ABLegler

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Paul Krugman, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. LK (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Clarence Dupnik. Thank you. LK (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

Hello, Krugman's blog entry may well have been controversial, but citing the blog entry itself doesn't verify this at all. You have to find additional sources to prove that. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lizz Winstead. Thank you. You need secondary sources. Find some respectable mainstream media sources that have written specifically about this issue and then propose some text on the article talk page. Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Scjessey - I referenced an MSN.com article and her own twitter feed. This is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. I am feeling you have taken a somewhat inappropriate feeling of ownership over this page. I will repost my entries and refer the matter for review if necessary.ABLegler (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Lizz Winstead. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Information is neither un-referenced nor poorly referenced. Now with multiple sources. Despite the controversial nature of the information, it is factually correct and should remain as posted. Thank you. ABLegler (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The two references you have provided for this "fauxtroversy" absolutely suck. The MSN link is just a aggregator that has sucked it down from some gossip site, and the FOX News link is almost exactly the same, with uncited references to "many outraged". These are extremely poor sources, and not up to the standard expected for a WP:BLP. Also, at NO TIME did I refer to your edits as "vandalism". Please stop your obviously agenda-driven editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you this is not your own private space to accept/deny sources as you feel they are worthy. You are stepping over the line into activism at this point. My edits were flagged as Vandalism and reverted at one point - so maybe not by you. ABLegler (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously - you are giving ME a warning on edit wars? Look at your own behavior before you try to put this off on other people. In the spirit of reaching a "consensus" - aside from your own PERSONAL objections to the sources provided, do you feel that the information is inaccurate? ABLegler (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You have made more reversions in a 24-hour period than I, so you warranted a warning and I didn't. Your edits are completely without merit, because of the low-quality sourcing. Biographies of living persons require a high standard of sourcing, particularly with potentially controversial material. You have produced two highly dubious sources, and there is absolutely no evidence within mainstream media sources that this was any sort of "controversy" at all. You need to self-revert your edits immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I've removed it again because it is an egregious violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP. You cannot possibly think that a single tweet, later deleted, is significant in the entire life of the subject. Furthermore, you cannot expect two gossip websites (one of which is FOX "hate the Daily Show" News) to be legitimate sources. If you feel so strongly about it, bring it up on the article's talk page and ask other editors, but do not add the violation back into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So your objection is that this event doesn't fit into your "editorialized" version of events? News Flash - this is not The World According to Scjessey. I also notice that you like to tell other people what will and won't happen within these pages - from what source do you assume this authority? If you want to create a Lizz Winstead fan page - please be my guest. This is a notable moment in her life (do a quick search for her name and see what the first thing that pops up) and there is no legitimate reason for you to object to it's inclusion in her bio. Are you her PR agent or something? ABLegler (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)