Talk:Floyd McKissick Jr.

Edit war

Before this degerates into a mad edit war, I recommend you state your case for the addition/removal from this link [[1]] --CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested arbitration on this matter from the Arbitration Committee. Hopefully they'll take up this case and settle it. Evets70 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

I came across this article via User talk:Materialscientist#You undid changes bt me on Floyd McKissick Jr, Page. I think the claims about McKissick not paying for renovations and about being in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana qualify as contentious per WP:BLPSOURCES and therefore should not be simply tagged with "citation needed" and "by whom". The burden should be on the person(s) wanting to include such information in the article to provide reliable sources in support. I tried looking for sources which might be used, but didn't find any. Perhaps someone else will have better luck, but until then I think it's better to err on the side of caution here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Professional misconduct charges

I have just removed that section, with this edit.

I think it is WP:UNDUE, it's a relatively minor incident, which only has local-level news coverage from a single source.

I considered this matter before taking action. I asked for input on the BLP Noticeboard, and a user responded;

I would agree that this case is not only undue weight; but really is not notable enough for inclusion. It was only covered locally (and not that in-depth). If it had received expansive coverage in more prestigious media outlets, I would say: yes, include. But under these circumstances; no. Furthermore, the lede does not mention this one specific case; which implies that the subject is not notable on WP for this life event. In addition, the undue weight occurs in mentioning names that are not notable and should not be mentioned in this article; as the case itself is not note worthy. I would support reducing this to a single sentence in Education and Career or removal altogether. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) diff (@Maineartists:)

I agree with the above; I also would not object to an appropriate simple sentence.

If anyone objects, let's discuss it here. Best, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)