| Revision as of 06:18, 25 January 2008 editSteve Smith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,250 edits Because I don't want it included← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:40, 4 October 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Removed stale messages from inactive IP talkpage. (Task 13)Tags: AWB Replaced | ||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Blanked IP talk}} | |||
| ==]== | |||
| :Please stop your edits to ]. They are violations of ], and you may be blocked if you persist in making them. If you wish to discuss this, please take it up at ]. ] (]) 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| How is it a violation? The show is struggling. Do some research & you see/know that. ] (]) 04:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Negative material about living people must be backed by ]. That's a completely non-negotiable component of ]. Even if you sourced it, I would still say that including the word "struggling" would be a violation of ], but I confess that that (unlike the BLP bit) is a judgment call. | |||
| :Besides that, why do you also persist in removing the date from the citation needed tag with your edit? ] (]) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It isnt neg toward Bill. Its a fact about the show he is on. Did u check daytime tv reviews and rating reports? What is BLP ? ] (]) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :"BLP" is ] - Misplaced Pages's policy on the biography of living persons. And yes, it's a fact about the show (or, at least, I'll take your word that it's a fact), but there are hundreds of other facts about the show. By choosing to mention this one instead of the others in the Bill Rancic article, you're effectively inserting negative material in to his article (it would be like if I said that somebody was the CEO of a corporation that was hemorrhaging money - technically it's a comment about the corporation, but it would still need to be sourced per ]. | |||
| :So yeah: for that to be in there, it would have to be sourced somewhere. Even if it was sourced somewhere, I'd say that it's not necessary for inclusion in the Rancic article - put it in the article about the show instead - but not everyone might agree with me on that, and we could bring some other editors in to comment if you strongly felt that it should be included (I think the other editors would probably see it my way, but I can't be sure). But sourcing is an absolutely necessary prerequisite before we can even consider including it. ] (]) 06:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm about to undo your edit again. This means that we'll each have reverted three times over the last twenty-four hours, meaning that one more revert by either one of us will violate ], which is likely to get us blocked. If you really want to see that included, despite everything I've said, find a source for saying it's struggling, and then we can start getting some other editors involved. ] (]) 06:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Its a fact about the show he is on. Did u check daytime tv reviews and rating reports? U demand I give a source, y dont u ! Sheesh ! ] (]) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The reason I don't provide a source is because I don't want the material included. You're the one who wants it included, so it's incumbent on you to demonstrate that it's ]. ] (]) 06:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:40, 4 October 2022
Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.