User talk:71.158.149.97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has strict rules about unsourced speculation. Please review WP:V. If your information can meet the minimum standards, including the use of reliable sources, then you shouldn't have a problem. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 05:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Please don't presume to warn me. I'm an administrator. Those are not valid references. I don't expect to see them added back again. Having seen your edit to Rick Berman, I'm tempted to just outright block you, but I'll give you a chance. Thanks for your co-operation. Morwen - Talk 00:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't presume to remove cited content without appropriate negotiation, research, and user talk discussion. I don't care whether you're an administrator. You may not violate Wiki guidelines. Whether or not something is a 'valid' reference is not for you personally to decide. TV.com and AmIAnnoying.com are perfectly valid third party references and are used as referecnes throughout Wikipedia for other articles. As for my edit to Rick Berman, it was not done as vandalism and comes from valid firsthand knowledge. If it's inapprorpiate for Wiki, though, so be it. It is not a blockable offense. Removing cited information, however, just because you really really don't want the public to know about it, IS a blockable offense and may cause you to lose administrator privileges. Thanks for your co-operation. 71.158.149.97 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Complaining about me for deleting libel and unsourced gossip (other random internet sites which have no reliability at all ARE NOT VALID SOURCES, and "first hand knowledge" is SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED), is not likely to get a result other than possibly you being banned further. Please go ahead if you want to. However, I do not have to negotiate with you about such basic matters as our verifiability policy. I will happily explain them to you, if you see fit. Morwen - Talk 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Lemme get this straight: Whom a celebrity is dating is 'unsourced gossip'? Jeez. I think that would mean virtually every celebrity entry on Wikipedia would have to be changed. Newsflash, hunnybunny- Celebrity dating is pretty much a public record thing, kay? Everybody knows about it. That's why it's all over the internet. Calling it 'unsourced gossip' proves the entire point on that entry- that fangirls are deliberatly erasing details of the actress' personal life in order to conceal the fact that she (gasp!) actually dates men! Nowhere else on Wikipedia is that type of censorship allowed; I suspect if you were not a fangirl of this particular celebrity you would not be actively trying to conceal this info from other Wiki readers. The sad thing is that you are depriving Wiki readers of a full and accurate article. Shame on you. Frankly, I could care less at this point. I joined Wiki about a month ago and have tried very hard to repair inaccuracies and bias within articles; some of that means including (horror!) unflattering or personal information about the subject. Such material is not off-limits for Wikipedia. I noticed this article has been the subject of a long-term edit war and I think it is particularly amusing; about two minutes of research into the article's subject (who, BTW, I knew nothing about before this) will reveal that the 'offending' paragraph is indeed accurate and that there is an ongoing effort throughout the 'net to censor and deny information about this particular celebrity in an attempt to maintain a manufactured image. So I reverted your edit, which I considered (and still consider) to be malicious vandalism. For me to be banned because of it is outrageous; I suspect your fellow admins will agree. Enough with you. I have bigger fish to fry.71.158.149.97 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, hunnybunny, but as an another administrator, I will agree with Morwen, that you must provide verifiable sources. Internet blogs and gossips sites are not verifiable sources, and will not be accepted. Try again. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So Wikipedia admins consider TV.com (owned by CNET; all info rigorously screened and validated by admins) and AmIAnnoying.com (one of the largest and most popular sites on the web; often cited in Daily Variety) to be 'blogs' and 'gossip sites'? Are you kidding? Since when did this happen?71.158.149.97 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
From the very beginning, since there is no information as to who the people posting this supposed information is. Who is the JulieC who posted the information you are trying to use as verification from tv.com? How do you know she isn't just making it up? amyannoying is nothing but a forum, not a news site. Have you read WP:V? User:Zoe|(talk) 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor even posted PHOTOGRAPHS - yes, photographs - of the article's subject with her boyfriend. The photograph was pulled by fangirls because it 'was unsourced.' Ironically, the other photo on the subject's article was also unsourced, but the fangirls didn't pull that one. Come on. Admit it. These are just fans who don't want people to know she isn't gay in real life.71.158.149.97 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about photos that were here on Wikipedia? If they weren't sourced, they were copyright violations and had to be removed by law. Give us verifiable information and non-copyrighted images, and they can stay. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on. You're ignoring my point - which is that information is being selectively edited out to suit certain fans' wishes. Other info/picture that are equally unsourced are allowed to remain. That's ridiculous and you know it. See WP:BIAS since you can't seem to grasp this concept.71.158.149.97 22:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
you are ignoring me. I don't care if this is submitted on high by God himself, if it isn't sourced and is a potential copyright violation, it may not stay here. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The only images still in the Amber Benson article are a book cover and a publicity photo, which are there under the fair use doctrine. The other images that you and others keep putting on there do not meet that criterion. You can always discuss this on the article's Talk page. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
EXACTLY my point, my friend! Unsourced images should be removed, not selectively removed. These fangirls were only removing the unsourced images which depicted Benson with a boyfriend, and instead posting equally unsourced images of her alone. I removed the other unsourced imagery, thank you very much!71.158.149.97 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Restore the unsourced image again and you will be blocked for willfully violating copyright. You can link to it without inserting it into the page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Erase data again and you will be blocked for willfully interfering with an ongoing mediation. Cheeseypooofs 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Everyone please calm down and remain civil. Let's try to talk through the issues at the mediation page. BrownHornet21 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One warning. Any more personal attacks, on my Talk page or anywhere else, will result in your being blocked from editing. Learn how to participate constructively, or don't participate at all. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! 71.158.149.97 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your remarks on Morwen's RFC

I.e this edit: If I were to guess, you probably came back as blocked because an editor with a registered username was blocked while editing from your IP address. As you can see from the logs posted in the RFC, though, your IP was never specifically blocked. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My IP is currently blocked. Zoe erased remarks from her talk page (a violation of Wiki policy). I called her on it and she blocked this IP. 71.158.149.97 02:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your IP is currently blocked becuase you were engaging in personal attacks, which is no more than you deserve for doing so. This has nothing to do with the matter we were discussing. Cool down, and come back when you're capable of acting like a reasonable person. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)