Talk:Ian Duguid
| 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: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Bio Box Changes
[edit]Hi other editors, Ian does not want his service number up for privacy reasons, and his name is Ian Duguid. Please abide by his request and accept these changes. 31.48.122.121 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- First, a request from an anonymous editor claiming to be on behalf of the subject has no inherit merits of its own. Accordingly, I disregard the "Ian does not want" part of the message above.
- That said, I agree that there are privacy concerns and verifiability concerns with the service number, and I endorse the removal.
- I also do not support restoring his middle name until/unless it is supported by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- C.Fred see here under mention in despatches[1]. Both service number and middle name are readily available from reliable sources. I am not advocating that they go back in either; but the IP removed them earlier today without stating what the issue was. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "No. 58633". The London Gazette (1st supplement). 7 March 2008. p. 3614.
- @The joy of all things: My bad; I missed the middle name in there. I think it's reasonable for the middle name to go back in; we list the middle name of people all the time. However, I think a service number falls into that category of identifying information that we're better off not including for privacy reasons.
- And part of the point of my comment was that the IP did the right thing, even if they didn't provide the right reason for doing it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- C.Fred I have no issues with it going back or not; I can totally understand their privacy issues. I was just letting you know that on the first deletion, if the IP had stated in the edit summary why they were removing it, I would not have reverted. Hope the weather is good in the US and I wish you a happy holiday. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)