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
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

This conviction has been on the E TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY, seen by millions. It is adequately sourced at http://listing-index.ebay.com/actors/James_Stacy.html. Why is someone improperly deleting it? Tommypowell 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The link to the Gazzete article does not work. Tommypowell 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no link, the reference is to a work in print. I get it from Lexis/Nexis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tom Harrison-Please be aware it is not me who keeps vandalising this page but anonymous user 76.4.218.231. I have reverted his vandalism 6 times. After 10 times I will request semi-protection for this article. Feel free to restore your language and link (at lest till 76.4.218.231 vandalises it yet again) Tommypowell 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have carefully researched and sourced the original newspaper articles about the legal events in Mr. Elias' life. Note that some of his acting bio still contains material taken verbatim from Elias' own web site. Nicmart 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is concerned, the mother was identified in the People Weekly article I reference. The privacy of the woman and her daughter seem secure since a Google search doesn't bring up any contemporary mention of "Patrice Loher." Nicmart 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have presented the information regarding Mr. Elias' molestation conviction as it was reported in news stories. If anyone has additional information, particularly that might be materially different than has been reported, please contact me. Nicmart 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

A user named Stacycollins removed all reference to Mr. Elias' criminal behavior and convictions. I have reverted to the pre-vandalized version. Nicmart 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stacycollins has vandalized this article a second time, but this time the vandalism was undone by another editor. One more time and the user should be banned. Nicmart 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving article

This article was tagged for several issues. I've worked on it and have added sections, an infobox, references for some necessary citations etc. It is still in need of further work, especially in regard to the stark list of sources at the bottom which appear to be sources for some of the material in the arrest section. Having no access to these articles listed, it's impossible for me to tell what parts of the section each references. Hopefully, someone who was involved in adding these initially can step up and make them into in-line citations as outlined in WP:CITE. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. This is one of the mostly thoroughly referenced articles about a celebrity on Wikipedia. Regarding his criminal history all of the original news articles are footnoted, and every detail comes from those reports. It is foolish to think that every sentence needs a reference to those articles. This is an encyclopedia (or is represented to be), not a research report. I'd be perfectly happy if you removed the entire article and I can relocate the parts about his history to PBWiki. I think I'll do that anyway. The last time I did so the PBWiki entry quckly replaced the Wikipedia entry at the top of Google's search. The very idea that articles should remain until the distant day when they are allegedly perfected is asinine. If an article is not well done it should be removed. Nicmart (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about the article not being well referenced. EVERY article must have citations for verification purposes, especially quoted material. See WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. If you don't like that policy, talk to Jimbo. If you had looked at the article before saying that the edits or requests for verification were "nonsense", you'd see that no content was removed and nothing was even disputed. The only thing that was done was an article cleanup per WP:MOS. That's hardly anything to complain about especially since a lot of editors would have removed uncited material and would not have be courteous enough to leave you a note about their edits. Wikipedia is not perfect and no article is ever complete. If you can't deal with that, I suggest you not edit here or at the very least, refrain from complaining when someone else attempts to bring an article up to acceptable standards. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as the above editor stated, no one said the article wasn't well referenced. Since you were the person who added the material, and presumably had access to the articles you listed at the bottom, you were the one who was approached. I'd refer you to several Wikipedia policies regarding style, referencing and what needs to be cited. WP:Cite##When quoting someone specifically says that the citation should be place in-line. Therefore, the listing of sources, even as detailed as they are in this case, at the bottom of the page, is not acceptable. In six of the seven places that I tagged for reference improvement, it was a direct quote that was tagged. Because of liability issues, WP:BLP expressly that unreferenced material should be removed.

Secondly, you were approached regarding this because you are the editor who added, and when I did so, I approached you in a non-confrontational, polite manner and asked if you could transfer the listing of sources at the bottom into in-line citations. It isn't foolish to ask that a QUOTE be referenced, since policy requires it. I'd further remind you, given your comments, that WP:OWN says that an article belongs to no one, even the person who wrote it, once it's placed on Wikipedia. There is no need in your attitude about it. If you aren't interested in properly formatting your references, leaving quotes (and the one statement regarding lawsuits and alleged attempts at bribes) uncited, then I'd be just as willing to remove the material as being unsourced and in violation of WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means remove it. I much prefer to have it at PBWiki where I can control the content of what I have written. The other materials I've posted to PBWiki rank higher than the same entry at Wikipedia in Google searchers, and for good reason. So, please, I urge you, contest the entries to this entry and have them removed, or just revert it back to the swill it was before I edited it. Nicmart (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now that's a claim that I somehow doubt without proof, since I've never seen a search on Google turn up much of anything before the Wikipedia entries. In any case, you can certainly control your own private user space but that doesn't make it a reliable inline-sourced article, which is the key to keeping an article safe from liability issues. Publish what you like online, assume the liability for yourself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)