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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay. The birth date is in the article, but not in the infobox. In order to keep it consistent I added it to the infobox, but it got removed. So, what is the stance here? Why is it acceptable to be in the article but not the infobox? Stereodice ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously the personal life section contained mention of the "Wendigo", a sandwich the subject is credited with inventing. The citation for this was the subject's own blog, and the mention was understandably removed, although the edit removing it was tagged with the explanation of "removed nonsense" despite the content having been in the article for an extended period of time and being written in a neutral manner.
Since then a 3rd party (radio station) did a show on the sandwich, providing an outside source on the subject. Since a suitable citation now exited, the information was added back. It was removed again as "trivia".
Wikipedia's own trivia guidelines [1] state that "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. Nevertheless, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found."
In the time the information was removed from the Wikipedia article, at least one person questioned Chuck Wendig about it being removed on Twitter [2], indicating the information is of some importance to readers. Wikipedia's trivia guidelines suggest integrating trivia into existing sections, such as the personal life section, which is what was done in this case.
I believe the information is within Wikipeida's guidelines and should be left in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.238.101 ( talk) 01:27, June 16, 2018
References
@ 2601:2c6:5000:7f4:3457:7f4f:dd89:627: I'm being much, much too kind here opening up a talk page section after you've made six reversions, were issued four warnings, and received one very thorough explanation of the issues with the edit on your talk, but this is strictly in the interest of formal process. You cannot keep reverting other editors and re-adding this section. As explained, Reddit is not a reliable source ( WP:RS), the email image source is the Reddit post, the email is unverified, the claim itself is otherwise unsubstantiated, the claim is not proven notable enough to have grounds for inclusion, and the content is inflammatory. On top of that, you've been asked to open up a discussion on the talk page yet, despite proof that you read edit summaries, you performed two more reversions. Any further reversions will result in my filing a report at WP:3RR/N, that is if some other editor justifiably decides not to wait until you perform your seventh reversion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
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 sourced must 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 rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay. The birth date is in the article, but not in the infobox. In order to keep it consistent I added it to the infobox, but it got removed. So, what is the stance here? Why is it acceptable to be in the article but not the infobox? Stereodice ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Previously the personal life section contained mention of the "Wendigo", a sandwich the subject is credited with inventing. The citation for this was the subject's own blog, and the mention was understandably removed, although the edit removing it was tagged with the explanation of "removed nonsense" despite the content having been in the article for an extended period of time and being written in a neutral manner.
Since then a 3rd party (radio station) did a show on the sandwich, providing an outside source on the subject. Since a suitable citation now exited, the information was added back. It was removed again as "trivia".
Wikipedia's own trivia guidelines [1] state that "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers. Nevertheless, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, and refer the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found."
In the time the information was removed from the Wikipedia article, at least one person questioned Chuck Wendig about it being removed on Twitter [2], indicating the information is of some importance to readers. Wikipedia's trivia guidelines suggest integrating trivia into existing sections, such as the personal life section, which is what was done in this case.
I believe the information is within Wikipeida's guidelines and should be left in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.238.101 ( talk) 01:27, June 16, 2018
References
@ 2601:2c6:5000:7f4:3457:7f4f:dd89:627: I'm being much, much too kind here opening up a talk page section after you've made six reversions, were issued four warnings, and received one very thorough explanation of the issues with the edit on your talk, but this is strictly in the interest of formal process. You cannot keep reverting other editors and re-adding this section. As explained, Reddit is not a reliable source ( WP:RS), the email image source is the Reddit post, the email is unverified, the claim itself is otherwise unsubstantiated, the claim is not proven notable enough to have grounds for inclusion, and the content is inflammatory. On top of that, you've been asked to open up a discussion on the talk page yet, despite proof that you read edit summaries, you performed two more reversions. Any further reversions will result in my filing a report at WP:3RR/N, that is if some other editor justifiably decides not to wait until you perform your seventh reversion. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 00:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)