ps the below is simply wrong and i would like an apology and would like the seeking alpha references put back in place thank you the source used by the article was a press release from pasternak 's lawyers if we have the comment carried by reliable sources third party sources then perhaps but wp blp unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons whether the material is negative positive or just questionable should be removed immediately emph added the red pen of doom i was agreeing with your removal so you don't have to justify it to me but you're still wrong about who the source was from it wasn't from his lawyers it was from seeking alpha and you summarized the edit as after knight trading a press release from pasternak's lawyers is not valid source for wp peacock language i think you just didn't notice the reference with the seeking alpha site before the reference with the law firm site also it is not an explicit policy to remove all sources that come from a client's law firm particularly when they state facts about the disposition of a case wp rs does not indicate party affiliated sources cannot be moved in fact it provides explicit guidelines for when its inclusion is appropriate wp selfpub also the wp blp policy has two parts for removal of facts from a blp the fact has to be unsourced or poorly sourced and the source must not be written by the subject of the blp in this case it was written by presumably his lawyers either his lawyers stand in his shoes and so it fails because it's poorly sourced by virtue of not being sufficiently second party a contention which isn't cut and dried but meets because it's written by his represenatatives or it doesn't fail but does fail a strange place to be shadowjams talk ms s