Talk:Jay Wiseman

message: Jay, if you read this, please provide a better GDFL picture. Copyrighted Pictures won't be allowed on plenty other wikipedia-sites (languages) worldwide and this one is btw really kind of strange. ;-)  Kind Regards from old Europe ;-).  --Nemissimo II 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the image.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Request

message: "In 1996, Wiseman started his own book distribution company."
So what is its name? Is he still owning parts of Greenery?? Please give us some further infos ( and a better GFDL image ;-)   )
--Nemissimo II 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing information

message: :Image:SM101 Book.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SM101 Book.jpg

message: Essentially none of this BLP has a reliable source.  The one reference only verifies the connection with Greenery Press.  What is the evidence for notability?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unverified BLP material deleted.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "BLP material" normally refers to information that is contentious.  Information such as the individual's place of employment or schooling is generally fine to include, and BLP subjects are allowed to update this information based on their own say-so, even without a source. See WP:SELFPUB.  I do agree that the citations on this article could be better, especially for someone as well-known and widely published as Wiseman.  But rather than simply deleting the majority of the article, it would be better to remove anything that seems problematic (negative information about a BLP), and request citations for anything that's questionable, by tagging it with  tags. If no citations are provided, the information can then be removed, per WP:V. --Elonka 15:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I read WP:BLP, it refers to all "information about living persons", it doesn't restrict itself to contentious material.  There are two prescriptions: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", which is what I did here -- challenged a month ago, in the posting at the head of this section, and removed after noone came up with citations, just as you describe.  The prescription "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." is also valid but not what I used here.  Am I out of line here?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  When in doubt about how BLP is to be interpreted, it's safer to be strict than lenient.  However, deleting 5K of a 7K article citing BLP concerns seems a bit much, not to mention that even his primary point of notability (writing SM 101) was deleted from the lead.  Removing contentious information is fine.  Completely gutting an article simply because sources are not clear, seems (in my opinion) to be too much. My recommendation is to restore the non-contentious information, and tag anything about which there is a bonafide concern. --Elonka 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sources are not clear" is an odd way of saying "absent".  I was citing WP:BLP policy. The notability point in the intro was unsourced.  I flagged up all of this a month ago.  I do not agree with your analysis or your recommendation: I do not propose to add any unsourced material to the article.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added several sources.  Please feel free to use them. --Elonka 16:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have a library card?  They're easily available via Newsbank through any library's website.  --Elonka 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources