User talk:Goblintear

May 2022

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Make America Great Again, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your edit on the Dec 15 2022 Twitter bans page

Hi, On https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1128042133?diffmode=source, you've reverted the name applied to the event ("Thursday Night Massacre") by some with the reasoning that it's a term applied by victims. While the first notable instancd is indeed by the victims, it has sufficient media coverage with that title from journalists unaffected by the suspensions as well:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musks-twitter-suspension-journalists-draws-global-backlash-2022-12-16/
https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/wikipedia-documents-thursday-night-massacre-after-twitter-suspensions/
https://www.mediaite.com/tech/twitter-suspends-several-reporters-accounts-in-thursday-night-massacre-i-havent-been-given-a-reason/
https://mashable.com/article/musk-journalists-suspended-twitter-accounts-reinstated
and a few more, less reliable news sources, but all from people who were not suspended.

There are many cases in history where names for events that happened came from the victims and was picked up by the general public, and this appears to be one of them. I do not like the name personally, but it follows WP:GNG, and as such deserves a mention on the article at least.

As such I'll be reverting the title in, and ask that you do not edit it back out. Thank you. Aveaoz (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Agdal

Looks like you are trying to portray Nina Agdal sex life in a negative light, with poorly sourced controversial material from gossip rags.[1][2] Please take a look at WP:BLP which has a critically important bearing on this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’re looking at the personal life section of a model. Of course the pages reporting on her will be “gossip” pages. That doesn’t discredit the content, which is usually just citing public social media posts. If there’s an issue with the only sources reporting on her, then you may want to revisit whether she is even notable.

Also, for my “intentions”, I have ground to add any information to her page so long as it is factual. Goblintear (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that her public display of affection was "raunchy".[3] I don't think that should be stated in Wikipedia's voice. This stuff should be presented as neutrally as possible.

Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Another way to portray Agdal's sex life negatively would be to seek out every minor connection she had to impress the reader with numbers. If you want to tell the reader that she is having too much sex, you must cite a source saying exactly that, with attribution.

makes no sense. Info is info.

You take issue with the word “raunchy” — what word would you use? We can use that instead. Goblintear (talk) 09:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Nina Agdal. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lourdes 12:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpreting sources in BLP, or re-including contentious content through edit wars in BLP, are instantly blockable offences. For your benefit:

[4] Pushing a "raunchy" misrepresentation, using DAILYMAIL
[5] Edit warring to include "raunchy" and DailyMail
[6] Misrepresenting and including "Danis said that the pictures drove Paul insane" when the source never connected pictures with insane. And the article is about Nina, not Paul.
[7] Edit warring to include the misprepresentation "Danis said..."
[8] Edit warring to again include a misrepresentation of the source (digital spy) that Nina dated George. The source only said that George claimed to be dating Nina. If you are quoting a source, you cannot be misrepresenting with an aim to paint the BLP in a negative light.

Sorry but you will soon have an indefinite block coming if this is continued. Hope you understand the grave issues here and the need to protect BLPs with the highest editorial standards. Lourdes 12:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that WP:BLPRESTORE basically says you need consensus before restoring material that has been deleted on good faith BLP objections. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP contentious topics alert

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]