Talk:Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Combo

BLP

Stating that folks still alive won a "Worst" anything award without providing proper reference to that effect is a violation of the WP:BLP policy on biographies of living persons. It shouldn't be hard for someone who cares about the Razzies to find a proper source for this information; until this is added, the awards should not be listed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Nat brought this to the BLP noticeboard (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive222#Razzies) and was told by pretty much everybody that he is wrong, that there is no BLP violation, that the Razzies are a reliable source, and that the material in question is already properly sourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"pretty much everybody" being two editors. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nat, you haven't found a single editor to agree with yoru claim that these are unsourced. Honestly, I'm not even seeing anyone agree that this is the BLP issue you claim it is. Regardless, I can see you have a particular axe to grind here, but you're not gaining any traction with it and you're doing it backwards. typically, editors come to the talk page first and, if consensus can't be reached, they go to a noticeboard. You did it the other way. So, unless you come up with something new (not just changing BLP and incorrectly claiming these are unsourced), I'll just defer to my previous answers. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• You say that I went to BLPN first and then came here. That is actually false. The messages are timestamped and date stamped; you could have checked that for yourself rather quickly.

• You may also want to note that I took it to BLPN raising the issue that my concerns might apply to more pages than just this, which is why I wnet to BLPN quickly rather than just leaving it here.

• As for your claim that I have not come up with a single editor to support my claims that the material is unsourced, may I point out that you have a single editor to support you, while I have editors like Cirt (talk · contribs), who had fairly recently deleted material on this page due to its lack of sourcing and Thelimiter (talk · contribs), who had tagged this page for lack of sourcing (and note that no sourcing has been added since those edits). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• An hour difference....who cares? You should have had the discussion here or there. Not both places at the same time. Cirt can come here and participate, as can the Limiter. Currently, they haven't, so you still don't have anyone supporting you. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, I care. If you don't care about the fact that you just posted false, negative information about me, a living person, that should make you question whether you really should be active on the BLP noticeboard. And if people are voicing their concerns through tagging and through edit summaries, rather than subject themselves to Guy's snideness and your misinformation, who can blame them? Tagging and edit summaries are both legitimate ways of making one's view heard. --Nat Gertler (talk)

• Dramatic much? "False, negative information"? Yes, I was mistaken. You posted here first, then posted there before even waiting for a single response here. Wow....such a huge difference. As for whether it's negative, I'd love to see you try to make that complaint at ANI. Please do it. I'd love to see the reaction. Of course you completely ignore that you keep calling these "unsourced" and that's simply not true either. Cirt knows full well how to participate here and is no stranger to talk pages. your speculation (or should I call it "false, negative information about living person) about Cirt's motives is of no value. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I make no apologies for not liking that you're spreading misinformation about me. I see that you explain to me what I'm ignoring. If you have any other assumptions about me that you'd like to address to me, feel free to take it to my talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Spreading misinformation? Yeah, still playing the drama game. I said it to you here. So it spread to.....here. What a stunning amount of "spreading". Yes, I have (repeatedly) pointed out your willful ignorance of the sourcing at the orginal articles that are linked to here. Almost as many times as you incorrectly called the material unsourced. But thanks for the laughs. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Combo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413212505/http://www.razzies.com/ to http://www.razzies.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)