A fact from Ewan Crawford appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 831 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Ewan Crawford is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
We have a hobbyist here, someone interested in Tasmanian stamps and this judge, who keeps inserting what I consider to be a BLP violation--a rambling paragraph (without secondary sources) about murder meant, I think, to cast doubt on this judge. Hard to tell--it's not well-written. I have removed those from the history and will apply long-term semi-protection to this article to prevent this disruption. See these contributions, and these, and a recent set of two, this and this. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I see now that that's what they were doing on Postage stamps and postal history of Tasmania as well (and that was even more riddled with errors, with an even worse BLP violation). Philafrenzy, you created that article and may have an interest in it; BlackJack, you reverted that editor and may like to keep an eye out as well. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for drawing my attention to it. It is on my watchlist. I am not an admin however, and so can only guess at the content. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Haha, that's exactly the point, Philafrenzy. :) It concerns a murder, which the IP claimed is somehow a notable case in the judge's career, but the IP didn't manage to insert the content properly, either grammatically or in terms of secondary sources, or in agreement with the BLP. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Drmies. Will watch out for any more violations but it should be okay now with the protections. Jack | talk page 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to both of you. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
