Difference between revisions 62856234 and 62931485 on enwiki

{{Template:Blp}}
What's the deal with the bizarro picture?  It looks like a last-known-photo type photo. And this is the one that she herself uploaded to wikipedia? This isn't MySpace...There has to be a better one to use that shows the subject of the article more clearly.
[[User:Shamrox|Shamrox]] 16:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

(contracted; show full)
ALSO NOTE that Wikipedia felt your article was TOO LONG and preferred the streamlined "to the point" article that Kola Boof feels represents what she is about and what her life is about.

Wikipedia agrees that she should have a great deal of say in what is written on this site about her, since it's HER LIFE being portrayed.

Your article doesn't portray her life, but is a veiled attack.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dash10"
⏎
⏎
:Hello Dash10/Fermico2, in response to your reply, I would first ask that you [[Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith|assume good faith]]. I am not "an enemy of this woman." My interest is in preserving my extensive prior work in making good edits, to make this a good, balanced article, according to Wikipedia standards. In regards to communications you claim to have received from Wikipedia administrators, please provide references. [[User:Steven Russell|Steven Russell]] 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

=== Issues about living person and control of content ===
:There are of course some issue to work out regarding this article about a living person, who is controversial, who has been widely covered by major news organizations, who claims to be at risk, who is engaged in substantial self-promotion in very controversial ways and associated with a very controversial person, and who has you under several consecutive user names claiming here to represent her in an autobiographical capacity, to the extent that you would wish to have an overweight amount of control over the content and format of this article. Nothing is particularly inappropriate about your contribution toward any of the points above, except for the last one, your desire to exercise overriding control, as Kola Boof's autobiographical representative here. You can certainly have autobiographical input, according to the autobiographical guidelines above, and others, but Wikipedia does not cede control of content over to autobiographers, and in addition, Wikipedia discourages or disallows certain vanity elements, and self-promotion.  There is a degree of privacy that comes into play, which is relevant to the extent that a person is a public figure, per the guidelines above. In my own show of good faith, I have provided here links to all the relevant guidelines for editors to use in discussion of the appropriateness of edits. [[User:Steven Russell|Steven Russell]] 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

===NPOV===
:I think the first order of business is to put up the [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]], or NPOV, tag.  This will identify to readers that the article is not in balanced consensus, per Wikipedia NPOV guidelines. The article as it is now is one version of a [[revert war]] of two competing versions, which are at least two months apart.  The article right now is your (Dash10) reversion to the last May 5, 2006 reversion by Fermico2, which was itself a reversion to an earlier state of the article, prior to a lot of edit work by others. So I will put up the NPOV tag, and I think it should remain, until there is consensus to properly remove it. Consensus can be worked out here in the talk page, with edits complying with Wikipedia guidelines. Below, I will discuss each point of contention, as its own subject. [[User:Steven Russell|Steven Russell]] 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

== 2--Ms. Boof wants as little written about Osama Bin Laden in the article as possible. ==
:I don't see how you can support this, when the following links to Boof's own publicity efforts show that Boof elaborates for 90 pages in her own autobiography, which is currently on the market released January 24, 2006.  Boof goes into great detail about her relationship with bin Laden, and emphasizes how it has been proven by others to be a real event. So how can your reconcile it? 
* http://doorofkush.50megs.com/shopping_page.html
* http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/1/prweb312577.htm
:I would like to restore my edits in the lead paragraphs, detailing the October 2002 origin of the bin Laden story in the Spanish press and then in The Guardian. Those edits on their own do not color the relationship one way or the other, they merely historically place the public exposure of the relationship. [[User:Steven Russell|Steven Russell]] 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)