User talk:Vegwitch

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hollywood Life is not a reliable source, if you want to add information, use reliable sources such as MTV, Entertainment Weekly, or others. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. PopHerald is not a reliable source. And we have no way of know this site from them is official, considering that is is posted on a free host server. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if by a fan or The Buchwald Agency, Facebook pages are unreliable per WP:Reliable Sources, neither is their "official" website because it is on a free server. I didn't say MTV and EW were the only reliable, they are examples. And go ahead with your bogus "complaint" but I don't know what will happen as I am just removing unsourced content. I don't know how many other ways it can be put but Wikipedia has a policy on unsourced and unreliable content, and they are not to be added to pages. Once reliable sources can be cited with this information, than it can be added. You claim you've found hundreds of article about them and the video, if it is from a reliable source, add it, if not, it can't be added. I'm sorry, but this is Wikipedia policy. I'm being very civil, please don't make the case worse for you (assume good faith).Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 23:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a matter on whether the information is true or not. I never said it wasn't true. It is a matter of verifiability. I have no idea why you brought up the White House website, because of course it is reliable, it is posted by the US government. Eh, I'm not sure about this vegsource site, it looks a bit bloggish, so I would think it is unreliable. Also, per WP:Reliable sources, Twitter accounts, even if they are celebrity verified, are not reliable sources on Wikipedia, that's just how it is. I'm not going to continue to argue this with you. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I see in fact that those are the girls from the video. But like I said its not even about what is true and not true. I never said anyone is lying or that these girls weren't in the video. Its just a matter of verifying and unreliable sources. Please read WP:TRUTH. I hope you choose not to add another unreliable source, but if you do, I'd have to resort to reporting you. Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are judge and jury about what kind of site is valid (as in Vegsource.com), and you are saying that it doesn't matter if something is true or not, it only matters if it's verified? Do you not understand how insane this conversation is? TRUTH IS VERIFICATION. If something is true, it is already verified. You are clearly not qualified to be doing this when you are willing to delete information because you can't verify it, even though you know it's true? What color is the sky? If it's blue, can you show me a website to prove that, and then we can argue about whether that's verifiable or not? Because you seem to know that the information about these girls is true, but you continue to delete it, seems to indicate that you have some other agenda in mind - like your own ego. This is a problem. And seriously, you are threatening to block someone for telling the TRUTH? Again, please prove that any of the information provided is false, or you need to stop deleting those girls from the page. They are part of the story, they deserve credit as well.

WP:Truth -

"Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. This is important to bear in mind when writing about topics on which you as a contributor have a strong opinion; you might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case."

Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 00:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict with block>Vegwitch, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability through the use of reliable sources (please actually click and read those links before replying). Any information added to articles must be verified through reliable sources in order to be included. As the information you are trying to add does not appear to be covered in reliable independent sources, it likely should not be included. To continue to add the names repeatedly despite the lack of a reliable source is edit warring and could lead to a block. Please take your argument for inclusion to the article talk page and if consensus is reached to include the names, only then should they be added. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

You've returned from your 31-hour block and carried on exactly the same as before, despite being warned that edit-warring could lead to a block. Perhaps a week away from Wikipedia will give you time not only to think but also to read the policies and guidelines for editors here. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]