User talk:Brandon gerson

This is cited in Cardplayer Magazine. Is that not a reliable media source of poker information? I am indeed the Brandon Gerson referred to.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC) --Brandon gerson (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Brandi Hawbaker, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Hawbaker

My edit summary at Brandi Hawbaker was incorrect because the subject is dead, so WP:BLP does not apply. Sorry about that. However, material on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Text along the lines of "the former boyfriend of X says that X had a very serious untreatable mental illness" would be fine on a blog or many websites, but it is not acceptable here. First, there is no source to verify the statement. Second, a former boyfriend is not an acceptable source on a matter such as that. We do not repeat rumors or non-authoritative opinions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. It had stood as so for almost 3 years, so I was confused as to why it was suddenly changed.--Brandon gerson (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions have changed here in the last couple of years, and rules are being applied more stringently. There are a lot of bad articles with bad text in them, but when problems are noticed they are generally cleaned up. In this case it is pretty clear: a boyfriend is simply not a suitable source for "serious untreatable mental illness". If there were a reliable source with a story on the subject, the journalist might have written something along those lines, and an article might say that such-and-such a report made a certain claim. At any rate, further discussion should occur on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]