477:. If you're not looking for fame (not that a Knowledge page is a fame generator, trust me), and there's not so much information here that someone who really wants to find out something about you will be satisfied, you are probably much better off putting your energy into having your own website about you, making sure it's stocked with all the information about you that folks might want to know, and making sure the search engines know about it. The best way to control your image is to make sure the biggest, best source of information on you is under your control, and that's something that Knowledge is never going to grant you.
91:
518:
of the article. On the fourth hand, it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article; the next use of the term is in reference 39, which is an IMDB article about a Dr. Phil episode about the subject, where he uses it in the title. Dr. Phil is not considered a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, nor does he ever diagnose his guests on the air (regardless of the headlines he uses).
31:
162:
325:
year after
Lythcott-Haims left Stanford, that university officials changed campus policy on âConsensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships in the Workplace and Educational Settingâ to prohibit staff members â âincluding deansâ â from having such relationships with students, because of their âbroad influence or authority over students and their experience.â
538:
As it's not supported by the source in the lead and not in the body, I have removed it. All of the symptoms of
Munchausen-by-proxy could equally well have a much more mundane explanation, like garden variety child abuse, so unless a source supports the much rarer option and we discuss it in the body,
324:
This line in the article is factually inaccurate, âThe relationship violated
Stanford policies, which forbid sexual or romantic relationships between deans and undergraduate students.â In the San Francisco Chronicle article cited in the Knowledge article, it is reported that, âIt wasnât until 2013, a
226:
I have flagged unverified claims and questionable allegations of serious misconduct against a living person. I am now writing here, as unfortunately no review of this section has happened during the last months, and I am hoping that someone from this Wiki
Project has the interest and the resources to
517:
On the surface, I can't say I agree with you. Her story reads like the textbook definition of
Munchausen by proxy. On the other hand, the nearest ref says nothing about the disorder. On the third hand, text in the lede doesn't necessarily have to be referenced as long as it's referenced in the body
457:
process, and it would have to show that you are sufficiently generally notable, which would largely depend on reliable third party sources doing in-depth coverage of you (as opposed to, say, the passing mentions of the sort that are here on
Knowledge.) This is apt to be a fraught effort... and even
449:
The four pages where I find your name mentioned all do so appropriately -- they are passing mentions in regard to your position in NORML or in the specific political party, and nothing where it would be appropriate to add "Strype (who is a nice dude and advocates against meat consumption as well)".
523:
Add all that up, and I'm not sure we have any kind of verifiable diagnosis, regardless of how obvious it is to the general reader. There's a long list of sources, and I don't have time to read them all, so I'm not sure how many, if any, support this claim, but it seems to me we need some very good
426:
Also, many of my activities did not get me 15 Minutes of Fame. Perhaps partly because I've never sought it - even avoided it - because the thrust of much of my work is that corporate media don't get to define the boundaries of what's important. Plus I don't want to go to the effort only to have it
465:
Create - again, using the
Articles for Creation process - articles that should reasonably have a place on Knowledge and which would reasonably include a mention of you. For example, you could create an article on one of the groups you founded, and which thus would reasonably mention you. However,
430:
But the disproportionate weight issue remains. I know the basics of how WP works, so if my issue with a bio article about me, I'd just comment on the talk page there. Supplying information and references to help other editors improve the weighting. But I'm not sure what the best approach is here.
177:
I am trying to figure out if I need to - and how to - link information that is claiming that someone should be fired from their ethnicity-based position because they are not a citizen of a Native
American reservation (i.e., it's all about the definition of "Native American"), which I have drafted
458:
if you succeed, it may not go to your liking. Once there is an article, other people are actually more free to edit it than you are, and some might make it an article you'd rather not have up. (Note: this is not a specific comment on you; I have no idea if you have enemies or closet skeletons.)
418:
I've spent just as much of my career working on animal rights campaigning and vegan advocacy than on drug law reform, important as it is. I've probably spent more of of it on environmental protection activity. I've certainly spent far more of of it working on independent media and free culture
329:
Julie did have sex with an adult student and apologized publicly. There are credible citations about it. However, the current page seems excessive and un-encyclopedic. Thanks to anyone that takes the time to chip-in and let me know if I can be of any assistance. Best regards.
414:
TÄnÄ koutou, I am featured on WP in various articles about cannabis law reform campaigning in
Aotearoa. I have no problem with this material in itself, from what I've seen it's all accurate. But it gives a disproportionate weight to one small slice of my activist work.
461:
Suggest edits on the Talk pages of other articles, ones which are legitimately missing something because they don't already mention you. This would have to be done with proper references to show that you are important to the subject at hand, and are apt to face close
422:
What I could do is gather some references about my other work, in publications I believe will pass muster as WP sources. Then start a stub page on myself, mentioning only facts found in those references. But that idea feels a bit self-indulgent and... well... icky.
197:
I am basing this on the type of language in the newspaper article, the non-profit, and in other newspaper articles about this issue. I don't mean to infer that I mean
Knowledge editors are trying to do that. Sorry, I have not been well and I am
524:
sources, and it should first be expounded upon in the body of the article before we could use it in the lede and infoboxes. Probably would be best to simply omit the term until it gets properly sourced. Besides, no need to state the obvious.
387:
The SPA is back again. Some of what they want might be defensible, but I saw multiple aspects that looked like BLP violations to me. I reverted once more, and requested page protection following another revert from SPA.
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
373:
And that has been done, and I have added context for the legal (though inappropriate) relationship between two consenting adults, removed a false statement, and made numerous MOS fixes. --
502:
she is not a munchausen by proxy survivor. they were malingering. deedee was never diagnosed. it was a defense created by the D.A and articles like these are making a murderer infamous
304:. The current page about her has a section called "Sexual misconduct" regarding sex with a student, while working as a dean. I have the following complaints regarding this section:
17:
315:
It relies heavily on weak citations, such as gossip rag Daily Mail, local news Palo Alto Online, and student-run university paper Stanford Daily.
450:
So if you wished to see a fuller picture of you presented on Knowledge (which is not inherently our goal), I see several possible paths:
453:
Create a page about yourself. Because you have a conflict of interest with regard to yourself, you'd have to submit it through the
345:
There was a huge amount of content added that is undue, so I have removed it. What's left is sufficient. I also added "adult". --
278:
258:
179:
223:
359:
And I have been reverted. Maybe someone else wants to take a shot at getting rid of this massive amount of undue content. --
548:
533:
511:
491:
443:
397:
382:
368:
354:
339:
290:
239:
207:
191:
274:
150:
273:
It would be nice if the instructions here included some guidance on when to post on the public noticeboard, when to
544:
219:
235:
269:
draw attention to suppressible material, or any links to suppressible material on Knowledge or any public venue.
129:
393:
182:. Should I move that info? How do I do that so that no one sees where I put it from my contributions? Thanks! â
133:
335:
231:
203:
187:
507:
48:
should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to
540:
439:
487:
318:
It relies heavily on quotes to add excess detail and editorialized language, which is discouraged by
301:
503:
389:
286:
135:
59:
37:
529:
378:
364:
350:
331:
199:
183:
435:
253:
Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
131:
90:
483:
309:
467:
282:
41:
454:
45:
419:
projects, including co-founding Aotearoa Indymedia and Creative Common Aotearoa/NZ.
525:
374:
360:
346:
167:
Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard
319:
482:
I hope this advice is of some use, and if not, have a fine day anyway! --
136:
84:
25:
166:
74:
67:
245:Risk of drawing attention to defamatory material
263:
251:
312:, taking up as much space as her entire career
144:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
18:Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons
279:request suppression from the Oversight team
249:The instructions for this noticeboard say:
468:guidelines for notability of organizations
42:Biographies of living persons noticeboard
470:in order to qualify for having a page.
154:when more than 2 sections are present.
277:privately from an admin, and when to
7:
473:(and this is the one I recommend)
275:request revision deletion (RevDel)
24:
148:may be automatically archived by
259:Knowledge:Requests_for_oversight
180:Draft:Native American definition
160:
89:
29:
220:Transparency International e.V.
549:06:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
534:02:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
512:01:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
410:Representation of Danyl Strype
173:Link to defamatory information
1:
539:it shouldn't be in the lead.
427:flagged for speedy deletion.
46:biographies of living persons
466:they would have to meet our
296:Julie Lythcott-Haims Article
492:00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
444:23:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
567:
398:16:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
383:02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
369:01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
355:00:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
57:
340:23:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
291:02:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
257:But the instructions on
240:10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
208:04:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
192:03:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
44:. Issues on individual
271:
255:
151:Lowercase sigmabot III
50:the noticeboard itself
455:articles for creation
498:gypsy rose Blanchard
302:Julie Lythcott-Haims
227:take a look at it.
434:Any suggestions?
158:
157:
56:
55:
558:
541:Caeciliusinhorto
475:Forget Knowledge
164:
163:
153:
137:
93:
85:
77:
70:
33:
32:
26:
566:
565:
561:
560:
559:
557:
556:
555:
500:
412:
308:The section is
298:
247:
232:Transparency 24
218:On the English
216:
175:
170:
161:
149:
138:
132:
98:
81:
80:
73:
66:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
564:
562:
554:
553:
552:
551:
520:
519:
499:
496:
495:
494:
480:
479:
478:
471:
463:
459:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
390:Russ Woodroofe
327:
326:
322:
316:
313:
297:
294:
246:
243:
215:
212:
211:
210:
174:
171:
159:
156:
155:
143:
140:
139:
134:
130:
128:
125:
124:
100:
99:
94:
88:
79:
78:
71:
63:
58:
54:
53:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
563:
550:
546:
542:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
522:
521:
516:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
476:
472:
469:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
448:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
409:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
337:
333:
323:
321:
317:
314:
311:
307:
306:
305:
303:
295:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
270:
268:
262:
260:
254:
250:
244:
242:
241:
237:
233:
230:Kind regards
228:
225:
221:
214:Bruno BrandĂŁo
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
181:
172:
169:
168:
152:
147:
142:
141:
127:
126:
123:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
97:
92:
87:
86:
83:
76:
72:
69:
65:
64:
61:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
28:
27:
19:
501:
474:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
381:) (PING me)
367:) (PING me)
353:) (PING me)
332:JLHAssistant
328:
299:
272:
266:
264:
256:
252:
248:
229:
217:
200:CaroleHenson
184:CaroleHenson
176:
165:
145:
103:
95:
82:
49:
36:This is the
484:Nat Gertler
436:Danylstrype
300:I work for
198:exhausted.â
504:Undernewt
462:scrutiny.
320:MOS:QUOTE
283:Jruderman
265:You must
224:talk page
60:Shortcuts
38:talk page
310:WP:UNDUE
146:180 days
96:Archives
68:WT:BLP/N
40:for the
526:Zaereth
375:Valjean
361:Valjean
347:Valjean
75:WT:BLPN
267:never
261:say:
222:wiki
16:<
545:talk
530:talk
508:talk
488:talk
440:talk
394:talk
379:talk
365:talk
351:talk
336:talk
287:talk
236:talk
204:talk
188:talk
547:)
532:)
510:)
490:)
442:)
396:)
338:)
289:)
281:.
238:)
206:)
190:)
119:,
115:,
111:,
107:,
543:(
528:(
506:(
486:(
438:(
392:(
377:(
363:(
349:(
334:(
285:(
234:(
202:(
186:(
121:5
117:4
113:3
109:2
105:1
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
