Wikipedia

Talk:AVN Award for Best New Starlet/Archive 1

< Talk:AVN Award for Best New Starlet
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1

BLP and sources

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

Our WP:BLP policy on living people demands that we remove the names of living ppl from articles when they have not been reliably sourced and I am ensuringn this article becomes more BLP compliant♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • As per previous discussion here, your recent removal of Wiki-linked names to other articles (where there are very likely sources for this article here) here are out of line. I have reverted one of your careless edits that messed up the formatting of the end of the article, including the references section that you claim to care about. Please revert the rest your changes. Guy1890 (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
What defending BLP out of line while resotoring BLP non compliant material isnt? which policy are you basing yourself on? Working tag team is not a way of getting round BLP, the only way is with reliable sources. If you dont like this, change the policy, whether we add BLP non compliant material is not up for debate and is not subjecty to 3RR whereas adding BLP violating material is subject to 3rr. Where in our policies does it say when sources are likely available we do not need to provide them? Nowhere. And I wioiuld remiond you that BLP trumps formatting so if there are formatting issues BLP NEVER needs to be broken to fix them. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Citing "BLP" is not a shield for bad faith actions "Squeak", and your actions have already been highlighted & reverted in another article as being not in compliance with standing Wikipedia policy. Please stop this obviously "pointy" behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop making excuses for your BLP violations, please. I have challeneged material about living people and this can only now be inserted with a reliable source as our BLP policy clearly states. BLP trumps disruption though I have to say you are the one adding challeneged BLP material so you not I are the one being disruptive here, enfordcing BLP policy isnt disruptive jsut cos you dont like it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I will add that claiming that I am acting in a bad faith way by trying to ensure our porn articles are BLP compliant shows a poor understanding of what good and bad faith mean. You are well advised to withdraw that comment or it may come to haunt you but just to say I am only interested in improving our coverage of porn by making all the articxles BLP compliant, if you dont want to help please do not hinder♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I haven't made any "BLP violations", period. You have "challeneged material" because you refuse to simply go to the Wiki-linked articles to find the very citations that you claim to value so much. Guy1890 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
You have done so today here. Your claim about what I should do before challneging material is not coverede by policy and holds no weight as an arguemnt, such an arguemnt would entirely undo the foundations of BLP. And please go ahead and change the policy to ensure I cannot do what I did today but until then the material I removed is challenged and needs to be deem3ed as such if you are to fulfill policy in your edits♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
What I did in that edit is exactly what I stated that I did in my edit summary: "undid wholesale removal of content where sources are obviously available; Contesting bad faith PROD." Again, you are not challenging this material in good faith, since one can obviously go to the Wiki-linked articles to see that the "material" (simply the names of adult industry performers) are not contentious or controversial at all under Wikipedia's BLP policy. Guy1890 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Guy, sources being "obviously" available is NOT the back up card for justifying BLP violations and so your argument holds no water. On the other hand if sources are available please add them so our readers dont have to search them out themselves. It might be more tedious than talk page drama but ity is also more productivve and is the ONLY way we can resolve this issue. WE both want all these people included so lets ghet on with the job of including them in a BLP compliant way♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
And of course you are totally free to change the policy so that it does not apply when sources are obviously available, then when you have done that you will be able to claim that this edit does not break our BLP policy♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

"WE both want all these people included" Again, if that were true, then you would have tried to add even one citation to this article that you have been simply trying to blank today. Guy1890 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Eh... Guy let Squeak be as lazy and discourteous of an Editor as he wants. The way I see it, he's handing us a "fix the major porn articles to do list" on a silver platter. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   00:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod, you need to only add material you have sourced not add some material you have sourced and others you havent. Wikipedia does not need unsourced amterial about living people that has been challenged by another editor to be restored without sources. That is how it works♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Guy1890, I dont need to make edits you would like me to just to show my good faith♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And I put a template up to alert YOU and others that I'm in the process of doing just that, but then you go and make a tendentious (and fairly weaselly) edit like this with a nearly unintelligible edit summary. This just ain't gonna Squeakapedia today ol' buddy... But ANI will probably be a better place to have this conversation once I finish with these edits and cleanup. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   00:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod, those templates are not meant to be used to avpoid BLP. You simply must not restore challenged material about living people, even for one minute. You can of course use the template and the previous version of the article to work at adding the refs. Because wikipedia stores past versions there is never a need to add these peopel unsourced tyo the current version, just work with the past version and when you have added a ref then you can save the edit witht he living person named. This is how I work, and it is how we all need to work to ensure we are BLP compliant 100% of the time. Anything less is unacceptable given there are no technical issues which justify restoring unsourced BLP names♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Squeak, squeak, squeak my friend... You have no defense for your edits or actions, not even BLP. The information is not only in the articles for the individuals, but you actively and conscientiously choose to ignore it. None of what you are tendentiously removing is contested or even controversial. And your claim about material not being challenged "even for one minute" is just more evidence of your intention to be difficult. Your actions are now counter productive to a community effort since you refuse to allow others to work to improve the site without adhering to your personal definition of policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   01:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, if there is not an explicit ref a lack of BLP compliancy is all the justification I need for removing unsourced claims about living people. These people are controversial if I challenge the material, a nd the fact that they work in the porn industry is also a factor that tends towards controversy as many living people who are not porn actors would not be happy to be labelled as such, we all know this and it is one reason why porn actors get paid so well. But it is contriversial because it is challenged primarily so even claiming the porn industry is not controversial is not a relevant argument, I am an editor and I have challenged the material. You cannot claim I am actively ignoring references from the individual articles because those references or others are required in the list articles themselves. There is no BLP exemption for material refd in one article meaning it does not need to be refd in another article. If you dont like this go and change the LP policy but until then the policy must be enforced as it is currently written and not as you would like to see it written. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
"These people are controversial if I challenge the material" - I'm sorry Squeak, but you're just not that important. Something controversial in nature is defined by the sources, not our personal opinion. You know that... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk)   01:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, these edits are controversial if ANY editor challenges them, not just me. We are ALL that important that we are empowered to remove what we suspect are BLP violations. It happens that I am the one challenging them, you obviously have the same rights as does Guy and any other editor, even an anon ip. And the whole point is we dont have any sources, that is why the inclusion of these living people has been challenged. The simple solution is to restore them all with reliable sources, that way the porn coverage is improved and we would have BLP compliancy in these lists, and it is this real achievement that drives me on. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AVN Award for Best New Starlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on AVN Award for Best New Starlet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AVN_Award_for_Best_New_Starlet/Archive_1&oldid=1031244913"