This is an archive of past discussions with User:Marchjuly. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It says that the Citation needed template should not be used with contentious material in a BLP. It's appropriate to use the template in situations like this where the material is not contentious.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
That is true, but "contentious" on Wikipedia refers to anything that another editor might feel needs to be supported by a reliable source, doesn't it? It's my opinion that all of Tyson's nicknames should be supported by RSs. It's also my opinion that all the nicknames should be actually mentioned in the article body and cited there instead of in the inbox. I am not sure of the best way to do this, but please feel free to be bold if you know a good place to add that info. I've given my reasoning for my edit at Talk:Mike Tyson#Nicknames (infobox) and I really think that's where any further discussion on this should take place. Not trying to be a jerk about anything and I do appreciate your comments, but let's continue this at the article's talk page, OK? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think "contentious" has a different meaning on Wikipedia? I have no issue with your goals, I just think that removing that material from the article is not the best way to achieve them. If you want to move this discussion, I don't mind.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it possible that there are people who aren't as familiar with Tyson as you, and, therefore, might not be aware of all his nicknames? Someone could challenge a nickname and remove it. Would it be acceptable for an editor to re-add that info without providing a reliable source per WP:PROVEIT? If you feel it's OK to do so, then re-add it with a "citation needed" template. I do make mistakes and I don't revert when I'm wrong. If no one else reverts, then that means such information is not contentious. However, if a cn template is all it takes to keep something in a BLP article, then it seems to me that other editors could do the same with other info that was removed, excluding obvious vandalism, using the same logic you are using here. My interpretation of how to use that template might indeed be wrong, so please re-add the nickname(s) if you feel it is. I only suggest you briefly explain why on that talk page post, so other editors know why. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kyū may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
_by_Ron.jpg)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kyū may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
