Talk:Rick Reilly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I found a really good biography but am not familiar with the copyright implications; it is on SI's website. [1] (On the left) Is it ok to copy and paste this (more or less) with a note on where it was from? Thanks. Zellin 04:46, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I thought he wrote a very heartfelt tribute to his wife for being with him through his tough schedule a few years ago. Then recently, I thought he wrote an article and mentioned his girlfriend. What's his marital status? Doesn't he have kids? Editingfiend 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits brought to WP:BLPN

Due to the nature of the very slow but ongoing edit war (almost a year now -since I've been aware of it anyway) I've brought the latest edits to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (thread link). The latest disputed edit is here. I disagree with the non-neutral presentation of the material and also think that it should be removed in its entirety, due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Note that this has apparently been ongoing since 2005. BuddingJournalist 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BLPN thread (archived). For future use. R. Baley (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protected

This one might be controversial, but I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Given the large number of editors who have agreed that the disputed material violates BLP and given that the IP has made no attempt to engage in discussion on the subject, I'm comfortable regarding these BLP violations as vandalism rather than as a content dispute (in which case semi-protection would obviously be inappropriate). Given that the material is being inserted from a number of different IPs, semi-protection seems like a better route than blocking. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP compliant version

I've cleaned up one of the problematic pieces into a version that is I think BLP compliant. Could someone take a look and give an opinion? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)