User talk:Morbidthoughts/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Morbidthoughts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Morbidthoughts. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

HopClear could be clasified as a reliable Source and is atleast more reliable than Twitter and Instagram.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hopclear looks like an unacceptable tabloid with excerpts like these, "In New York, she got into a relationship with her ex-boyfriend Sean, who once dumped her because of her small breasts. Now with new breasts in tow and a new confidence you can say she was “insatiable” to Sean. So they became an item and now they’re married, and Asa Akira is pregnant. Asa Akira is now 6 months pregnant with her first child, allegedly." There has to be better sources out there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes I do. I believe saying committed suicide assigns blame to the person and makes the family feel worse about what happened. calverthall 03:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I get it. You've got some sort of love-on for Stoya. However, you are displaying some pretty bad, own-y behavior. You have been given the opportunity to use the talk page to push your point of view and build a consensus. You have failed to do so and are at your third revert. One more, and you're gone. I am going to invite you to self-revert, because you are changing no one's point of view by doing so. Use the talk page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You mind telling me what the third revert was in a 24 hour period as your math seems to be bad? Sure you're being WP:CIVIL and assuming good faithin being premature and your accusation of a love-on? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll offer you the final chance to undo your last revert, instead relying on the discussion process. I won't wait long before taking the next step. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Where's that third revert in a 24 hour period again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

"3RR warning" was maybe not the best thing to do here, but you certainly need to stop edit-warring, because that is also blockable, and it does not require the bright line be broken. You started an RfC--great. I do not see how you can claim a BLP exemption here, so you would do well to not remove that information with the RfC pending. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to note that WP:BLPPRIVACY requires that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The key terms are "widely published by reliable sources". This has not been satisfied with just one citation to the Telegraph. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Did you enjoy that outcome? I must thank you properly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

As per your repeated posts on my talk page, allow me to be clear: please stay the fuck away from off my talk page. I have asked you politely, and you have disregarded my request. Please consider this the last time I will ask. You template regulars and are not worth my time. In return, I will not post on your talk page, unless of course it is to notify your of pending administrative action. Let's not have this particular sort of interaction again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

BLAH BLAH BLAH. Your talk page is full of dispute. I'm just setting the record. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, can you clarify in a diff where the first polite request not was or did you imagine it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Found it.[1] Except it was 3 minutes before you decided to follow it up with some vulgarity on my page even though I didn't post anything to your talk page afterwards. Are you an Eddie Murphy fan by the way? He made a pretty underrated movie for its time that may be pertinent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

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.--NL19931993 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please know I have reverted your recent edits using the unreliable source at reidlips.com, and that your recent edits to the article above are being discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Riley_Reid .

If you want to participate, you should make your comments only at the Noticeboard. The reversal of your edits should not be undo until after the matter has closed there in favor of adding your edits. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't confuse CUs with weird associations, I'd simply login as Be..anyone after five years for an important enough issue, as I did last year on commons for one hour to upload media related to Emma Blackery (you can check that, no other login anywhere since April 2016, no CU rights required.)
Apart from disagreeing about 8 characters on Zak Smith we always agreed on stuff, c.f. WT:P*#Pornhub Insights. I didn't even know that the article had a new flood of SPAs requiring a new semi-protection, your info on the SPI page is misleading. The last time I edited the talk page (adding #Miscellany for consideration, by you, among others) was also the last time I edited the article (adding Girls in the Naked Girl Business).^[2]
This can cost precious CU time, one of the most sparse resources enwiki has to fight serious abuse. All edits by me on Zak Smith were constructive and undisputed. On the talk page I haven't mentioned our long archived "agree to disagree" since summer 2019.
A geo IP location tool is available at the bottom of IP talk pages (example), Smith doesn't live in Hamburg and cannot get VPN access on these IPs by a local "free WLAN" provider. The CU will figure this out in less than one hour, but it's wasted time, because they certainly can't follow my or your say-so. –84.46.52.20 (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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.

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 post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

--Jorm (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, I do not see any consensus in the talk pages for your reversion of my edits to address WP:LABEL issues. I have posted about the matter at the WP:BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For taking time to look over Laetitia Avia's article. Many thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For your comment here, As someone who's been making a whole ton of accessibility edits lately I had completely forget it could affect those with screen-readers in that way, I'm genuinely extremely impressed with you noticing that and pointing it out so thank you for doing so! :), Happy editing, Take care, –Davey2010Talk 21:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, my change was perfectly legitimate.

The original entry said that his work for an upcoming title was pulled "at his request".

I didn't think that sounded remotely plausible - no writer would voluntarily pull their own work from a high-profile release. But I didn't state *that* as it would be my own personal view, so I just said "ostensibly at his request".

Ostensibly Definition - "as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so"

Is Wikipedia just a place for copying and pasting company press releases or factual content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.138.53 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the second part of that definition adds unnecessary commentary or doubt. Similar to WP:CLAIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Given that the Ziwe interview was where she most recently came back into the public eye and gained notoriety, I think it's worth mentioning. And the April date of her self-published book is no longer credible considering it's July and nothing's come of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarfow (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair quote just seems to lack the appropriate context for including it on her wikipedia page. The article should actively discuss her rather than just having Fumudoh throw her name out as an example. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I can understand that. But Byrd Leavall's comments about her are still up in regards to her book. I was working off that impression for an update on her latest controversies. And as for cherry-picking tweets of Calloway's, one of her tweets is linked under the Aftermath header. Again, I was working off of what I had previously seen was accepted on her page.Sarfow (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The OnlyFans tweet was discussed in the Elle article while the Leavall quote followed up on the previously discussed book deal. It is important that we let the sources determine how important the topic is rather than trying to figure this out ourselves. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is fair. I'll go back and find some more credible sources to use that keep Calloway as the focus of the article. Sarfow (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It was a joke my dude. Calm tf down. Are you really defending the integrity of Carpo's wikipedia page? In year of lord 2020? Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59858aaa (talk • contribs) 01:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Integrity of every Wikipedia page is important. Morbid's trying to maintain that integrity.Sarfow (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! First off I wanted to say that I really appreciate you and your presence on the main and talk page of Zak Smith.

What are your thoughts on AlexaSmooth? I'm really getting the sense that they're not listening to what we're saying (and I think we're being pretty clear and straightforward). Also, they've only edited two other pages (plus two talkpages, one of them mine) since their account was created on Jul 24 2019... when they immediately jumped onto Zak's page and started editing it. That's miles too coincidental for my tastes, but I'm a sucker for WP:AGF and they haven't done anything flat out wrong that I can put my finger on.

With all that said, I'm not sure what to do next. Clearly they're not listening on the talkpage, but I'm not sure if it's gone far enough to bring to a noticeboard or anything like that. What do you think? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Well it is a BLP violation to keep reinserting original research with prose that would violate our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. It's not obvious to her because our policies are just legalese to her, but her reinsertions also don't show any attempt at complying with the policy by changing the wording or inserting new sources (or at least it's not obvious to me). It's time to just give her a warning that she should not make further additions that violate these policies or that her editing privileges may be revoked. There are some independent reliable sources in that text but it's hard to separate the reliable from the cruft. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I did take a crack at trying to prune it to only reliable secondary sources and got it to "Smith's body of work primarily comprises drawings," which felt utterly useless to include. Perhaps I could spend more time taking a weed-whacker to it, since it's clear they're not going to. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: I've reopened a SPI investigation due to these last rounds of edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks much! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noted User:AlexaSmooth was flagged suspected sock puppet of FixerFixerFixer on 29 January 2020.Merxa (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like we may have another one, Xone21gunsX (although it's a brand-new account). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 04:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about this one[3], @NekoKatsun:. Declaring they do not have a COI before making their first edits to the article raises eyebrows. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooog, yeah, that's a bit of a flag. The user's account history is lengthy and varied, though, which (to me) is a point in their favor; they also seem to be happy to engage in discussion on the talkpage. I appreciate their breaking it down sentence by sentence and I like your responses - let's see how much pushback you get and play it by ear from there? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The pedantic arguments and twisting of policy that I have drawn out of the user is strikingly familiar. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Damn, and I had such high hopes, too. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: @NekoKatsun: There is a brand new editor (TheMathKing1984) that deleted a chunk of the Zak Smith "Personal Life" using the same arguments as previous sock puppets. I reverted it but I wanted to give you both a heads up. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ela Darling recently approached me advocating on Smith's behalf, mentioning that his friends have been trying to help so we may be dealing with coordinated meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppets. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lord, what a mess. You might want to bring this up on the talkpage (or privately to one of the admins participating there), since this is feeling more complicated than a simple 'oh hey what do we think about this source'. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the part where I'm supposed to say something mean and nasty about you since we disagree. Nothing came to mind (That was my attempt at levity :) ). Anyway, I actually just wanted to thank you for starting the RfC. We may not agree but at least your RfC will help get this all sorted out. Springee (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you undid my edit about his sexuality and I agree that maybe "bisexual" may not be the best way to phrase him expressing his attraction to men on multiple occasions in interviews, but it seemed like the least clunky way to put it and is the definition of "bisexual." If you have any ideas on a less simplistic way to express that info, please suggest it. Do you think adding the specific quotes from the interviews would be better? I just didn't want to make that the bulk of the section and noticed that someone previously had already simplified it as "Davies is bisexual", so I thought that was the best way to go. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.120.80.58 (talk • contribs)

I believe these conjectures are original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no awards to give but wanted to thank you for all your work at Makau W. Mutua. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So, you are removing a RS because it’s a RS? Qwirkle (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I was not clear and forgot the 'not' in the edit summary. The citation or link didn't confirm it was in the print edition or it was not obvious to me where as I mentioned in BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelmite (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw a message left on my talk page by you about that woman's article. Her name is not Kelly Conway. Her name is Kellyanne Conway. "Kellyanne" is one single name. It's not "Kelly Anne". Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you like me to change the header on your talk page for accuracy's sake? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, haha, just letting you know. I'm tragically pedantic. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not readd information about Mikhail Shneyder. It was removed by several editors citing WP:BLP concerns and you must address their concerns and obtain consensus on the talk page before readding this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Jenna Haze, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Whiteguru (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Special:Diff/1028751115. "Loongi" is a derogatory term for Persepolis F.C. Ladsgroup^overleg 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, thank you for catching that. I reverted to the wrong version trying to clean up after an ip address. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lexi Belle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Belle (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think "famousfix.com" is not a reliable source? --BartocX (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the guide on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Famousfix is not a scholarly site nor a reputable news organization. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! You recently reverted my edit on this page as well, I wrote in the talk page there but might be easier for you to see it here: While I see where you're coming from, I don't really see why my edit was reverted. The marriage situation wasn't clear no, but what is clear is that they were in a relationship for years, that's why my edit only stated that they were in a relationship not that they were married. If her opinions on sport are relevant enough to be included despite being supported by similar (perhaps worse) sources as the ones I added, and a multi-year relationship is not then I have to say I find that quite strange. Maybe I'm missing something though. I should also add that Expressen, one of the sources I added is considered reliable in Sweden and is one of the biggest newspapers there. They're not the type of newspaper to make things up about relationships. --TylerBurden (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brooklyn Lee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Lee until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Morbidthoughts! I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for all you do, and especially for your help over at BLPN. It's such an important policy, and I'm glad to have people like you around to help out. I'm always glad to read your comments. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season, and may the coming year bring great joy and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you don't see information she stated for a matter of fact and the topic of sex positive feminism an issue. She voiced she was interested in becoming a sex positive speaker in real life in an interview and that information is even more relevant because one is required to search the internet deep to find such information. She is apart of the ever growing group of people whom at least emphasize with the positive movement and challenge traditional notions of sex patriarchal in a patriarchal society. Also there is a major divide within feminism concerning porn v.s. erotica and anti-porn feminist and sex-positive feminist groups literally known as the "Porn Wars". She made a public stance on such information and she being in the position she is in and the experiences she went through with Primetime should be considered at least a footnote in this academic debate. All because you personally don't take this to be a serious issue nor understand let alone study or contribute to it in an academic sense doesn't mean you can dictate the relative opinions of others. From Feminist Porn Awards to Alana Luv and others obviously have a stance on this issue. It exist. You just personally don't want this information to be connected due to fear of discourse. I don't see how actual information in conjunction with relevant information concerning an entire academic field and ideological stance is not important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.232.66 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored most of the education and career section that you removed from Roberto González Echevarría (slightly trimmed and remixed). The section does need to be sourced, but the basic career details belong in an ideal article, and almost every award and honor listed would be a likely pass of WP:NPROF by itself. (And I don't think we have any reason to doubt that most of it can be sourced; you don't become a named professor at Yale for nothing.) I'll try to slowly add some sources over the next few days. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph must stay removed per WP:BLPUNDEL until you can reinstate those items that you find sourcing for. Further, the sourcing must be independent of his resume/cv. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, CV sourcing is probably fine for mundane career details like degree, positions held. Per WP:NPROF rules, sourcing to Yale is fine for the named professorship; similarly for some of the prizes. WP:BLPUNDEL I take to refer to controversial material ("deleted on good-faith BLP objections"), and I don't see anything particularly controversial in section in question -- do you? Meanwhile, while the article is at AfD, it is helpful if the case for notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with using most CVs and resumes is because they are self-serving (see criteria 1 of BLPSELFPUB). Believe it or not people lie about their accomplishments even when they could be easily cross checked. You may see these accomplishments as mundane, but not when you're also arguing that they're proof of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on claims of notability -- those are not mundane details. The article will get a fair bit of attention from Wikipedians while it is at AfD; if there still remain a lot of unsourced details afterwards, then I'd support trimming. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to quickly check back: AfD ended, and citations are added. After a little trimming, I think everything has a fairly reasonable source, with the exception of two of the honorary doctorates. These I sourced to his faculty profile (with a better source needed tag). Given so many other passes of WP:NPROF and other notability criteria, I think this falls under not unduly self-serving (and certainly seems relatively harmless); if you disagree, then edit as you see fit. Thanks for being patient. I'll be interested to hear your take over on the article's talk page on how to cover the legal issues! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Morbidthoughts, your input required on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard on the following topic: 1.3 Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)