Talk:Erin Sanders

External Links

I deleted two of the external links today and the explanation for the deletion is below:

• Fan club -- Wikipedia external links guidelines say that "a site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." And, links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET should be avoided. This is a link for a fan club. Plus, the main point of the external link is to provide more information than could be updated here, what more information could a fan club provide?

• The Amy & Erin Show - U Can't Touch This, mc hammer -- This is a link to a particular video that is meant to provide humor. There is no clear indication that this is an "official" You Tube page for Erin Sanders which could constitute a copyright issue. Secondly, how does this provide any more information on the topic of the article? The argument could be made that because she is in then it should be added...this is a false argument due to the fact that, say someone put one of Robin Williams movies on You Tube; besides being a HUGE copyright violation it would provide no bearing on te topic and just lead to a rush of You Tube internal links being added to all actors (and actresses) with everything on You Tube or other video sites.

If you think this is a mistake and it should be added, then please discuss it on the forum...Wikipedia is nothing if not by consensus. Thanks! Josborne2382 05:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• One more thing, I noticed that the You Tube Video is mentioned in the article so I could see why it would be linked on the article. However, I'm not so sure that statement is encylopaedic and I'm not sure it should be in the article. Plus, if the article were to link to a You Tube video, it needs to be to the original poster and the link didn't seem to be from the original poster. Thanks again! Josborne2382 06:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
• Whether or not there should be a link to the video I don't know, but there should be a link to the user page because it's her official youtube account. There are links to it from her official site. Ospinad 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's what I was saying, that the link to her You Tube should be to a "main page." Thanks! Josborne2382 15:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Erinsanders&loganhenderson.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Erinsanders&loganhenderson.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing unsourced materials

As part of one of my disruptive (?) edits, I tried to remove this content. It has been unsourced for 3 years and I couldn't find any sources remotely sourcing this.

Shortly thereafter, Scott Fellows, the creator of the Nickelodeon series Big Time Rush approached Sanders for the role of Camille; he was a longtime fan of hers and wrote the role with her in mind.

I suggest changing the sentence like this:

Shortly thereafter, she played Camille Roberts on the Nickelodeon series Big Time Rush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSmit (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@TimSmit: There is no need for a formal WP:RfC about this – please remove that – a simple discussion will solve this:

1. I have no objection to removing the unsourced material, as per WP:BURDEN.
2. The YAA source is acceptable, but is really not the best kind of source for the Big Time Rush role. It would be better if another secondary source can be found in addition to this one.

But this really does not need an RfC – that is way too WP:BURO for a relatively small issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Sorry for the delay in responding, I wanted to take a short break before sharing my concerns. Since I am new, I asked another user (unrelated to me) to review my edits. I am quoting his analysis here:

"I don't see any problem here or here, since you added tweets with proper citation templates which they themselves did here and restored your edits here and here. The only reason this user seem to be reverting your edits is because of WP:CITEVAR. They think that |author= should not be changed to |last= and |first=, which seems like a non-issue to me since 'author' is at best used when citing books and journals, while the first-last name combo is used in most situation especially news and other things. Even then if you use this tool, it uses the 'first-last name' by default. Check for example Ed Stelmach FA article I chose randomly. It uses first-last combo as you can see. As for the date formats here. I don't know what kind of commonality they are following since the ref dates are not all of same format. I believe the warning they issued you is uncalled for, 'bullying' and displays some sort of WP:OWN behavior. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)"

While it's true that I am relatively new here and not fully familiar with every policy, I don't think that I deserve to be bullied via wholesale reversion of my edits. According to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:

• It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit.
• Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.
• Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson.

After your first reversion, I thought that you were just trying to be helpful, which I appreciate, so I tried to make an even higher-quality edit without changing any authors to the "last/first" format, since you objected to that. However, your second reversion seems completely inappropriate, and the reason you provided seems to be a poor excuse, especially considering that you implemented the same changes later, on your own. Lastly, I am offended that you chose to act like an administrator by adding a warning to my talk page accusing me of being a "disruptive editor".

In conclusion, I feel that your edits were more disruptive than mine. I thought that RFC was a way to get opinions from uninvolved editors, but I am also willing to try to work this out between us. TimSmit (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You can believe what you like, but by repeating the very thing I reverted you for the first time, and I specifically cited WP:CITEVAR so you knew what the reversion was for, and where you were previously reverted for doing the exact same thing at Jodelle Ferland – so it's not like you didn't know the edit was problematic – and not asking about it before repeating is textbook WP:DE. I'm the one following guidelines on this, and you were the one ignoring it – the other editor's opinion on this is irrelevant here: WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR are the controlling guidance – if you don't like an article's ref style, it's incumbent upon you to open a discussion on it. And there is nothing wrong with reverting a problematic edit, and then "restoring" the correct parts, which is exactly what I did. Beyond that, I've already said your other two portions of the edit can be restored, though I still think we need a better source than the YAA for Big Time Rush and it would be useful to find a second source for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Please take a closer look at my most recent edit. Could you please identify the exact section(s) of text that you believe violates WP:CITESTYLE or WP:CITEVAR? Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This article's established ref author style was author, not first/last – that was the problem. My edit summary was very clear: Stop converting ref author, etc. style on the basis of personal preference. It's right there. (And this came after my recent reversion of you at Jodelle Ferland which also said Don't change established ref author style on the basis of WP:CITEVAR. so, again – it's clear what was being referred to.) And if you weren't sure, you should have asked me, either here or on my Talk page, what the problem was, before trying to "restore" your changes. The problem wasn't the use of {{cite tweet}} (which I approve of) – it was ignoring the warning not to change ref author style with the additions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

If this was truly your only objection to my edit, you could have easily combined the first and last names into a single author field. Instead, your reversion reinstated an unsourced statement that remains on the page even now, in clear violation of WP:BLP. Combined with the messages you posted on my talk page, your behavior seems unreasonable and constitutes "bullying" tactics that violate WP:OWN. User:jmcgnh and User:Fylindfotberserk have already expressed that at least my most recent edit was perfectly acceptable. If you disagree, I suggest that we defer to third opinions from uninvolved editors, which we can certainly request more of. TimSmit (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That's actually not what jmcgnh said on your Talk page. Bottom line, you need to drop this – if you are looking for an apology, you are not going to get one. If you are looking for an explanation, I have already given it you. In the future, you should contact editors you have questions for, rather than running to noticeboards first. If you continually look for slights and injustices that you perceive from other editors, you will not last long on this project. Editing here requires a think skin and the ability to ask questions when you don't understand something – if you are looking for continual pats on the back, you're going to come away disappointed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You are just proving my point. So far, 2 of 2 editors could not identify any issues with my edit. To me, it seems unlikely that other established editors would approve of your actions, hence you are pressuring me to drop the issue. If you believe that you are interpreting consensus and policy correctly, why would you be opposed to having other users provide a third opinion? TimSmit (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Because the issues are already resolved. The bulk of your edit was restored (with the correct formatting). There is actually nothing to talk about – nothing for a "third opinion" on. At this point, you seem to be fishing for a "TimSmit was right!" That's not what this is about – this is about improving the article. That's largely been done with the discussion here, and the previous edits, except for the question of adding the YAA ref, or finding a second one. Everything else is now done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References