Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Where she lived in Oxford

User 82.132.212.214 Of what relevance is it to state where she lived whilst at Oxford? It implies she lived there all the time, whereas she lived in at least six different parts of Oxford, so this information is actually inaccurate for 5/6 of the time. Just because it was in a newspaper doesn't make it true. MdeBohun (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the truth but only reports what the reliable sources say.Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That bit of utter trivia was added by the IP who kept trying to add the book, and remove her academic title today There have been several IPs in the range 82.132... (which resolves to Telefonica O2 UK and are all probably the same person) who have been adding and re-adding information to this article which has been objected to, e.g. [1] and [2]. In any case, I'm removing it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Title of section is early life and education. Past residence is relevant to this section and is sourced. As the subject no longer lives in Oxford this is not a security concern. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.212.214 (talk)

I have reverted this again, her place of residence when a student is of absolutely no interest, it adds nothing to the articleTheroadislong (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):It has nothing to do with security, 82.132.212.214. This is one of her several past residences in Oxford is "true" only in May 2009. So what? It is utter trivia and unencyclopedic. That's why it was removed. There is absolutely nothing noteworthy about her having lived for a time in Summertown when she was a student, any more than what bus she took to get to the Bodleian. Your edits to this article in general have been quite unconstructive. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This information is under scrutiny at the moment. The best I can advise is that is something has been removed by me or another OTRS agent, DO NOT restore it without our consent. Otherwise, I am quite happy to take this to WP:ANI. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Her residence in Oxford has already been removed hours ago. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.212.214 (talk)

It is not Oxford University but The University of Oxford.MdeBohun (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what significance where she lived has to this article. We should only say that she attended Oxford and mention the qualifications she gained from there. This is Paul (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

I have requested the article is semi-protected. This is in response to the various IP users editing the article (which may be one user on a dynamic address), which is escalating into a slow moving edit war. If you have no interest in the procedures we have for solving disputes (eg. WP:BRD), then please stop editing the article, or leave Wikipedia entirely. I have far better stuff to do with my time than having to review every single edit made as part as a petty edit war in case it goes against the OTRS actions made to this article, either in whole or in part. If you do plan to continue editing, please also learn how to use Edit summaries. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Surrey info

I will be restoring the Surrey info using a different source. I do this with Mdann52's permission (from an OTRS standpoint). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clarify why that source cannot be used? The OTRS action gives no detail of what can and cannot be posted. (82.132.212.214 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

Generally, the Daily Mail isn't regarded as a reliable source when it comes to biographies of living people. This is Paul (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate further on what can and cannot be put on this page as a result of OFTS action? If no guidelines are given then other users will encounter the same problems (82.132.237.157 (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

Basically, do not restore the information I have reverted, in part or in whole, including the reference. If you have a query, ask before restoring. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not an admin, why are you acting like one? (82.132.239.179 (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

He's acting as a OTRS volunteer—and given the information that they have access to, even administrators will defer to them, especially on matters of what information may or may not be present in a biography. —C.Fred (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

So there are things which can't be included in the page but you are not allowed to say what cannot be included. Surely you see this is nonsensical. (82.132.237.157 (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

Not really. We have articles on very controversial topics where every non-trivial edit is quickly reverted if it hasn't been discussed on the talk page first. If it makes you feel better, treat this article in the same way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And it seems you are editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. [3] Please log in and note your discretionary sanctions notice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it controversial to add these details? The info is already in the public domain. Plenty of pages on this site included this detail. (82.132.237.157 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

And I can't log in if I can't remember my password. Creating multiple accounts is not allowed. (82.132.237.157 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

It is entirely permissible to register a new account if you have forgotten your password, provided you cease editing from the previous account and cease editing while logged out. However, It's quite obvious that you know what your password is. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The site states 'You don't have to log in to read any public MediaWiki wiki. You don't even have to log in to edit, normally: anyone can edit almost any page, even without logging in'. (82.132.237.157 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

And yet you managed to log in twenty minutes ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and as I have warned this IP under his/her multiple guises, editing under multiple IP addresses where it is done deceptively is treated the same as editing under multiple accounts, i.e. as sockpuppetry. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find you can't pin down a shared IP address to one user. You still haven't answered my question as to why common info cannot be shown on this page. (82.132.237.157 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC))

"why common info cannot be shown on this page" Because we have received an OTRS ticket relating to this article, I have removed content relevent to what the ticket requested I do. Frankly, you are growing increasingly disruptive, and I will consider taking this to WP:ANI very shortly. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent removals

82.132.* is back, disrupting the article. [4] This is a pretty basic statement, showing how the subject credits where she was growing up for what she is notable for now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If a-level subjects studied is unnecessary info, then why is this fluffy nonsense allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.224.222 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Using some common sense, a subject's influences should be documented in a biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Are school subjects studied not an important influence on a person's university study and career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.225.84 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Provide sources detailing their influence. And log in Lw1982. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

https://www.nchum.org/blog/josh-asks-dr-lipscombs-advice-applying-to-university — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.225.84 (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Good source. Try to formulate a constructive, relevant addition to the article instead of a useless factoid. [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The University of Oxford

As mentioned above (but not under a new heading with a request for action) there is no such place as Oxford University, it is The University of Oxford. The paragraph entitled Early life and education show the university both ways in consecutive sentences - 'She was educated at Epsom College and Lincoln and Balliol Colleges of Oxford University. She was awarded her Doctor of Philosophy from The University of Oxford'. This looks sloppy.

Alma Mater should also include that she also has an M.St., in Historical Research, not just an MA (Oxon), and a D.Phil. MdeBohun (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is, indeed, no such place as Oxford University, although this incorrect term does tend to be used as a colloquialism. It shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia though, so I've changed the wording slightly, and hopefully it reads better and makes more sense now. I'll let someone else tackle the infobox as that'll probably need to be sourced. This is Paul (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there references to this qualifications? Not own CV. (82.132.212.214 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

if as is says above that administrators can impose actions on this story then this Internet account is prime suspect for action - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/82.132.212.214 - he has an apparent fixation on publicizing her residence and local - Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference is https://www.nchum.org/faculty/dr-suzannah-lipscomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdeBohun (talk • contribs) 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to sign the reference. MdeBohun (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are there any other websites (this is is employers website) that the subject does not contribute to and is independent of that back up this info? (82.132.236.222 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

Official institution pages are a reliable source for this information. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

her place of employment is a suitable source for verifying her employment. However, her place of employment has a conflict of interest in presenting their employees as having shiny bangles that by the person's employment pass their shineyness onto the employer. therefore the employer cannot be considered neutral source for such claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Royal Historical Society Report of Council 2012-2013, verifies the M.St., But honestly, what a palaver over nothing. This is a simply the Oxford equivalent of a Masters degree, often done on the way to a D.Phil—it is not a "shiny bangle". The important degree is the D.Phil. What earthly difference does it make whether or not the M.St. is in the infobox? Ditto the fuss over "Senior Lecturer" and "Convenor" (which simply means "Head of Department"). In this case a department of exactly 6 people (including the Convenor) in a college whose total enrollment in all subjects is 120—unlike this fellow who holds a named chair at Harvard University and heads a department of over 50 faculty members. Voceditenore (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Voceditenore (talk) TheRedPenOfDoom Tell it as you think it is won't you, don't hold back on spilling out your vitriol. It seems that editing Wikipedia attracts the worst kind of people whose only chance to get back at those who have achieved it to put them down on the talk pages.MdeBohun (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

says the person who has consistently made false and inflammatory accusations against other editors despite being being told again and again that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are Wikipedia policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MdeBohun, my remarks were primarily aimed at TheRedPenOfDoom and the anonymous IP hopper. My point was and is that these are perfectly run-of-the-mill job descriptions, degrees, etc. They are not extraordinary or self-serving claims that require the kind of "independent" evidence and level of scrutiny being demanded. There's nothing wrong with stating that she is the Convenor and Senior Lecturer at her college, if that's what you want, but personally, I'd leave "Convenor" out. In this case it is not a major academic position in a major institution. It's the kind of thing you'd definitely put in your CV or faculty page but not necessarily an encyclopedia article. In terms of style and presentation, sometimes less is more, but that's your choice. Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Declined edit request rationale: Basically too much editing (and discussion) has taken place in the last few months to make sense of what is desired. Even so, I am personally disinclined to add master degrees when the doctorate is already there. "Convenor" is now linked to Wikitionary so that it makes more sense to non-British readers. If desired, please feel free to re-do the edit request and ping me. I will respond. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at the biographies of living persons' noticeboard

There is a discussion about the removal of information in this article at WP:BLPN. 86.133.242.71 (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

6/12/2014 Subject's job title is now Head of Faculty at NCH - https://www.nchum.org/faculty/dr-suzannah-lipscomb.Yeligimba (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to add Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, first screened on 20th January 2015, as well as The Last Days of Anne Boleyn, screened May 2013 and again last week (both shown as part of the Wolf Hall season) http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour. 92.234.80.5 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New information

You may wish to add Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home, first screened on 20th January 2015, as well as The Last Days of Anne Boleyn, screened May 2013 and again last week (both shown as part of the Wolf Hall season) http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour. 92.234.80.5 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)92.234.80.5 (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home has yet to be added to this page. It was on BBC4 on 20th January 2015.Camomilelawn (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have posted a request on Thedayislong's Talk page to try and get Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home added to Suzannah Lipscomb's page, as nothing has been done. I would be glad if somebody would be good enough to add this please. Thank you.

I would be grateful if you could add this for me please. I cannot do it as the page is locked.Camomilelawn (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was Theroadislong's Talk page I made the request on. I have tried to give references (to the Daily Telegraph and The Independent) but was told that my page was not saved as one link is on Wiki's blacklist. It seems unlikely to me that either of these national newspapers would be blacklisted but I got this response: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. I did however give the references on Theroadislong's Talk pageCamomilelawn (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the article. Theroadislong (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tudor series is not (Victorian, Edwardian, Tudor... it's a miracle the English still exist). More of the same thing in my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say User:NeilN, Hidden Killers of the Tudor Home has not yet been added to the article. However, your opinion that it is more of the same is hardly relevant, it is a different programme, and as such should be added. As you know this, yet declined to do it, I again ask Theroadislong to please add it to the article.Camomilelawn (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's called editorial judgment as we don't have to document every appearance a subject has made. However, I will add it for you. You know, if you make five more edits you can edit semi-protected articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN Thank you.Camomilelawn (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can anybody advise if the heading Personal Life the most appropriate heading for the subject's signature on a letter to The Guardian by 300 historians regarding leavingthe EU?Yelligimba (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Date of birth

Please advise why date of birth keep being removed? Source is reliable and other subjects who have a wiki page have their date of birth published. Why is this a special case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.229 (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The same OTRS ticket that's been in force for the last three years. See /Archive 1#Edit Warring never a good idea, where the OTRS ticket was initially noted, and /Archive 2#Surrey info. It would appear that you were a party to that latter discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To expand on the above, a request was made per WP:BLPPRIVACY, and the request was granted. As this is not widely publicised (and are not a major public figure), we do respect privacy and data when requested. Mdann52 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Subject is now more widely known public figure so I'd say her DOB can be shown. How can previous decision be challenged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.229 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Also when the subject actively seeks out publicity and show off her home then how can this be such a private person?http://www.wayfair.co.uk/aresidence/2015/12/29/suzannah-lipscomb/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.232.229 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll note that nowhere in the piece was the street address of the house given. There weren't even exterior photos. Sounds like they're still maintaining some privacy. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

But subject regularly gives media interviews, so is hardly publicity adverse. Information on birthdate is also publicly available. http://www.thefamouspeople.com/briton-historians.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.13 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That site fails WP:RS. Frankly, if that's the best place you can find it, it's not widely-disseminated information and should not appear in the Wikipedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2010030157.html - this is a reliable site so should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.216.13 (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That was the source that had been used before, at the time Mdann52 reviewed the request from the subject in the OTRS. There is nothing further that can be done by normal editors or administrators. I suppose if you want to appeal the decision, you'll need to email the Volunteer Response Team directly. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)