A fact from Steve Moxon (whistleblower) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 sourcedmust 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 within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Doug Weller, can I check whether you're sure that Imprint Academic is a self-publishing outfit? I knew it wasn't the best of presses, but I wasn't aware that they offered self-publishing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This suggests that they have a subsidiary that offers self-publishing, but I don't think that the books published under the Imprint Academic imprint are part of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: yes, I think you're right. I ended up on the wrong page without looking again at the title. Not sure how I did that, but good catch. Doug Wellertalk 05:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cagliost, you mentioned in your edit summary here that "He eventually stood as a UKIP candidate, as shown in the other sources". However, this source says that he was suspended as a candidate by UKIP and "will stay on the ballot paper as an independent". The BBC source also says that he was removed as a UKIP candidate. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are contradictory. The official results show him as a UKIP candidate, but the Guardian disputes this (as does The Star). One possibility is that UKIP fired him as a candidate but were too late to actually change the ballot papers. I think the current wording is good: we make clear that he was selected then fired as a candidate, without making claims about what exactly appeared on the ballot paper. Moxon himself is quoted as saying "In the unlikely event I get elected I guess I would be an independent at least for a while." i.e. regardless of what appeared on the ballot paper, he was no longer endorsed by UKIP. cagliost (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cagliost. It's strange that the results as published in the Star have him as an independent, as I'd expect those to be a copy-paste of the results from the council. The possibility that he was deselected after the ballot papers had been printed actually sounds familiar to me. I have a feeling I read something to that effect while researching the article, but can't find it now. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}