User talk:Leila Aria

Leila Aria, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Leila Aria!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Matt Holt, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Matt Holt. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________

Regarding Matt Holt of Nothingface page

Reply 2:27 PM EST September 30, 2015

Hello Binksternet,

I appreciate your dedication to your work. Perhaps you can help me.

- - - So, Matt Holt's birthdate was wrong for a long time on his Wikipedia page, but it was on the page.

I recently pointed it out to him. He asked me to correct it. I've seen his Driver's License; "May 28, 1977". Some hours later, another user deleted the birthdate all together. After which we decided to make a verification photo.

The verification photo can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/Nothingface-Fanpage-212669334201/timeline/ It can also be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/matth0ltsick Those were the first times it appeared on the internet.

The picture was posted on September 28th, by me, Leila Aria. It is a picture showing the identifying blue flames of his right arm with a [2015] sign in his hands. This was made to prove I'm close enough to him to know his correct birth date, and that it is not an old photo. So please, leave the birth date alone. He's very busy, and he asked me to take care of it.

- - - Regarding this: "Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Matt Holt."

Sir, if you looked at the edit history, you would see that the novel syntheses existed before I ever touched the page. Please do not assign blame without proof. His Wiki page was around before Wikipedia became more formal about citation; probably a bunch of his fans added things here and there. Despite the lack of citation, everything on there is truth.

The last sentence, which I did add, is from a direct quote from Matt, and he has personally approved it, as it is written, for publication on the Matt Holt Wikipedia page. If you would suggest some manner I could cite that in, I would appreciate it. I have no problem with doing so. It is a primary source, after all. I have proof I am known to the individual, Matt Holt, and that he was willing to take a verification photo to stop people from deleting the corrected birthdate.

If the last quote, despite ample proof of association with the individual Matt Holt, is unusable... Then so are all one-on-one interviews, which are commonplace with musicians. However, I am perfectly willing to provide whatever proof you would suggest in this situation, if the photograph previously mentioned is deemed insufficient. I could even print out his Wiki page article, and ask him to write "I am Matt Holt, and I approved this message."

The correct birthdate needs to be on Wikipedia, in order to correct anyone who cites from that article.

Please, everyone who is tempted to delete things off that page: just leave it alone. It is all correct. Binksternet: I will do my best through search engines to find an interview that gives his correct age. It *is* May 28, 1977.

Thank you for your time, and again, I respect anyone dedicated to their work. Leila Aria (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Leila Aria[reply]

Here's the problem: you are treating Wikipedia as a blog, a Facebook page, a self-publishing page that you change at will, to reflect what you see it true. Wikipedia is not that; instead, Wikipedia tells a reader a summary of what has been published in reliable sources about a topic. Since there is nothing published in a reliable source about Holt's birth date, nothing about how Holt is keeping quiet about his band breaking up, these facts are not appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a limited number of circumstances when a primary or self-published source may be used as support for an article. In most cases, Wikipedia articles should be based on published, reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, like newspaper and magazine articles written about him.

Please review WP:BLPPRIMARY, because as a matter of practice, we don't use public records as a reliable source. That said, if there's dispute about which of two published sources are correct, the Volunteer Response Team might review those sources in an off-Wikipedia environment. However, I am not a member of the VRT and cannot speak about how they would handle an email requesting that. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk pages

Hey there! Just a friendly handwritten message from a talk page stalker. Firstly, you don't have to provide an edit summary when replying to someone on a talk page. Secondly, you don't have to write out warnings at any point! See WP:TM, they'll save you so much time. I highly recommend that you check out WP:Twinkle as a way to post such templated messages with ease. It will make your editing experience far smoother.

Welcome to the wiki! Got any questions? Ask me. Thanks. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Matt Holt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]