Talk:Damon Dash/Archive 1

Untitled

Removed the line "In an interview in 2004, he commented about the reports of his overwhelming flatulence problem. He blamed the excessive farting on his lactose intolerance, saying, "I just can't put the milk down." for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

Blocksavvy

How come there's nothing about his new website, blocksavvy. It's the new myspace, but better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.8.232.30 (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

removed the adjective 'former' from line about co-founding rocafella records. he sold his shares in the company but is still a co-founder.

Roc-a-Fella

Damon Dash is reviving Roc-a-Fella records with rapper Curren$y at the helm. Thought you all should know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.121.230 (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFICE

Hi all,

At the request of and in consultation with the WMF's legal department, this article and DD172 are temporarily courtesy blanked. Please don't re-add anything to them; we do not expect this to be a long term action. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, its been a couple of months now, what is going on!?Jairuscobb (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The protection log seems to say otherwise, as it was indef full protected. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite does not contradict temporarily. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 07:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict infinite either; it's unspecified. I would appreciate some clarification or at the very least a specified amount of time on the office's behalf. (I'm not LikeLakers) 24.1.42.121 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki provides no way to express "a period not to exceed the life of the article's subject" in a machine-readable manner that I'm aware of. In any case, WP:BLP1E appears to apply, as the article DD172 has no hints of Dash's notability outside DD172. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

And on that note (BLP1E), why is it a courtesy blanking and not a courtesy redirect to DD172 now that the courtesy blanking of DD172 has expired? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like this article should well be on its way to being up again. Any updates from the office? (108.68.93.30 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)) - C.B. Nimmo

See also this conversation on Philippe's talk page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 29 November 2011

Null edit to purge cache and to remove page/file from the view of Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Dumb question, but...

... does anyone know in particular why this article was blanked and protected? Yes, looking through the article history and seeing the numerous allegations made against him backed by sources that render the article one big WP:BLP violation is pretty telling of the reason, but I want to know if Damon Dash has raised issue with the content of the article and complained to the Wikimedia Foundation about it or if you guys just decided on your own that it would be best to preemptively nip this in the bud before you had a legal case on your hands. In which case, wouldn't just be easier to weed out the problematic parts of the article rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater? I mean, you guys didn't blank Conventional PCI just because it included a link to copyright-violating material, did you? I don't see why it couldn't be any different with this. Damon Dash is a (relatively) high-profile person, denying people access to basic information about him is unfair. 70.52.77.66 (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we have a right to read This . Maybe dame paid off wiki to bank out the page.....not totally unlikely . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.98.134.3 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Or was threatened to be sued. 98.226.35.93 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't REALLY have right to read this, after all, it is about him, and he technically has the legal authority to sue wikimedia into removing information about him...

Zenith042

00:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith042 (talk • contribs)

No, he doesn't have the right to suppress information about himself. here is a link to how the page used to look. My guess is that he's either filed a baseless libel suit to suppress the page (which is not the reason for libel laws, or the page has some bearing on an ongoing case. In either case, I think it's inappropriate that this page has been blanked so long, especially with no explanation. 0x0077BE (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This shouldn't be down....

Damon Dash is credited as Executive Producer of every Jay-Z album up until "Kingdom Come." That is 8, count em, EIGHT, albums that sold millions each, how is he not worth a page???? Not to mention there would be no Jay-Z at all without Dame, in the most literal sense. The Rocawear brand, introducing Kanye West as a producer and later as an artist, I mean what isn't newsworthy about this guy?

Dame also has ties to Aliyah, and other celebrities that might be relevant

For this website to block out his impact on Hip Hop by blanking this page is ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.218.145 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a rule against biographies of living people? Or am I missing something?

Zenith042

23:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenith042 (talk • contribs)

Try again

if the man does not want his side to delete it. no offense, but leaving it empty is just stupid. Why, you have used a template to it has been printed form as a courtesy, when writing to the reele cause was a baseless case gain, from his side instead of thinking about and try to discuss the contents, also bar ekræve the deleted no matter what. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why...

...this article is blanked and not simply deleted? Blanking technically does nothing unless the history is also removed. KarikaSlayer (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Dash came with legal threats, and some of wiki media thought it was libelous. How I see it. Why, it does not have form or deleted history kernel so it can still be seen, else you wont glossy histories who oppose BLP, and replaces it with a template is beyond my comprehension.--80.161.143.239 (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please either delete this bio or rewrite to conform to BLP. I am hoping that the box is temporary and this is being worked on???--Malerooster (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So much for hope. It looks like this has been "locked down" for about a year??!!?? Come on man!! --Malerooster (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? In my mind, Wikimedia should not respond to legal threats re: libel. We have something called freedoms of speech and press in the USA. Wikipedia can say negative or potentially harming things about any person, that does not constitute libel. And since anyone can edit a Wikipedia article this means some of the information at some point in time is eventually bound to be false. If you're afraid of paying for lawsuits, I suggest you put up more donation banners. Put this page back up, and all other pages blanked for "libel", back up immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.157.32 (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC) TEAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.90.247 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013

I'm requesting to edit this page as there are many credible news sources for this person that Wikipedia could use as reference.

Ron John (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You will have to get the Foundation to unlock the page. GB fan 01:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As an additional comment, I will recommend looking at this talk page section for more information since it deals with this article very nicely. In any case, it seems that this article may be unlocked within the next six months. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Hi. Please remove Category:Article Feedback Blacklist from this article. Following WP:RFC/AFT, the article feedback tool is now opt-in per-article. The blacklist category is no longer necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

When is this issue likely to be resolved?

Is this likely to be resolved at any point or is it going to be stuck in purgatory until an indeterminable time in the future when this gentleman dies at which point presumable the legal restrictions will not apply? Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The page is under discretion of the MediaWiki Staff, only they can un-blank the page. I'll assume by then the restriction will be long gone; but if it really mattered, you can look at the history to check a previous version of the page. ExtremeRobot (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki is the software that Wikipedia uses. Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit behind this. I assume you mean Wikimedia? --70.123.99.128 (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, yes I meant the Wikimedia Foundation. --ExtremeRobot (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request to protection template

Hi. Please change the text {{Pp-office}} to {{pp-office|year=2011|month=10|day=14}}. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove __NOINDEX__

Hi. Please remove the __NOINDEX__ magic word from this article. It currently gives the very mistaken impression that this magic word has an effect on the article. It does not, I promise. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Verified as correct; so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)