User talk:Crycrywolf

Bo Burnham

I see many youtube cites in there, as well student publications. While I agree the section heading is non-neutral, we shouldn't be using either primary or self-published sources for contentious claims on BLPs, and student sources should be avoided if there are professional sources. See WP:RSPYT and WP:RSSM for relevant information, and I would strongly encourage a look through that list to look for sources that are accepted on Wiki. Your edit was good, but as it contained sources that shouldn't be on a BLP, I've removed it. It's still in page history, you're more than welcome to go back, copy it, and work on re-citing. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used YouTube sources that were direct interviews and quotes from the source about his work. Are those not allowed? I also am not sure what student sources you are referring to. Crycrywolf (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is key here is the previous editor for this section had an agenda to make Bo seem more controversial than he is. I also reviewed your link about "primary" sources and do not think direct quotes from Bo ABOUT Bo's work falls into any of the criteria (reading down the bullet list) that would make those quotes inadmissable. Crycrywolf (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is key here is the previous editor for this section had an agenda to make Bo seem more controversial than he is. So, I know you're new, and I firmly believe in not biting the newbies, especially when they are trying to be constructive, so I'm gonna tell right now you that this is called an WP:ASPERSION about the intentions of other editors, and is typically contrary to our pillars here. The assusmption of good faith, that editors are not acting in a bias way or are, in other words, here with the same intention as everyone else, to improve the Wiki, is critical to this project. Typically, such accusations would require proof in the way of diffs showing the evidence for the claim. You're new, and ignorance of the rules is a legitimate defense here, at least at first. I would encourage a read through of the good faith, 5P, and aspersion pages. Your read through of RSP significantly improved your cites, and I'm glad you did.

Also, when it comes to his interviews on his youtube channel, we have a guideline for that too, WP:ABOUTSELF, which typically allows such claims about the article subject to be included if they are uncontroversial. Considering the fact that this section is about his controversy, I don't think about self would qualify here.

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for improving your cites, and if you need any help, my talk page is always open! FrederalBacon (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so patient, and for pointing out where I went wrong. I'm glad my changes brought it up to par. Thank you so much. Crycrywolf (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you were clearly trying to be helpful, just needed a bit of guidance, and that's what we're all here for. Experienced editors all started out as new, and we all had someone do this at some point. Mine was a now retired editor, and I credit his welcome on my page with me actually becoming an editor. It's easy to create an account and edit a page you're passionate about, it's much harder to get involved with the project on a deep level.

I actually had just added his date of birth with an ABOUTSELF reference a couple of minutes ago after someone brought it up on the talk there. If you find something you're unsure of, you can always discuss it on the talk page for whatever article you are working on, someone should help. For a little bit, on Bo's article, as a new, non-autoconfirmed editor, your edits will be subject to review. This is not everywhere, some articles specifically have what's called pending changes protection, and Bo's article is one of them. I'm a pending changes reviewer (how I actually got involved in the page, despite being a fan of Bo for a long time), and one of us would have to accept your changes before they are live for most people, including yourself, so you will not see your edits initially.

Once again, any questions, let me know. Your talk page is now on my watchlist, so I'll see if you reply, any time. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I joined to fix some things that felt off on this page, but I'm actually generally pretty passionate about citations and references so I'm excited to edit more articles in here. As for this article: Are we still looking for a credible source for his birthday? I have an article where he says explicitly he turned 30 during 2020 so that would confirm the year if we still need it. Also an interview from 2012 where he says "I was born in 1990." Crycrywolf (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link them on the talk for the article, to include anyone else interested too, but I don't think an interview where he mentions his birth year should be controversial. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I reviewed the citations, some of the "student publications" were from the previous editor (you can look at the previous versions to see) that I didn't want to remove because I was trying to keep some of their stuff in there to make it clear I wasn't trying to remove criticism or controversy. Thank you for your comments! I hope this keeps it up to standard. Crycrywolf (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]