User talk:MarkSH
Welcome!
Hello, MarkSH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wizard191 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
March 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm Cerebral726. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Dianna Cowern, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Cerebral726 (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I added that Dianna was released from the hospital.
- You also removed that she went into the hospital, a fact that someone else added some time ago and was sourced to a Twitter post on her account by her husband.
- I believe that both are important and since they were posted by accounts that she owns should be taken seriously. MarkSH (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I totally agree that they should be taken seriously. Wanting well sourced content on her page is a sign that I don't want this reported with anything but 100% accuracy and strong sourcing. I am also highly personally concerned about Dianna, and my desire to keep her Wikipedia page up to the high standard of WP:BLP also reflect that respect. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- What about the content that was removed at the same time but was put up by another person about two weeks ago and was referenced to Twitter? MarkSH (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was poorly sourced, so I also removed it. Please see WP:BLPSOURCE for the relevant policy. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I found this on how we write about living people
- and it seems to say that what people write about themselves is a good reference.
- ==== Using the subject as a self-published source ====
- Shortcut
- Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources
- There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- MarkSH (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying and sympathize with your position. I believe personal medical issues are important enough that a stronger source showing notability and impact beyond our own WP:OR perspective on personal posts are necessary. If you still disagree, feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Dianna Cowern so we can find another perspective. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I clicked on the Talk:Dianna Cowern link and there is no "Personal Life" section.
- There is only a "Wedding" section.
- How do I create a "Personal Life" section?
- The "Wedding" section has a plea to allow her wedding to be included with only Facebook and Instagram references.
- The wedding and her fight with Long Covid are important to people who follow her.
- She and her husband are trying to keep people informed.
- Who else can get this approved? MarkSH (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a tool for informing people on life updates, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. It is built on reliable sourcing. Her personal social media pages are adequate for informing people, and Wikipedia shouldn't be confused for some sort of notice board. However, you may start a discussion by clicking "New Section" at the top of the page Talk:Dianna Cowern and providing your desired text and reasoning for inclusion. That will start a discussion that any one can participate in. No individual has greater authority over content on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is based on gaining WP:CONSENSUS. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying and sympathize with your position. I believe personal medical issues are important enough that a stronger source showing notability and impact beyond our own WP:OR perspective on personal posts are necessary. If you still disagree, feel free to start a discussion at Talk:Dianna Cowern so we can find another perspective. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- It was poorly sourced, so I also removed it. Please see WP:BLPSOURCE for the relevant policy. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- What about the content that was removed at the same time but was put up by another person about two weeks ago and was referenced to Twitter? MarkSH (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I totally agree that they should be taken seriously. Wanting well sourced content on her page is a sign that I don't want this reported with anything but 100% accuracy and strong sourcing. I am also highly personally concerned about Dianna, and my desire to keep her Wikipedia page up to the high standard of WP:BLP also reflect that respect. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)