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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yeah this reads like he wrote it himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoacer Rex ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Several times over the past several months, users have added reliable sources regarding the major drama between him and comedian Nick Mullen.
Even when there is an attempt to present both sides of the issue in an objective manner, it seems a few dedicated accounts keep reverting the changes.
Can we please have a rational discussion surrounding this? It's inappropriate to allow an individual to edit their own page, or to continue to allow vandalism by their fans. There should be a Wikipedia investigation. Rsjintel ( talk) 23:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Description given for why additions were revoked are confusing, the quotes and actions directly come from Jake’s account and several sources on the page are similar in the type of source. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.WP:BLPGOSSIP also covers some of why this isn't fit for including. Just a note, I've requested additional input at WP:BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.WP:PUBLICFIGURE
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.WP:AVOIDVICTIM
Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.. And on top of that there's the general guidance of WP:BLP
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.and
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
I have made recent edits as an insider in the left wing Brooklyn comedy scene however user Cyberwolf has reverted the edits, claiming advertising but other edits were not given explanation FeralFlores ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
There is an epidemic of other users that keep reverting information on this page without explicit direction or explanation of why. They claim some items are vandalism, or advertisements and yet they have no clear rationale. Several sections allowed to stay up on page are equally cited by twitter or podcast and yet new citations from both are considered not reliable. Unreasonable users and right wing toxicity FeralFlores2 ( talk) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yeah this reads like he wrote it himself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odoacer Rex ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Several times over the past several months, users have added reliable sources regarding the major drama between him and comedian Nick Mullen.
Even when there is an attempt to present both sides of the issue in an objective manner, it seems a few dedicated accounts keep reverting the changes.
Can we please have a rational discussion surrounding this? It's inappropriate to allow an individual to edit their own page, or to continue to allow vandalism by their fans. There should be a Wikipedia investigation. Rsjintel ( talk) 23:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Description given for why additions were revoked are confusing, the quotes and actions directly come from Jake’s account and several sources on the page are similar in the type of source. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 20:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.WP:BLPGOSSIP also covers some of why this isn't fit for including. Just a note, I've requested additional input at WP:BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.WP:PUBLICFIGURE
If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.WP:AVOIDVICTIM
Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.. And on top of that there's the general guidance of WP:BLP
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.and
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
I have made recent edits as an insider in the left wing Brooklyn comedy scene however user Cyberwolf has reverted the edits, claiming advertising but other edits were not given explanation FeralFlores ( talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
There is an epidemic of other users that keep reverting information on this page without explicit direction or explanation of why. They claim some items are vandalism, or advertisements and yet they have no clear rationale. Several sections allowed to stay up on page are equally cited by twitter or podcast and yet new citations from both are considered not reliable. Unreasonable users and right wing toxicity FeralFlores2 ( talk) 14:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)