User talk:Igriffin Hiérocéphale

Welcome!

Hi Igriffin Hiérocéphale! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Woodroar (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this notice a bit, WP:BLP requires top tier sourcing and WP:NPOV language to be used. No self-published sources not published by the subject are acceptable, and no interpretation of primary sources is allowed. You need to find reliable, secondary sources discussing a topic, and summarize them without cherry-picking or putting your own slant on what was written. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for coming talk here ! I was hesitating to create a discussion on the Jonathan Blow page, but it might be more judicious to talk here.

I'm less or more kind of news on WP:BLP page as it is not my main focus for now. However, I was still very suprised by the backlash of my edit, I did knew celebritie page were sensitive but regarding the global quality of the page it was unexpected for me to say the least. I did tried kept being neutral and still think I was, by mostly quoting Jonathan Blow himself and staying rather superficial and not even criticizing nor debunking what he said. It was even more unexpected that the section had already an encyclopedic tone banner and the article globally was non-neutral in a positive way to Jonathan Blow.

But this is not my main concern nor the reason I text you, I mostly do want to know more about rule regarding source in WP:BLP. I did read before the different rule, and thought self published were allowed as long as they were not self-serving and authentic, and so that's why I thought link to tweet were valid as source to quote the said tweet (as it is used in other part of the article). What kind of rule that would advise to not do such thing in such a situation ?

But I'm mostly surprised that the COVID part also cause problems. This part was also almost only Jonathan Blow quote, and relied on both direct tweets of J. Blow, plus an article by NME. I honestly don't understand what was the problem here if you could explain it to me. I am mostly surprised by this bit because the couple directquote/magazinejournal is usually very accepted and more than enough to justifiy statement like this. (ex : Offset (rapper) were lyric of song/instagram + music magazine were enough to justify the add of an entry regarding the controversy, M.I.A. politics section relying almost only on tweet and sometime magazine and Chet Hanks also has controversies section with similar kind sources). Also considering that Wikipedia sources are here to check the reliability of an information and that is very clear here that J. Blow did say that i do not understand why does it cause so much problem.

I sincerely want more detail and explanation on this,

Best regards,

Igriffin Hiérocéphale (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time right now to go into this extensively right now, but I suggest you join the conversation at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Blow. The editors there can help explain the issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]