User talk:Ryanisbetter
May 2022[edit]
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jake Paul. 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. Level three warning because user has been warned about not using references before and blanked their talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Removing mention of Julia entirely was probably appropriate as the sources that exist for their relationship fail WP:RS. However, I am not the one who added her in the first place nor do I care enough to backtrack through the article's edit history to find out who did, not do I feel that adding it is "controversial." I updated the page because it is clear from Julia's Instagram posts that they are back together and the article claimed that they were not. Simple as that. As for blanking my talk page page, this is my talk page not yours. Ryanisbetter (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- You need to update the references then, at the very least. Just mentioning Instagram in an edit summary is not providing a reliable source. See WP:RS. I don't care about your blanking of your own talk page, I added that for context so that people can see why there is only a level three warning on your talk, it's because you've been warned before and removed them. Feel free to blank this as well, the edit history of your talk page will remain so all the warnings are still there. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said. The sources for her inclusion in the first place (which I am not the one who added) all failed WP:RS to begin with. So removing mention of her entirely was probably fair. But if I see something I know to be factually incorrect I will change it. It said they were not currently together and they are. Ryanisbetter (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I get your edit was in good faith, but even if something is true it needs to be referenced, espescially personal information on BLP's. Either way yes you're right, the relationship was neither reliably sourced nor is it particularly notable so better leave her out of the article so there is no need to constantly change their status if they are indeed in an on and off again relationship, she can always be added later were they to get married/have a child or something similarly notable. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a concern for whoever it was that added her in the first place. Ryanisbetter (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, you still violated BLP, because the latest source stated they had split and then you changed it back to that they were together without updating any references. TylerBurden (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like someone re-added Julia to the article with the only source given being a gossip blog. My stance on this issue remains the same as it was before. If she is included their current on/off status MUST be accurate and up-to-date. Wikipedia has a history of being behind the times when a celebrity is in an on/off relationship (think Justin Bieber/Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus/Liam Hemsworth) and that needs to change. You made a pretty good case for why she should be excluded entirely so if you wish to remove her from the article I will not stop you. But I won't remove her myself because they clearly are an item right now. Ryanisbetter (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, you still violated BLP, because the latest source stated they had split and then you changed it back to that they were together without updating any references. TylerBurden (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a concern for whoever it was that added her in the first place. Ryanisbetter (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I get your edit was in good faith, but even if something is true it needs to be referenced, espescially personal information on BLP's. Either way yes you're right, the relationship was neither reliably sourced nor is it particularly notable so better leave her out of the article so there is no need to constantly change their status if they are indeed in an on and off again relationship, she can always be added later were they to get married/have a child or something similarly notable. TylerBurden (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said. The sources for her inclusion in the first place (which I am not the one who added) all failed WP:RS to begin with. So removing mention of her entirely was probably fair. But if I see something I know to be factually incorrect I will change it. It said they were not currently together and they are. Ryanisbetter (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- You need to update the references then, at the very least. Just mentioning Instagram in an edit summary is not providing a reliable source. See WP:RS. I don't care about your blanking of your own talk page, I added that for context so that people can see why there is only a level three warning on your talk, it's because you've been warned before and removed them. Feel free to blank this as well, the edit history of your talk page will remain so all the warnings are still there. TylerBurden (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)