curprev20:4720:47, 11 July 2023 Abecedaretalkcontribs 55,889 bytes−1,713 revert pre-mature addition; clearly no consensus on talkpage over merits and language and in any case any such substatntial change to a core policy requires a *much* wider discussionTag: Manual revert
curprev13:2813:28, 11 February 2023 ToBeFreetalkcontribs 55,718 bytes−227 →Discretionary sanctions: (Not a clerk action!) Rewriting based on WP:NEWBLPBAN's new wording. The explanation after "In this area," is copied from Wikipedia:Contentious topics; see the history of that page for attribution and license. Please adjust this section in any way that seems reasonable, perhaps even rewrite it entirely; this is just a first attempt to get this updated. Changing the main shortcut too, as "DS" is not longer the abbreviation.
curprev01:1601:16, 9 November 2022 LokiTheLiartalkcontribs 55,664 bytes+168 Undid revision 1120826968 by Homeostasis07 (talk) Sorry, but previous text is the status quo. It's stood for two years and consequently has WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. There's a discussion on the talk page about this, but there's definitely no clear consensus in it, it's very contentious, so status quo rules for now.Tag: Undo
curprev01:1201:12, 9 November 2022 Homeostasis07talkcontribs 55,496 bytes−168 →Public figures: Restoring version of the sentence achieved through consensus at various talk page discussions and an RfC. I've also initiated an RfC on re-adding this content with consensus. Contribute there before edit warring any further.Tags: Manual revertReverted
curprev13:3113:31, 7 November 2022 DFlhbtalkcontribs 55,496 bytes−141 →Public figures: See new talk page reply. new facts have come in: there was indeed affirmative consensus for the base sentence in a 2014 RfC, not silent consensus. The few arguments that we "must" keep the disputed addition rely on non-binding essays (WP:STABLE, WP:QUO, WP:SILENT), not policies. Actual policies like WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:POLICY are very clear that the disputed addition should be removed pending consensus.Tags: Manual revertReverted
curprev17:1417:14, 7 October 2022 Newimpartialtalkcontribs 55,292 bytes+136 Undid revision 1114654383 by Politrukki (talk)There was more than 18 months of SILENTCONSENSUS. The removal of this passage changes the meaning of the rest of the paragraph, which is no longer the STATUSQUO without this addition. If you feel a need to remove the content under dispute, please remove the rest as well.Tag: Undo
curprev20:5320:53, 5 October 2022 Politrukkitalkcontribs 55,156 bytes−136 →Public figures: Revert undiscussed changes made on 11 February 2021. Looks like changes were only partially reverted. (Similar modification efforts have been rejected even before that.)Tag: Reverted
curprev15:0315:03, 10 September 2022 123957atalkcontribs 55,287 bytes−2 I changed 'should' to 'must' in the lead section because I think this policy is very important and the word 'must' is used in the "In a nutshell" section and everywhere else in the lead section.
curprev15:5215:52, 5 September 2022 LokiTheLiartalkcontribs 55,739 bytes+450 →Public figures: BOLDly adding another example to cover a special case that IMO the two existing examples do not explain clearly, where there is some clear fact-finding event like a conviction that transforms an "allegation" into an "incident".Tag: Reverted
curprev14:2814:28, 15 March 2022 Levivichtalkcontribs 55,051 bytes−3 →Images: further (bold) copyedit for clarity... we don't actually use photos to imply crimes on this website :-) so clarifying what I think we mean here
curprev14:2014:20, 15 March 2022 AzureCitizentalkcontribs 55,054 bytes+5 →Images: Some editors are misreading the "sourced to" part to mean that the source of the police photograph itself must be a "top-quality [RS] with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," while in practice the source of the photograph and the top-quality RS included to link the photo to the incident in question are often two different sources. Repositioned and changed "must be sourced" to "must be included" to clear up this misunderstanding.
curprev19:4119:41, 7 March 2022 KoAtalkcontribs 55,137 bytes+88 Undo attempt at removing existing policy through edit warring and overriding core content policy per talk page. Consensus is required for removal if you disagree with policy. RfC did not grant that, so restored to version that only has existing policy language. Please use talk instead if still unclear.Tags: UndoReverted
curprev17:2417:24, 5 March 2022 KoAtalkcontribs 55,137 bytes+88 RfC finished without consensus to be opposed to existing core content policy language, so restoring existing policy language that was previously removed. More background on talk. In short, if you disagree with this existing policy, don't revert or edit war.Tag: Reverted
curprev08:1008:10, 25 January 2022 Robert P. O'Sheatalkcontribs 55,037 bytes+7 →Dealing with articles about yourself: Is a team singular or plural? If the former, then there is the problematic "singular they". Teams always comprise people, but collective nouns are usually treated as plural in most dialects of English. I hope my edit removes any grammatical uncertainty and that the prose now runs smoothly for all readers.Tag: Reverted
curprev22:5222:52, 12 January 2022 BusterDtalkcontribs m55,043 bytes0 Changed protection settings for "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons": Edit warring / content dispute; temporary full protection, any admin can change protection level with no disagreement from me, starting discussion section on talk which should have been commenced 30-some-odd hours ago ([Edit=Require administrator access] (expires 22:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)) [Move=Require administrator access] (expires 22:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)))Tag: Twinkle
curprev22:3022:30, 12 January 2022 Levivichtalkcontribs 55,043 bytes−88 Undid revision 1065243881 by Alexbrn (talk) rv nonsensical change. "Third-party sources...unless written or published by the subject of the article" doesn't make sense, as that wouldn't be third-party. It was fine the way it was before and this is why bold changes that are revered get taken to talk instead of being reinstated.Tags: UndoMobile editMobile web editAdvanced mobile edit
curprev00:5100:51, 12 January 2022 KoAtalkcontribs 55,131 bytes+88 Undid revision 1065057417 by Kyohyi (talk) This text is already long-standing policy, so no changes are being made to policy here other than minor already accepted text. If you personally do not agree with the policy, reverts are not the place to do it, and consensus is needed instead.Tags: UndoReverted
curprev19:0419:04, 23 November 2021 Levivichtalkcontribs 55,135 bytes−172 Undid revision 1056776288 by Jehochman (talk) don't edit a policy in the middle of an RFD to support your RFD !vote. Also WP:CREEP and I don't think there is consensus that the accused becomes a "public figure" as stated in the bold additionTags: UndoMobile editMobile web editAdvanced mobile edit
curprev02:1202:12, 24 September 2021 Woodroartalkcontribs 54,822 bytes−523 there is still no consensus in that discussion, only your suggestion and no response; again, changes like this should probably need an RfC or a larger number of editors respondingTag: Manual revert
curprev17:3117:31, 30 March 2021 Facts707talkcontribs 52,433 bytes+116 {{For|policy on whether an individual is sufficiently noteworthy to have an article|Wikipedia:Notability (people)}}Tags: Mobile editMobile web editAdvanced mobile edit
curprev02:2802:28, 5 October 2020 PackMecEngtalkcontribs 51,679 bytes−305 Undid revision 981903878 by Valjean (talk) that is problematic as well, it is far to vague for something far to important. Also this wording was added by JackofOz, from what I can tell you just moved it around? Lets not needlessly water down BLP policy for no apparent reasonTag: Manual revert
curprev02:2502:25, 5 October 2020 Valjeantalkcontribs 51,984 bytes+214 →Public figures: This is based on due weight considerations and how we should not give more weight to deceptive denials by placing them in the lead. Factual allegations in the lead and the subject's opinion (denial) in the longer coverage in the body.Tag: Reverted
curprev15:0315:03, 3 July 2020 ProcrastinatingReadertalkcontribs 51,663 bytes+55 →Public figures: Link to supplementary guideline regarding "public figure", a term in the paragraph which currently redirects to the general wiki article on the matter, but WP's interpretation is slightly different
curprev20:2620:26, 29 December 2019 Bsherrtalkcontribs m51,484 bytes+42 Cleaned up using AutoEd, replacing shortcut with section link in text, implementing strong and em templates, bypassing redirects in piped links
curprev00:3200:32, 26 March 2019 Coffeeandcrumbstalkcontribs 50,923 bytes+34 →Writing style: Added a new policy shortcut to a section that become very important in the current political climate (re: Brexit and Mueller, etc.). The Current short cut "WP:BLPSTYLE" does not fairly represent this important section
curprev05:1905:19, 2 March 2019 Aquilliontalkcontribs 51,021 bytes+138 →Tone: Rewording to reflect WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is the main article on primary / secondary sources in WP:BLPs, says about this; some people seem to be interpreting this as a strict bar on primary sources, which is not and has never been policy. WP:BLPPRIMARY says extreme caution, not "never use ever."
curprev21:1121:11, 20 December 2018 Mcfnordtalkcontribs 50,917 bytes+56 Welcome debate here, but we need to differentiate between verdicts and plea agreements, vs. transcripts, depositions, and other court documents.
curprev15:4015:40, 21 May 2018 Galobttertalkcontribs 48,151 bytes−75 why would we change an article because someone put something on their user page? we never include addresses/numbers
curprev00:4300:43, 6 May 2018 Hullaballoo Wolfowitztalkcontribs 48,033 bytes−67 Does not reflect consensus policy, "decades thereafter" essentially determines the issue for an absurdly large set of contemporaneous matters, covering virtually all living persons, as well as including a prominent spelling error. Undid revision 839830784 by WhatamIdoing (talk)Tag: Undo
