Talk:Laurie Matthews
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laurie Matthews article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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 sourced must 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@I.am.a.qwerty:, I saw you removed the COI template saying that "Do not use.. unless.. significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality". I read WP:COI, and I couldn't find what you were referring to. However, it does say here that "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." That's what I worry about. Even if the article is 100% neutral with good sources, you still shouldn't be editing it if you have a close connection to its subject. The only exception to this is removing vandalism/defamatory material. Sro23 (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Tag on media section
edit@Sro23:, I could use your advise on this. I have tried to condense this subsection so it does not appear to give too much weight to the topic. And I wonder if you think it is condensed and brief enough to warrant removal of the tag. Cheers! I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm sorry this response is sort of late, but I did remove the tag because I agree with your changes. No more weight issue and the article reads better now too. Thank you Sro23 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)