User talk:TheClubSilencio - Knowledge (XXG)

738:, which means anyone might have added the content. Some give no indication of the origin of their content. Some web scrape from other sites with no regard to the reliability or accuracy of that content. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to provide content that (a) comes from reliable sources and (b) can be verified by checking with the cited sources. Failure to do so undermines the credibility of the particular article and, to some extent, the credibility of Knowledge (XXG) as a whole. Which is why Knowledge (XXG) doesn't simply allow just any thing that an editor comes across as a source. Some celebs have never actually publicly disclosed their DOB and because as already mentioned many sites web scrape without doing any fact checking, they end up having falsified DOBs online. 876: 462: 187: 46: 944: 77:. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledge (XXG)’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge (XXG) administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project. 391: 1060: 714:(IE a magazine such as Los Angeles Times or New York Times. And preferably multiple of these) reporting their exact DOB. Or a social media post from the subject themselves where he or she confirms his or her birthday and preferably either his or her age or YOB in the same post as well. Failing either one of those, they should be kept out of the article for now. 22:

why I am so loyal to him. He got us two task forces, and got us SB710 (2020) Clean Waterways Act. I have met him in person 3 times, the last time was with the FFRW where my chapter RFWTV also won an FFRW award for making over 160,000 phone calls for his gubernatorial reelection campaign. I would like to start a DeSantis Club in The Villages.

745:

is clear: "Knowledge (XXG) includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The only way we editors can demonstrate

144:(i.e. have an affiliation with the topics you edit) then you need to declare it and follow the rules outlined (again for awareness, not that you do). I will leave you some additional information about editing Knowledge (XXG). If you ever have questions or need help with anything, you can ask at the 135:

Hi TheClubSilencio, I want to re-emphasize I do not think you have done anything wrong other than things a normal new editor encounters but wanted to make you aware, if you were not already, given your interest in American politics. As the elections move forward, it is very likely articles will be

21:

Hi, I understand your message that people in leadership positions should go first. Would it be alright if I went last then? I am both a FL elected official, although it is a local utility, and an activist especially during the 2018-2019 water issues that our good Governor helped us with. This is

690:

I reverted your edit of Alexis Knapp's DOB because while Rotten Tomatoes is an acceptable source when it comes to films and reviews however it's not a journalism site and it's main businesses is film criticism. If you check the last discussion as well as the current Rfc, you'll see that many other

573:

Already did that. But by your logic, the "former actress" designation should be removed, too. Either she's a former actress and singer or she's an actress and singer. Choosing to label her a former actress but not a former singer makes little sense, especially since she's best known for acting and

749:

To see if a site is trustworthy enough to use check and see if it has the correct DOBs for these celebs. John Leguizamo, Tanya Roberts, Judith Hoag and Edie McClurg. Within the past year or so their true DOBs have been revealed(1960, 1949, 1963 and 1945 respectively), however TVinsider as well as

532:

Respectfully, if somebody says they've quit making music, isn't it fair to say they've quit making music? She hasn't released anything since then, and she says she's retired. When Daniel Day-Lewis said he was retiring from acting, people accepted it. Shouldn't we do the same thing here? Her music

750:

many other sites have the incorrect ones listed. Which makes it seem like they're just putting down what other sites have listed and questionable to use for bio details like Rotten Tomatoes, Times Of India, Allmovie, Thefamouspeople, Tribute.Ca, Moviefone etc.

510:. Autobiographies or what someone says about themselves must be used with care and most often are not appropriate to use. For example, likely fine to use to support things like who their influences are because only they would know that and is not likely 926:

I suppose I'm glad you removed those comments. If you make them again you are likely going to get blocked indefinitely--not just for transphobic comments (which have no place here) but also for BLP violations. Thanks,

841: 807: 733:

Finding a source that's actually reliable is easier said than done. This situation is not unusual. While many sites contain a subject's DOB, the question is, "Are those sources reliable?" Because some are

746:

such publication is by providing citations to reliable sources. If we don't have a reliable source for a living person's date of birth and full name, that content should not appear in the article.

163:

Actually as I read the pre-formed template message (in blue) I am not sure it is helpful to new/new-ish editors so would like your feedback. What are your reaction/thoughts/questions, if any?

117: 345: 108:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics

1032:, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee 236: 136:

place under various restrictions due to disruptive behaviour, if they are not already. Active restrictions will be noted on the article's talk page. For an example, see

231: 251: 246: 241: 261: 1201:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

1100: 266: 1002: 893: 980: 320: 302: 206: 515: 1186: 986: 904: 551:

chose to stop making films in 1990's does not change the fact what is he most largely known for is making films. You would need to establish

1095: 555:

was never a notable singer which is highly unlikely but at he end of day you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page to gain

316:

It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.

741:

The above paragraph applies to all content on Knowledge (XXG). but when an article is about a living person, an additional policy applies

413:, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 414: 1145:

I've never owned another Knowledge (XXG) account. This is complete nonsense. I don't even have the same IP address as the other user.

256: 224: 141: 1033: 588:

The talk page discussion in in progress. You just posted the discussion today and it seems you may gaining consensus. A formal

338: 1114: 711: 1073: 1024: 958: 884: 474: 1067: 1015: 976: 466: 1072:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

735: 971: 966: 954: 897: 696: 313:

Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.

286: 1223:

is available to you but, given your edits that have been rev-deleted, you should just find another hobby.--

444:

A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

703: 124: 1011: 950: 556: 507: 324: 113: 29: 1001:. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the 274: 145: 661: 25: 1146: 1078: 1019: 575: 534: 489: 400: 503: 310: 623: 754: 715: 698: 511: 439: 58: 860: 826: 792: 758: 719: 676: 642: 422: 331: 213: 1029: 1195: 992: 932: 916: 552: 470: 742: 707: 589: 299: 203: 1172: 875: 597: 564: 548: 523: 408: 382: 365: 168: 153: 1220: 903:

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Knowledge (XXG)'s

488:

In what sense is a book by Jennette McCurdy a poor source for an article about her life?

1215:

have used the same IP(s) and you have made similar edits, and in at least one case the

985:

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the

657: 592:

is given at least a month so be patient (not I think this will take an entire month).

451: 137: 461: 45: 845: 773: 194: 140:

with the "Warning: active arbitration remedies" template at the top. If you have a

943: 856: 852: 822: 818: 788: 784: 777: 672: 668: 638: 634: 418: 120:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the 533:

career has been inactive for a much longer period of time than her acting career.

62:. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and 928: 912: 478: 390: 73:

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as

1231: 1176: 1154: 1045: 936: 920: 864: 830: 796: 762: 753:

The UPI source you submitted for Alexis Knapp was indeed a good enough source.

723: 680: 646: 601: 583: 568: 542: 527: 497: 482: 455: 426: 370: 172: 157: 33: 1224: 1168: 1052: 1038: 593: 560: 519: 361: 164: 149: 989:, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: 447: 344:

If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our

1014:

have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by

101:

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

514:

but not okay to use to describe themselves or their work (at least not in

975:

reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be

184: 358: 547:

That content belongs in the body of the article, not in the lead. If

337:

When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a

627: 1005:

to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

842:

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements

808:

List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements

351:

Have fun! Your presence in the Knowledge (XXG) community is welcome.

811: 54:

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people

840: