205.209.84.229

Hello, I'm Banjohunter. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Banjohunter (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Jeffrey Dean Morgan edit: I had a reliable source but someone deleted it anyway because they didn't want it to be true. I couldn't reverse the edit so I had to go searching for all the info again. I'll try again, but people need to stop deleting factual information because they don't like what it says about the celebrities they like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.84.229 (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Once people reverse your edits, go to the Talk page connected to the page and start a conversation about the information you want to include. More experienced editors may point you to articles about Wikipedia policies about references and living persons. Wikipedians can usually come to a consensus about this kind of thing, and you can get some version of your information included. Banjohunter (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 10:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Davey, if you would tell me what my "disruptive edit" is, I might be able to stop. But since you made no effort to tell me WHICH edit you consider "disruptive" or WHY, there isn't much I can do. If you are referring to the JDM article: Another user disliked a source I used in an article, so I used a reputable newspaper and re-posted. Then they said that the newspaper still wasn't good enough because it was from the entertainment section and deleted it again. So I used 3 new sources - UPI, The Chicago Tribune, and Entertainment Weekly - all of which I have seen in accepted citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am not being "disruptive", and I don't appreciate you threatening me with being blocked for trying to find a source that user will accept (when really, they just don't like the fact, not the source). By the way, as I am not an idiot, blocking my IP address would keep me off of Wikipedia for about two minutes while I changed said IP address, so it's kind of a futile threat.

If I can comment here as one of the involved editors... I was not the first to revert you, that was User:Banjohunter. So in fact three different editors have had concerns about the contentious WP:BLP material that you have been adding. Your first two sources, a gossip site called "Celebitchy" of all things, and a gossip column in the Daily News, were completely unacceptable as sources as per WP:BLPSOURCES. That is why you have you been reverted - it is not that we "dislike" the sources, they are against Wikipedia policy. The two new sources you've added (the third one is a dead link) just repeat the allegation of a "source" speaking to US Weekly. It does not matter that you have "nowhere have I posted that JDM is the father of Sherrie Rose's child" it's still just gossip and rumour and not suitable for an encyclopedia. As Banjohunter said, "News about someone who says something about him is not an encyclopedic fact about him."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily News is a tabloid, that is a fact. In contrast with the New York Times, which is a broadsheet. The two have different editorial standards. The New York Times and other broadsheets do not have gossip columns. The Daily News, along with the New York Post and other tabloids, does have a gossip column. A I have explained several times, gossip columns are not acceptable sources according to Wikipedia policy. That is why I reverted you, and you have completely ignored this fact in all your correspondence with me. I will not be communicating with you again as it is obvious that you either do not understand Wikipedia's BLP policy, or do not care about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dean Morgan

While the New York Daily News does have reputable journalists working for it, its gossip column certainly falls under tabloid journalism and can never be used as a source for an article on a living person (see WP:BLPSOURCES). I advise you to familiarize yourself thoroughly with WP:BLP before making any further edits.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Barnardo's into Thomas John Barnardo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

---