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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A redlink editor is edit-warring to add uncited personal-life claims about a living person in clear violation of WP:BLP. I have asked this editor on his or her talk page to stop, with links to relevant policies, and to bring any issue to this talk page. That editor so far has continued to edit-war and has not engaged in discussion. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Suki is not a typical English name. If anyone knows how she got it, it might be worth noting. Bill ( talk) 00:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
In this edit Hullaballoo Wolfowitz excised material about Waterhouse's relationships, with the problematic edit summary, "spiteful rejection of established BLP consensus; Undid revision 871691030 by Geo Swan"
The most obvious problematic aspect of the edit summary is the characterization of my intent as a "spiteful rejection".
Slamming another contributor's motives is a serious lapse from our policies and conventions that tell us to show respect for other contributors, to try to be civil and collegial. The 1st time you excised this passage your edit summary was "wikipedia is still not a celebrity hookup history". I honestly thought your excision was poorly explained, so that is what I said when I reverted you.
The second problematic aspect? If the edit is based on an "established BLP consensus" then the appropriate thing for HW to do would be to link to the wikidocument, or discussion, where that consensus is expressed.
HW, no offense, but do you think you are someone to whom the rest of us should defer because you think you are an infallible genius? I've explained this to you before. While there are hierarchical organizations, where junior people are expected to keep their mouths shut, and defer to more senior people, as if they were infallible geniuses the wikipedia isn't one of them. The wikipedia can't afford to have anyone act like they were an infallible genius. The wikipedia really needs everyone to do their best to politely explain themselves.
I know I have suggested to you, before, that every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I've suggested to you already, that, even if you have been correct in every edit you have made, so far, it is still important for you to explain yourself, because, if you don't explain yourself, nothing prevents the people you disagree with from making the same mistake, over and over again.
It is also important for you to make a good faith effort to explain yourself, because you are not infallible. You offering your explanation, and then actually paying attention to your respondent's counter-arguments, is an opportunity for you to see if you might actually be acting on some misunderstandings of policy, yourself. Yes, I really really think you should start doing this. No, this is not an insult. We are all fallible. I know I am fallible, which is why I make an effort to really understand the points of those who disagree with me, even when they insult my motives, as you did here. I know I am fallible, and I make an effort to always own up and acknowledge when I have been wrong.
I know you use edit summaries that imply you think your edits are backed up by policy, where I believe you have exposed you are routinely making bad edits, based on a misunderstanding of policy. When asked to discuss these edits you are silent, as if you were infallible, and weren't obliged to explain yourself. For instance, in February 2017, you excised an image with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox". You used this questionable edit summary again, barely a week ago. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone... anyone... explain to me why Waterhouse is not allowed to have a reliably sourced personal life section about a significant, well-known, not âgossipâ 2 year relationship with Bradley Cooper yet his feautured article mentions their relationship with the same reliable source, no issue. How does it âviolateâ BLP for her yet not for him when they were in the relationship together? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC). Trillfendi ( talk) 00:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. That these relationships might be reported in the press does not automatically mean that Wikipedia must also include them, particularly when the majority of sources doing the reporting are tabloids. The fact that Other Stuff Exists, or that dating history is included in other articles, is in no way a justification for including the information here (in fact it should be removed from those other articles). Ca2james ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
a personal life section about a significant, well-knownrelationship. A separate section implies that it's important. but I don't think the significance has been shown. â Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Vdh m, why are you removing the fact that she is in a relationship to Robert Pattinson? It is cited in The Times and Vulture (a subsidiary of New York), both of which are considered reliable sources according to WP:RSPS. Â Bait30Â Â Talk 2 me pls? 21:08, 25 September 2020 (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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A redlink editor is edit-warring to add uncited personal-life claims about a living person in clear violation of WP:BLP. I have asked this editor on his or her talk page to stop, with links to relevant policies, and to bring any issue to this talk page. That editor so far has continued to edit-war and has not engaged in discussion. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Suki is not a typical English name. If anyone knows how she got it, it might be worth noting. Bill ( talk) 00:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
In this edit Hullaballoo Wolfowitz excised material about Waterhouse's relationships, with the problematic edit summary, "spiteful rejection of established BLP consensus; Undid revision 871691030 by Geo Swan"
The most obvious problematic aspect of the edit summary is the characterization of my intent as a "spiteful rejection".
Slamming another contributor's motives is a serious lapse from our policies and conventions that tell us to show respect for other contributors, to try to be civil and collegial. The 1st time you excised this passage your edit summary was "wikipedia is still not a celebrity hookup history". I honestly thought your excision was poorly explained, so that is what I said when I reverted you.
The second problematic aspect? If the edit is based on an "established BLP consensus" then the appropriate thing for HW to do would be to link to the wikidocument, or discussion, where that consensus is expressed.
HW, no offense, but do you think you are someone to whom the rest of us should defer because you think you are an infallible genius? I've explained this to you before. While there are hierarchical organizations, where junior people are expected to keep their mouths shut, and defer to more senior people, as if they were infallible geniuses the wikipedia isn't one of them. The wikipedia can't afford to have anyone act like they were an infallible genius. The wikipedia really needs everyone to do their best to politely explain themselves.
I know I have suggested to you, before, that every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I've suggested to you already, that, even if you have been correct in every edit you have made, so far, it is still important for you to explain yourself, because, if you don't explain yourself, nothing prevents the people you disagree with from making the same mistake, over and over again.
It is also important for you to make a good faith effort to explain yourself, because you are not infallible. You offering your explanation, and then actually paying attention to your respondent's counter-arguments, is an opportunity for you to see if you might actually be acting on some misunderstandings of policy, yourself. Yes, I really really think you should start doing this. No, this is not an insult. We are all fallible. I know I am fallible, which is why I make an effort to really understand the points of those who disagree with me, even when they insult my motives, as you did here. I know I am fallible, and I make an effort to always own up and acknowledge when I have been wrong.
I know you use edit summaries that imply you think your edits are backed up by policy, where I believe you have exposed you are routinely making bad edits, based on a misunderstanding of policy. When asked to discuss these edits you are silent, as if you were infallible, and weren't obliged to explain yourself. For instance, in February 2017, you excised an image with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox". You used this questionable edit summary again, barely a week ago. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Someone... anyone... explain to me why Waterhouse is not allowed to have a reliably sourced personal life section about a significant, well-known, not âgossipâ 2 year relationship with Bradley Cooper yet his feautured article mentions their relationship with the same reliable source, no issue. How does it âviolateâ BLP for her yet not for him when they were in the relationship together? RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC). Trillfendi ( talk) 00:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. That these relationships might be reported in the press does not automatically mean that Wikipedia must also include them, particularly when the majority of sources doing the reporting are tabloids. The fact that Other Stuff Exists, or that dating history is included in other articles, is in no way a justification for including the information here (in fact it should be removed from those other articles). Ca2james ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
a personal life section about a significant, well-knownrelationship. A separate section implies that it's important. but I don't think the significance has been shown. â Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 04:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Vdh m, why are you removing the fact that she is in a relationship to Robert Pattinson? It is cited in The Times and Vulture (a subsidiary of New York), both of which are considered reliable sources according to WP:RSPS. Â Bait30Â Â Talk 2 me pls? 21:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)