User talk:Burntsierra754

December 2012

Hello, I'm Little green rosetta. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Mark Rathbun, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rathbun

Please don't add that information back to this article again without using a reliable source. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have added back one piece of information with a reliable source. Thanks.Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mark Rathbun with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS for more information. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If blogs are considered unreliable sources on Wikipedia, why is Mark Rathbun's blog listed as a website (www.markrathbun.wordpress.com)? Is there a bias here?Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His website is listed as an external reference. It is not used to make any statements likely to be challegned. There are other problems with blogs, but generally you can use a blog written by a biography subject if they are used for basic information that is unlikely to be challeged. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The village voice blog is used as a reference in the "Tom Cruise confessional files" section. Shall we remove this section then? I was citing the same blog in order to validate the edit that indicates Mark Rathbun is unemployed. If the Village Voice is acceptable as a reference in this section, it should be accepted in the bio box as well. Or we just remove every piece of information that is sourced from this blog.Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how is this vandalism when it complies with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_succeeding#Timeliness_and_readability? It is the truth that Rathbun is currently unemployed.Burntsierra754 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this issue over at the article's talk page. I made a copy of our converstaion there and responded. Click this link [1] little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN discussion - M Rathbun

Hi there is a discussion regarding your desired addition to this BLP at the noticeboard - [2] please make your case within wikipedia policy for your desired addition there - or on the article talkpage, but please stop revert warring it into the article - personally, I would say - unemployed is not an occupation and as such unless the subject is reliably citably and notably actively seeking and desirous of employment then your addition to the infobox of such a label is undue - Youreallycan 20:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]