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: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd like to say first, it's clear one editor has a conflict of interest with the writing about this subject. WP:COI strongly discourages editors from creating or editing articles with which we have a personal stake. It's just not the best way of creating pagespace. I'll also concede that I've edited an article or two with which I have an association, so few editors are completely clean of COI. We tend to edit what we know, so if a subject we know is notable, we tend to care about that pagespace. It's wise to confess this upfront. I'll caution the editor to be aware of the slippery slope created by a conflict of interest in editing. Please at least skim the material at WP:COI; we take this pretty seriously especially with WP:BLPs. Please read that link too (all of it).
Any improvement should begin by removing signs of COI and resume-looking material. We've got lots of sources, so cleaning them up will be an early task. We should not remove any page tags. Sure they're unsightly, but we shouldn't remove them. They call other Wikipedians' eyes to what we're doing. This is a good thing.
We need to de-puff the page. I have no doubt the subject is a formidable performer, but let's source any complimentary or uncomplimentary stuff, per WP:VERIFIABILITY.
I'm going to take the liberty of changing the section heads to more standard uses, I'd suggest we also think about changing the career material into a more chronological format. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to note the ongoing improvements to this article. Keep it up, you both. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Curious as to why this page is still marked with the badge of shame of a COI almost a year later? Looking through it there appears to be nothing but factual, supported content. No puffery or negative commentary. Simply a listing of credits and a mini biography. Even if this was edited by someone who knows me, nothing in the article is subjective, so it couldn't possible matter. Just curious. Any answers? Rpetkoff (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)