Talk:Cheri DiNovo

BLP reminder

The following is an exact quote from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. It must be followed.

“ Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. This burden applies not just to verifiability of sources, but to all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

”

This policy is not optional, it is not ignorable and it is not a matter for debate. If you want to add information to either this article or this talk page, the onus is on you to show reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's no easy way to single out the one unregistered user who's been persistently causing problems on this article since 2007 (and is still at it two years later, I might add), I can't see any compelling reason why we would need this article to ever be editable by unregistered users again. Maybe YMMV, but considering that page protection has been the only thing that's ever kept this person from feeling entitled to smear wild WP:BLP violations all over the article repeatedly, the only options we have are to either (a) keep it semiprotected, or (b) permanently IP-block all of Thailand. And one of those seems rather more unrealistic than the other. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is worth a try. Should the vandalism come back, it is very easy to re-protect it. Tiptoety ^talk 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Reduction in Protection to this talk page (Semi Protected -> Pending Changes)

Hello!

I'm just wondering, would it be possible if this talk page was pending changes protected instead of semi-protected? I know I'm a registered user but new users/IP addresses should still be, well somewhat able, to discuss any changes needed to the main article. I know the main article should still be protected as is, but the talk page should probably allow for, maybe a slight chance, in getting other editors to discuss or contribute changes to this article. What do you guys think?

Sincerely,
Tibbydibby (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

ok. Enigma^msg 20:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I tried, but I don't see that option for talk pages. It appears pending changes is only for articles. Enigma^msg 20:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Federal Bid

I added a section on a potential federal bid. Although CBC has kept sources confidential, I think even the consideration that she would run is notable. Feel free to undo if there's some disagreement. But maybe wait until the expected announcement tomorrow or later this week.Andwats (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"citation needed" tag re. Liberal allegations during 2006 Parkdale–High Park by-election

The following passage currently bears a "citation needed" tag: "The Liberals alleged that DiNovo endorsed the church ordination of pedophiles and axe murderers in Qu(e)erying Evangelism, when in fact she did not". Finding a source to prove that something was NOT included in a particular book seems like a tall order. Should this sentence perhaps be rewritten in such a way that removes the need for this kind of tag? Lazarusloafer (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)