User talk:MrDrFactChecker
Hello, please communicate with me on my talk page or here on yours. I don’t do email correspondence. Best, Thriley (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Thriley!
- Contacted you because I saw you removed a lot of information from the Ashley Gavin page (largely seems to be a wise decision, since a lot of the information was unsourced/unsubstantiated claims and seems to have been contributed by non-users/editors swarming the site).
- My question was specifically about the information you deleted for being from Reddit and TikTok respectively. Totally understand, those sites are non-reputable (for understandable reasons), I hear you loud and clear. What I'm wondering is whether or not it would be permissible to add back some of that information (which is substantiated), but without the unacceptable sources or new third-party/article sources referencing them in their place.
- Since you've been on this site longer, will totally respect seniority on this. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is best to not include a controversy section. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Incidents like the one you have detailed should generally be kept to a few sentences at most. Thriley (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Gotcha, totally understand and agree the information is far too poorly sourced/bordering on libel to include. I only meant to imply perhaps bringing back the bit about the "source audio" having been manipulated/edited online to remove the original context, about pro-life audience members booing her instigating the incident, but even then it's clear this incident is far too recent to have produced any credible evidence outside of hearsay. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it may be appropriate to remove mention of the incident entirely. She's not a household name. Tiktok controversies aren't usually worth mentioning unless there is major media coverage. If the NY Times reported on this, I would feel differently. Thriley (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly... yeah, I agree. I'm happy to go do that, since it was probably added by a swarm of non-users/editors from TikTok in the first place. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- One other thing. Have since removed that information, per your suggestion, my question is should the page also be locked to prevent potential vandalism? The reason a lot of that information was added in the first place is because non-users/editors, coming from TikTok, swarmed the page. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think it may be appropriate to remove mention of the incident entirely. She's not a household name. Tiktok controversies aren't usually worth mentioning unless there is major media coverage. If the NY Times reported on this, I would feel differently. Thriley (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Gotcha, totally understand and agree the information is far too poorly sourced/bordering on libel to include. I only meant to imply perhaps bringing back the bit about the "source audio" having been manipulated/edited online to remove the original context, about pro-life audience members booing her instigating the incident, but even then it's clear this incident is far too recent to have produced any credible evidence outside of hearsay. MrDrFactChecker (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is best to not include a controversy section. I think you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Incidents like the one you have detailed should generally be kept to a few sentences at most. Thriley (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)