Talk:Frangela

RfC: Frangela question

I asked a question about the relationship between the two women in the comedy duo Frangela on the article talk page with the hope that someone who knew more about them could answer it for me because I have been unable to find the answer myself. Specifically, I asked if someone knew if they were lesbian lovers or not. User:Frazzle deleted my question. I asked why on this editor's talk page and they accused me of vandalism. I tried to explain and justify asking this question on Frazzle's talk page but they just replied with insults. I then asked for a third opinion on this dispute and User:Doc Tropics responded and said it was a legitimate question. Despite this, Frazzle has again deleted my question from the talk page. Because of this, I am requesting comments on this dispute from other editors. Please chime in with your opinion on this dispute. Thank you for your time.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of this page, someone already answered the question. I don't think anything is going to be achieved by carrying this on, apart from you and frazzle getting further annoyed. In other words drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Quantpole (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of layers to this one. First, article talk pages are for improving articles so if your question looks like a fan question or doesn't seem to be related to article content, it may be removed. However, asking a question is not "vandalism" by any stretch of the word. Second, once the question was reasonably answered there was no reason to remove the material a second time; discussion of sexual identity or preference is not automatically a BLP violation. If the question had been phrased in a negative or judgmental manner, perhaps the BLP removal would apply but that was not the case here. But finally since your question was already answered and article RfCs aren't really meant for user conduct, perhaps the best idea would have been to hash this out with Frazzle or just let it go. Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Schnurrbart question

Does anyone know if its true that Schnurrbart has been seen stealing money from the local poor box?

You see how it works, Schnurrbart? Making an unsubstantiated item look legit in the form of an "innocent question" is clearly vandalism. I and others have been fighting anonymous posters on Marcy Kaptur for months along just these very lines. At least the anonymous posters have the decency to not whine about it when their clear vandalism is removed. Grow up, bub. Find something, anything, to substantiate your "question" and you'll be fine. Frazzle (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Marcy Kaptur situation but I assure you I was not trying to vandalize this article. My question was legitimate as User:Doc Tropics noted, if rather bluntly stated. In retrospect, I should have stated it less bluntly but I do not see anything wrong with the question itself. You should have left a message on my talk page if you thought I was doing something wrong instead of jumping to conclusions. Insulting me is also not the right thing to do. If you want me to rephrase the question I can but you are wrong when you claim this was "clearly vandalism" so I will not let you browbeat me into silence.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me, Frazzle, that you were not equating "having a romantic as well as artistic relationship with one's comedy partner" with "stealing from the poor box"? A question about whether performers are partners in life as well as work isn't "vandalism"--it may be off-topic, certainly, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the question. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am equating asking a blind question, without reasonable attribution with vandalism. Which it is. Our buddy Schnurrbart tries to be clever in phrasing it as a simple innocent question in the talk page, but it amounts to the same thing. Those of us who have been around long enough to remember the Joseph Farah incident know this too well. Your high horse just went the other direction, Empress.

Quoting this particular wikipedia page [[1]] on talk page guidelines:

"The policies that apply to articles apply also (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source."

It's clear that Schnurrbart's alledged contribution falls well within that guideline as unsourced and therefore will be removed in 2 days time, giving plenty of time to read this message. Frazzle (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You are really stretching the limits by calling the question an "allegation" and certainly way out on a limb to call this "vandalism" - the question is neither. You may wish to re-read policy like WP:VAND to get a better idea what is actually vandalism. As far as this being a BLP issue, please read the passage you cited, you might want to pay special attention to the phrase "There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation". This was a gross over-reaction on your part. Shell ^babelfish 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)