From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Are you a troll? If so please get a life and leave now. If you are just confused, I was joining in the topic of discussion people are accusing her of being a lesbian, just because she may or may not have kissed a girl. It is an insult when people do not understand lesbianism or bisexualism and throw around accusations. So you are either a troll or got me confused with somebody else. Do not come to my talk page and accuse me of things goodbye.--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Lindsay Lohan. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why did you come to my page to threatened to block me for doing something I did not do? Who are you?--Sugarcubez (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that you inserted poorly cited controversial information into the Lindsay Lohan talk page which clearly violates WP:BLP per your edit here[1]. It was removed by Ward3001, you were warned, then you reinserted it. That's when I removed it again and warned again. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- What?! No! If you read what I said above to the other person above, I just was joining on the discussion. It was a talk page, we discuss things we do not cite them, and most talk pages are controversial, so there is no logic in your statement, and that does not clearly violate WP:BLP. Removing what someone wrote on a talk page if it was not vandalism that itself is vandalism which Ward3001 did. So again and I am confused, or talk pages changed to not being able to talk about how to improve the article or to clarify things? Because that is all I did. Please explain to me what apparently I did wrong.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong. Yes, we discuss controversial information on talk pages. We do not insert unsourced, potentially libelous information. Otherwise anyone could write anything about anyone. As you have been asked to do previously, read WP:BLP. That policy applies "to any Wikipedia page". Ward3001 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's correct - BLP pertains to all wikipedia pages including talk pages as a measure of legal protection for Wikipedia. Discussion of potentially libelous information is not permitted unless well sourced. BLP states, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I do not understand how you are suppose to cite things on a TALK page, the whole point is discussion and opinions of changes that should be made, and what did I say that was controversial!? I thought when someone removes things from a talk page that are not vandalism it itself is considered vandalism that is what I thought Ward was doing so of course I undid the apparent vandalism. What libelous information did I interest? You all are beating around the bush about it and not telling me. I would really like to know.--Sugarcubez (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me?! Read your edit. Innuendo about "porn star" and unsourced information about sexuality. That is potentially libelous unless you can back it up with solid sources. If you don't believe that, then how about we take out a full page newspaper ad in your hometown with all kinds of unfounded innuendo about you and your behavior? And one more time: Have you actually read WP:BLP in its entirety? If you have read it, please state that you have so that I can figure out if the problem is that you haven't read the policy or can't understand it? Ward3001 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Imani Coppola
I undid this edit to the Imani Coppola article. You said in your edit summary: (Little Jackie's Myspace site) does not say anything about Steve Greenberg or about an album in June, 2008.). The citation I put was for the album being issued in June of 2008 and her project partner being Adam Pallin, as well her being on the label with S-Curve Records. Which is clearly stated on Little Jackie's Myspace site. As for Steve Greenberg, he has an article here on Wikiepdia explaining his ownership of S Curve, that is why it was wikified (internally linked).--Sugarcubez (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- You reverted my edits to the Imani Coppola article where I stated that the June 2008 release date for her new album was an uncited reference and you left me a message. Now I see that upon further refelction you have looked it up yourself and that you now agree with me that the June 2008 release date was not cited and in fact is incorrect. (The release date is July 8, 2008.) Glad to see you have made the correction. That's what happens when you look up an uncited reference. You find out what the real facts are.
- Best Regards,
- Reservoirhill (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that is why I cited it! Peace.--Sugarcubez (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
