. It's borderline immoral and definitely conspiratorial. Sepciically since I think you too might be blinded by the ignorant "Koch money" nut theory. 73.60.59.91 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, but it's totally inconvenient for his biased narrative! The ol' "Liar, Liar" defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.43.66 (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you advise?

Hi,

I need an advise from experienced user. Materials sourced from this book "Encyclopedic dictionary of Azerbaijan toponyms. In two volumes. Volume I. Baku: "East-West"" being constantly deleted by the some users with comments that as per Reliable Sources Discussion it has been accepted as not WP:RS. However, while reviewing the Reliable Sources Discussion I find that no consensus reached and source was not marked as not WP:RS. But Im not sure, may be Im wrong. Can you, as experienced user, check and confirm that? thanks in advance--Abrvagl (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus that the source is reliable in that discussion. The burden of adding content is to show that the challenged material can be verified to a reliable source. If there is no consensus that the dictionary is reliable, the challenged material can be removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

But neither there was consensus that source is unreliable, doesn’t it mean that this source is equal to any other source that never went through the REliable sources discussion? Abrvagl (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

No, because there are sources from publishers with good reputations that they are never challenged and raised at RSN or BLPN. However, once a source is challenged as being unreliable, there has to be evaluation and consensus that determine that the source is reliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Question.

Hi there, could you take a look at the recent edits here and give your opinion in the talk page? I think there may be some WP:BLP issues involved as well. Best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

BLP Expert

Hi, as BLP expert, can you have a look to potential BLP issue here? Thanks! --Abrvagl (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If you have a BLP concern, please notify the BLP Noticeboard so you can have multiple BLP experts look at these issues besides me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, sorry for disturbance, I just thought that your input will be valuable, as previously you joined on Zani’s call User talk:Morbidthoughts#Question. Abrvagl (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Apology

I'd just like to apologise for deleting a large section on the "Evil Angel" film studio page. I'd misremembered the details of the deprecation of the "pornbio" notability standards and thought that websites like AVN and XBIZ were no longer considered reliable sources Have a good one! 101.53.217.249 (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please Help me to comment and fix this Bio page Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana and comment on Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana

There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removals made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere on Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana page. Please stop his disruptive edits by deleting major references and replace it with Instagram links as a reliable reference, as he did on [7], [8], [9], [10] and more on article page history. He keep on rejecting himself to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines before started adding Instagram links as the main source of references. That is why I have to escalate this Issue, please help me to fix the page. Thanks before...--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Sasha Banks

Hi Morbidthoughts, I came here to you regarding an edit you made reverting the fair edit I made regarding the "first two black female wrestlers to headline WrestleMania."

In the edit I made explaining my rationale, I said.

"This sentence is partially misleading to me as Sasha Banks isn't "black" but rather mixed. Only her father is purely African-American, her mother however is of German descent and "white." Bianca Belair however is purely African-American, so the two aren't the same. I personally wouldn't include this sentence to begin with because it feels like it really tokens both of them but if it has to be included. This is the fair way it should be worded."[11]

My true feelings on that topic of bringing up race in the first place in such a way really tokenise both Sasha Banks and Bianca Belair. This is accurately felt by me in a way you literally say in your following revision removing the "Cambodian-American" part when you literally say "Why is race brought into this?"[12]

I get that we can't remove information when it's reliably sourced in the article so I felt I should rewrite the sentence which is fairer to other people who have different ethnicities. Sasha Banks is mixed, half of which is African-American rooted, the other half being "white" from her mother having pale skin and being of German lineage. You absolutely can't call Sasha "white", which is misleading as you can't ignore the other half of her ancestry. But you absolutely can't call her "black" either because that's also misleading because that invalidates the other half of her racial background. The articles which promote the narrative of the "first two black women to headline WrestleMania" take what they see at face value, and don't do any research into their racial backgrounds, while it's true for Bianca. It's however not true for Sasha. These articles are misleading and devalue one side of Sasha's heritage and I take issue with that. What is true, however, is the fact that the two have differing ethnicities for any woman before who has main-evented WrestleMania. Thus my "At WrestleMania 37, Banks and opponent Bianca Belair became the first women of differing ethnicities to jointly headline a WrestleMania" revision was born and that is the way it is appropriately and fairly worded of what is true to the topic that is discussed in the sources provided.

You said in the current revision where you reverted my edit that your reason was "Source doesn't make that distinction." They say black women, for which one of the women that is true, but not for both and that's misleading. The source doesn't directly specify "different ethnicities" but it's still talked about as the main topic in the article provided so it's not like it's false information or misleading either as it still acknowledges what is said. I hope you can understand everything I've said here and if what I wrote isn't the best way to write it either then perhaps we can try to come to a better agreement to word the sentence without it becoming misleading or false. I hope we can resolve this, many thanks. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, but we can not substitute that distinction in if the two cited sources don't since that's considered original research. You can discuss this issue on the article talk page to see if other editors can agree on a workable compromise. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

3rd opinion request

Hello Morbidthoughts, hope you're doing well. Could you give your opinion as a third party in Talk:Imarat_cemetery#Reza? Discussion is about whether this should be kept in the article or not? Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jessica Matten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackstone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the comment that you posted at User talk:Cobretti1. I felt frustrated trying to deal with those changes. I appreciate your comment.Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP address is blocked. The main account may be blocked also for trying to escape scrutiny by logging out. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez - Vandalism

The BLP Ariel Fernandez has been the subject of an extensive editing war. Finally consensus was reached with your help. Now the page has been vandalized on September 17. Importnat content has been removed without consensus. Thank you for your attention.CiSherman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Hidalgo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, hope you are doing well. I'm writing to you because I believe you have far more experience with the BLP than I have. Could you kindly look at the Reactions section of this article when you have a time? I believe that a number of UNDUE BLP statements that were not covered by independent reliable sources were included into the article, but I'd want to hear your thoughts on that before doing any edits. Thanks in advance! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. The weight of that section should be on what is reported by reputable independent press or journals/books; not picking and choosing official positions of countries and their government websites. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: Gabrielle Wolohojian

So explain to me how a source from this year is not adequate enough to establish a relationship? As far as I know it hasn't been taken to arbitration, yet we're accepting a random unregistered user's comments? Why not just say it's disputed? They may not be presently together (who knows?) but it's been reported they were together at some point, doesn't that warrant a mention?

"Healey, 43, lives with her partner, Appeals Court Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian, in Charlestown." Source Snickers2686 (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Meaww and thenetline are not RS to establish whether it is current. You already know this was brought up at the BLP Noticeboards. They may have indeed broken up before the election[13] so there is no confirmation that Wolohojian is Healy's current partner or First Lady elect. If you want to acknowledge the relationship in the past, you can but other editors may continue to dispute and remove this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

re: User:ChanceStiers

I have indef-blocked the editor and hidden their revisions, as we have no idea if the information provided is theirs or someone else's. The content that I deleted from their user page sounds downright stalkerish, and in any case they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. BD2412 T 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even think to look at their userpage. Good catch. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Jehmbo (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion there, Zak. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop calling me that, it's unsettling and offensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#user%3A_Morbidthoughts Jehmbo (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for Edits

Hi MorbidThoughts. I disclosed a conflict of interest with Zhang Lei (investor) and proposed some changes to the page here. I saw that you were a prolific editor on pages about people and was hoping you might be willing to review my proposed changes. I haven't been able to find anyone to look at them, but I think I was asking for too many changes at once, so I trimmed it down to three small changes. Phil2600 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

John Anthony Castro

Hello, @Morbidthoughts! Since you are a part of the BLP Noticeboard team, I'd like to kindly ask your 2nd opinion or action on the talk page of John Anthony Castro:

I believe the page now violates a few Wikipedia rules, potentially BLP of the person. My major concern is that the edits might reflect some political agenda or sensationalism with excessive use of primary and non-eligible sources, mostly mentions. As a result, the page looks as an original research at best and might represent a biased opinion of the involved editor. MartinPict (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

At first I was confused why you hadn't been more aggressive to remove the items that you dispute. Then I saw who created the article. I don't think this is an issue of bias. It's just that government documents (WP:BLPPRIMARY) don't portray a flattering view of Castro. The more media attention Castro seeks, the more likely they will eventually report on those govt documents. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Disappointing

Your invocation of WP:BLPUNDEL on the Bob Morley is not only uncalled for, but is frankly absurd because you haven't even participated in the discussion on Talk:Bob Morley (especially the "Reliability of sources" section) like many other editors! Participate in the discussion FIRST before reversing an edit, considering how contentious this topic is. That's just common sense, plain and simple.Historyday01 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been participating in the BLPN noticeboard. You're on your third revert. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Feminists

Hi there, Morbidthoughts, and thanks for your interest in the article on Kajsa Ekis Ekman. While I am not happy about the emphasis of conflicting views of the subject by various editors, I must say I was surprised you commented on the talk page of AnnikaCarina that she had described herself as a "feminist writer" (in fact I believe she said she was a feminist and a writer) as if this was an occupation which required special attention for one reason or another. I would point out that not only does Wikipedia have many notable women under Category:Feminist writers but that wikiprojects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red encourage equality of coverage of women in the face of our bias in favor of men. I would therefore have thought feminism was a strong asset rather than a liability. I for one certainly believe that contributors supporting feminism can play a significant role in chipping away at the gender gap. So let's be careful about how we address them. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

You don't see an issue with a person who described herself as a feminist and writer in Sweden making negative POV contributions to an article about a notable feminist writer in Sweden? Up to that point being a SPA to that article until it was pointed out by another user?[14][15] The bias I was concerned about is academics pissing all over each other for having a different viewpoint. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations. I agree there are problems with the article and you were right to take them up. I nevertheless think it is unwise to imply that describing oneself as a feminist is a reason for suspicion. While I'm here, as I see you once created several articles on pornographic actresses, I wonder whether you would be interested in advising Thilsebatti on whether actress Jia Lissa is notable enough for an article in the EN wiki. I've already provided a short answer on my talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is this discussion? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Gentner Drummond

Hello, you responded to my BLP noticeboard post on Gentner Drummond a week or so ago. The same editor has re-added all the removed content, so what is the best next step? Do I repost on the noticeboard or is there something else I can do? For context, this is the third or fourth time the editor has re-added the content and at least three different editors have tried to remove it at this point. Thanks for the help and advice! TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

You continue to revert since they did not obtain consensus. I have alerted the user that this article falls Wikipedia:Contentious topics. If edit warring continues, you can take this to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Just an fyi

A disgruntled article subject is asking @Wikipedia to explain your edits.[16] (Almost 3,000 retweets and over 200,000 views) Thought I'd let you know so if you start getting weird or strange messages on wp, that might be why. Schazjmd (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You have to love the conspiracy theory when things don't go his way.[17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Check this out, @Kaizenify:. He's complaining about an edit someone else actually made.[18] If this is the kind of fact-checking that he does as a journalist, nothing he writes can be considered reliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least he called you a super-editor

You in media:[19] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you track these through a Google News alert? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I just search "wikipedia" on google (news) now and then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

TaxProf Blog

Hi, @Morbidthoughts. You actively contributed to this discussion: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_402#TaxProf_Blog

I recently nominated TaxProf Blog for deletion because it seems like the page was created by Chetsford for no good reason. If you are interested to participate, please, follow the link - your independent opinion would be highly appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TaxProf_Blog MartinPict (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Teal Swan possible updates

Hello, Morbidthoughts! A few months ago, you helped to improve the page for Teal Swan here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teal_Swan

Last time you helped a lot with sorting out the right sources for the subject and we had a problem of verification of many facts because there were not so many sources, in particular the ones related to Swan's personal biography. Since you are very good at identifying the good sources, would you be please, so kind and share your opinion on the publications below - Are any of them good to use for Teal Swan, even for confirming some basic facts? Your help would be appreciated as I'm not quite sure:

• https://news3lv.com/features/local-living/helping-others-and-finding-a-love-giving-back
• https://sanfranciscopost.com/best-selling-author-teal-swan-brings-revolutionary-ideas-to-san-francisco-empowers-attendees-to-create-fulfilling-relationships/
• https://news3lv.com/features/local-living/helping-others-and-finding-a-love-giving-back

--Onetimememorial (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

None of them. There's no fact checking on the two videos and the Post article is just an opinion column. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Kim Darroch

Hi Morbidthoughts, Do you approve of the following sources?

Allegations of Leaking US State Secrets to a Journalist

It has been widely reported in the press since July 2019, that Kim Darroch gave US state secrets to a CNN journalist in exchange for sexual intercourse. He was investigated by the US Department of Justice, and he was never cleared. The U.S. Government made a formal complaint to the U.K. Government about his crimes. He could not be arrested at the time he was Ambassador, because he had diplomatic immunity. Kim Darroch has never denied the allegations when repeatedly asked by the press. His alleged crimes are now the subject of U.S. Congressional investigations and civil lawsuit at the High Court in London. It has also been reported in the press that British Civil Service and the British Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, are attempting to use counterterrorism legislation to block the press and the public from the High Court claim, which they want held in secret in order to protect Kim Darroch. .

CSPNPC (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Please discuss at the BLP Noticeboards this link [20] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

Hi, I've started an RfC on the talkpage of Ben Roberts-Smith that may be of interest to you. AlanS^talk 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Good faith edits

As I stated at the BLP noticeboard, the Mhorg mass deletion of material from Jorit's page clearly was not made in good faith. Mhorg claimed that he was deleting the material because it was not backed up by the cited sources, whereas in fact every statement he wants to delete is backed up by those sources. Mhorg is being disingenuous and therefore the onus of obtaining consensus does not fall exclusively on those who wish to see the material retained. As I said on the page, Mhorg sought consensus on the Talk page to delete much of this info as the controversy was unfolding in Italy, and he never received any support for that. 72.86.133.238 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have responded on the BLP Noticeboards. Please keep the conversation there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my point that Mhorg lied in claiming that he was deleting unsourced info and thereby lost the presumption that he was making good faith deletions. His tendentiousness is in plain sight. 72.86.132.107 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to respond to every point you make, especially those that cast aspersions against another editor. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Mhorg's statement was false. It's a question of fact. Just as Jorit's earlier statements about how/why he created the mural were false...another thing your editing keeps pussy footing around. 72.86.133.127 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Gaining consensus "before reinstatement of disputed edits"

I saw your comment on the luckily now-closed discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn Zech and you said "The WP:ONUS is to gain consensus before reinstatement of disputed edits; including citations, per WP:BLPUNDEL. People that continue to reinstate without this consensus should be given a CT/BLP alert and reported to ANI or AE" which was responding to a user saying that "more recently someone else tried to remove the disputed source again...last month, but it was added back in...with edit comment "I think it should stay UNTIL the discussion on the noticeboard is concluded by an admin".

That was my edit. In my whole comment I said "I think it should stay UNTIL the discussion on the noticeboard is concluded by an admin. This IS NOT a "subtle way" to include about the accusations, it is just a better source than the interview/discussion between Zech and Dunkleman, which isn't bad, its just the Daily Dot article is a little bit better.)", but I did not attempt to reinstate it after that. I only wanted to make that edit summary available for the record. And I fully expected it would be reversed. Just thought I'd make that clear. But, I will keep in mind WP:ONUS and WP:BLPUNDEL going forward (I knew about ONUS, but not as much about BLPUNDEL), as I've encountered a LOT of edit wars in the past. Just thought I'd clarify that.

In terms of keeping the "Bob Morley & Arryn Zech thread from being archived", I'm not sure what else apart from the closure request made on May 4th. And I'm not sure why that other user wanted a formal closure. I came around to a formal closure, as I felt that a formal closure would help ensure that edit wars didn't happen on the pages of Arryn Zech or Bob Morley. The whole discussion really wasn't necessary and there were a LOT of bad actors involved (the person who originally proposed it did not appear to be editing in good faith and added bad sources, and was even openly described as an SPA in the discussion itself), and even some threats from certain users, but I am glad it is over. It does make me wary of adding "controversial" issues to biography pages in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That's the point. We should be wary of adding controversial issues and attempt to gain consensus if people start objecting. The other editor could have reverted you instead of keeping the thread open futilely hoping for a formal closure. If there is no obvious consensus, then there's no consensus. As a practical matter, a RfC is a better method to gain consensus for inclusion given its normal 30 day time frame than a noticeboard that's geared towards addressing possible violations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I would have, personally, preferred a RfC, but once the discussion had opened on the BLP Noticeboard, there was no stopping it... Historyday01 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Lana Rhoades

It says here [21], "The RfC does not override WP:ABOUTSELF, which allows the use of The Sun for uncontroversial self-descriptions." IPIPIPIP (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand this line. Self-descriptions are descriptions of what The Sun publishes about itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've removed the source. IPIPIPIP (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, a related archived discussion at BLPN [22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I quickly scanned it but to save time, do you suggest not to include her birth/real name which is sourced from Playboy, a reliable source? IPIPIPIP (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include her real or birth name (if that's what it is). The Playboy article is specifically mentioned as promotional since it accompanied a paid nude photoshoot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Another discussion where a redirect was deleted on the same grounds.[23] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I assume given the aforementioned that these sources [24] [25] would be insufficient to include her name, but to confirm, I could use them to source her approximate age (e.g., "birth year from age at date|26|2022|Oct|06" format, meaning she was 26 on October 6, 2022). IPIPIPIP (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, both Daily Mail and NYPOST are terrible sources to use. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. I believe this [26] should be fine (23 on Nov. 16, 2019)? IPIPIPIP (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)