User talk:69.133.83.124

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. 71.139.50.253 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: David Archuleta edit

Thanks for your message. I removed the vandalism message as I do think you made the edit in good faith WP:AGF. I reverted it on sight because adding that a living person is "gay" is often very typical vandal behaviour. Sorry.

Now, on to this issue... I do not think putting his sexual preferences is appropriate where you put it. I do not see "Sex Pref. - straight" (or Sex. Pref - Gay for that matter) in any another other idol's infobox. Also, why is this important? Is it a huge issue with this candidate? Finally, a statement of this sort, even if made in the article text, must be referenced with a solid, verifiable source. This is a living person and Wikipedia has very clear guidelines when writing biographies of living persons (see WP:BLP). κaτaʟavenoTC 01:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My response: 1 to Re: David Archuleta Edit 69.133.83.124 (talk) 04:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

In response to your comment on my talk page, and since you removed my former comment, here is my justification:

Under WP:3R I have the right to prevent you from re-adding your information which is only sourced by blogs; Unless the information is reliably sourced, then the comment used to personally attack the person's sexuality is impertinent and does not contribute to the article per se. Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages for more details. - Io Katai (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

69.133.83.124: When you are unblocked, please be sure to see my response to the comment you made at my talk page, although it is along the line of the other editors here. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack on David Archuleta's sexuality, it is merely an observation of many people which I thought was pertinent to share with people on his discussion page. Your citing of reliable information on your talk page of questionable information is not true. If it came from one website, I would agree with you that it was questionable however it didn't come from only one website. Each website provided as citation for information also list many other articles besides that of David's sexuality and both receive many vistors which in turn makes me believe what is stated is true. Why not leave it up to other users of Wiki in a debate on the discussion page in regards to relevance instead of leaving it to some Wiki-Addict reverting Hitler's. 69.133.83.124 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when do two wrongs make a right? Reliability isn't determined by how many blogs post a comment. Technically, any person(s) could set up two websites declaring someone like Celine Dion to be a man in disguise, but this doesn't make the information factual or accurate; the same goes for David Archuleta and his sexual orientation. For more details what does and doesn't constitute reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper), Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. - Io Katai (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Blogs .. are largely not acceptable."1. This states that they are "largely not acceptable", not "totally unacceptable." Both blogs give solid reason to believe David Archuleta is not straight. I think reversing the discussion on the talk page is very unprofessional and I will continue to post what existed before it was taken off. I think it should be left up the the Wikipedia community via pole as to what the users think and not up to some certain Wikipedia crossing guards. 69.133.83.124 (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Continue reading that section of policy. It says that "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." Notice the word never used when citing blogs about living persons. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archuleta

Blogs are not reliable sources. Claims such as the ones you are trying to make require iron-clad sources, in order to comply with our biographies on living people policy. Do not re-add the comments. Continuance to do so will result in a block. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My Response: 1 69.133.83.124 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politically Motivated Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For adding information that violates our BLP policy after multiple warnings. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

.

The above block was placed by Seresin unfairly and without cause. The user mentions that the information I provided on the David Archuleta talk page was sourced unreliably. I find it funny that the information came from two (2) different websites and I'm sure more websites list the same information.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, gossip blog or talk forum where unsupported and unreliable questions of someone's sexuality is encouraged. We present factual and accurate information - if something is wrong we correct it and if if becomes updated we amend it. If and when a reliable source discusses David being anything but straight then present it on the talk page and see if there is agreement to put it in the article. Until a reliable source reports on his sexuality we really can't touch it at all including talking abut how many fans think he may be gay. 71.139.0.116 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)