Talk:Julian Radcliffe
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Boomer Vial in topic "Malicious content"
 | A fact from Julian Radcliffe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 March 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| 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 sourced must 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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
"Malicious content"
edit87.224.74.105 I'm curious as to how the information you removed is 'malicious'. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 00:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Wiki's policy towards living biographies is clear. Personal comments about whether the person is a gentleman or not, are prohibited. Also, do not state "claimed", if this is in doubt the content has no place in Wikipedia. any attemts to reinstate the malicious content a third time will result in user blocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yon dee (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Boomer Vial and That'sbetter: A WordPress blog and a blogspot.com blog both don't strike me as reliable sources worthy of being included in a WP:BLP, since they're WP:USERGENERATED. I've removed the content from the article that relies on these two sources, as well as some content based on other sources that wouldn't make sense without the context of these two sources. I realize that the Chasing Aphrodite WordPress one is written by a fairly reputable journalist, but the fact remains that it is only him that is writing the blog with seemingly little editorial oversight. As this is a BLP, I would be much more comfortable if we could get a consensus here that these sources are reliable before restoring the information. Alternatively, I noticed that the blog entries themselves may cite reliable sources; if we could cite those sources, I would be happy as well. Mz7 (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mz7 Since it's only him writing, now I don't know how I feel about including it on the article. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 08:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I have opened a discussion on whether to include the disputed content at the above link. Please comment on the issue there. LynxTufts (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)