Talk:James Stacy

Comment

This conviction has been on the E TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY, seen by millions. It is adequately sourced at http://listing-index.ebay.com/actors/James_Stacy.html. Why is someone improperly deleting it? Tommypowell 15:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• The link to the Gazzete article does not work. Tommypowell 14:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no link, the reference is to a work in print. I get it from Lexis/Nexis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Tom Harrison-Please be aware it is not me who keeps vandalising this page but anonymous user 76.4.218.231. I have reverted his vandalism 6 times. After 10 times I will request semi-protection for this article. Feel free to restore your language and link (at lest till 76.4.218.231 vandalises it yet again) Tommypowell 14:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have carefully researched and sourced the original newspaper articles about the legal events in Mr. Elias' life. Note that some of his acting bio still contains material taken verbatim from Elias' own web site. Nicmart 03:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is concerned, the mother was identified in the People Weekly article I reference. The privacy of the woman and her daughter seem secure since a Google search doesn't bring up any contemporary mention of "Patrice Loher." Nicmart 06:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have presented the information regarding Mr. Elias' molestation conviction as it was reported in news stories. If anyone has additional information, particularly that might be materially different than has been reported, please contact me. Nicmart 02:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

A user named Stacycollins removed all reference to Mr. Elias' criminal behavior and convictions. I have reverted to the pre-vandalized version. Nicmart 13:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Stacycollins has vandalized this article a second time, but this time the vandalism was undone by another editor. One more time and the user should be banned. Nicmart 02:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Improving article

This article was tagged for several issues. I've worked on it and have added sections, an infobox, references for some necessary citations etc. It is still in need of further work, especially in regard to the stark list of sources at the bottom which appear to be sources for some of the material in the arrest section. Having no access to these articles listed, it's impossible for me to tell what parts of the section each references. Hopefully, someone who was involved in adding these initially can step up and make them into in-line citations as outlined in WP:CITE. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. This is one of the mostly thoroughly referenced articles about a celebrity on Wikipedia. Regarding his criminal history all of the original news articles are footnoted, and every detail comes from those reports. It is foolish to think that every sentence needs a reference to those articles. This is an encyclopedia (or is represented to be), not a research report. I'd be perfectly happy if you removed the entire article and I can relocate the parts about his history to PBWiki. I think I'll do that anyway. The last time I did so the PBWiki entry quckly replaced the Wikipedia entry at the top of Google's search. The very idea that articles should remain until the distant day when they are allegedly perfected is asinine. If an article is not well done it should be removed. Nicmart (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No one said anything about the article not being well referenced. EVERY article must have citations for verification purposes, especially quoted material. See WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. If you don't like that policy, talk to Jimbo. If you had looked at the article before saying that the edits or requests for verification were "nonsense", you'd see that no content was removed and nothing was even disputed. The only thing that was done was an article cleanup per WP:MOS. That's hardly anything to complain about especially since a lot of editors would have removed uncited material and would not have be courteous enough to leave you a note about their edits. Wikipedia is not perfect and no article is ever complete. If you can't deal with that, I suggest you not edit here or at the very least, refrain from complaining when someone else attempts to bring an article up to acceptable standards. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, as the above editor stated, no one said the article wasn't well referenced. Since you were the person who added the material, and presumably had access to the articles you listed at the bottom, you were the one who was approached. I'd refer you to several Wikipedia policies regarding style, referencing and what needs to be cited. WP:Cite##When quoting someone specifically says that the citation should be place in-line. Therefore, the listing of sources, even as detailed as they are in this case, at the bottom of the page, is not acceptable. In six of the seven places that I tagged for reference improvement, it was a direct quote that was tagged. Because of liability issues, WP:BLP expressly that unreferenced material should be removed.

Secondly, you were approached regarding this because you are the editor who added, and when I did so, I approached you in a non-confrontational, polite manner and asked if you could transfer the listing of sources at the bottom into in-line citations. It isn't foolish to ask that a QUOTE be referenced, since policy requires it. I'd further remind you, given your comments, that WP:OWN says that an article belongs to no one, even the person who wrote it, once it's placed on Wikipedia. There is no need in your attitude about it. If you aren't interested in properly formatting your references, leaving quotes (and the one statement regarding lawsuits and alleged attempts at bribes) uncited, then I'd be just as willing to remove the material as being unsourced and in violation of WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By all means remove it. I much prefer to have it at PBWiki where I can control the content of what I have written. The other materials I've posted to PBWiki rank higher than the same entry at Wikipedia in Google searchers, and for good reason. So, please, I urge you, contest the entries to this entry and have them removed, or just revert it back to the swill it was before I edited it. Nicmart (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now that's a claim that I somehow doubt without proof, since I've never seen a search on Google turn up much of anything before the Wikipedia entries. In any case, you can certainly control your own private user space but that doesn't make it a reliable inline-sourced article, which is the key to keeping an article safe from liability issues. Publish what you like online, assume the liability for yourself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's bizarre that the news of his conviction, which is a fact, keeps getting removed! It keeps getting added, and it keeps getting removed. Why remove a conviction of a crime of pedophilia? the public should know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.22.114.34 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to alert the public of the identities of sex offenders. There are numerous other websites that serve that purpose. As for the removal of the content, there's really nothing all that "bizarre" about it. It appears that in June of this year a user named Anovoula (who has only made two edits to date) removed the content without giving a valid reason and also blanked this talk page. In other words, this was probably a simple case of vandalism that no one caught because this is not a high profile article. The content has been added back in various forms but it either lacked sources or it was a copy & pasted directly from a source. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources removed were newspapers, and, despite your idle speculation, they were neither cut-and-past or lacking. There were removed because someone found them inconvenient, and at least one close friend of Stacy's has made edits to this entry. Nicmart (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly idle speculation on my part when I provided example links that clearly show what has been going on. As seen in the first link, there are no citations to support the given content. That would mean the content lacked a verifiable source which is a core policy that must be followed, especially on a biography of a living person which Stacy most certainly is. This shouldn't be a foreign concept to you as I advised you about these policies nearly two years ago on this very page. The second link shows that the content was very obviously copy and pasted from People magazine as the name of the magazine along with the original author's name, volume number, etc. are clearly present at the top of the content. If it wasn't a copy and paste job, I'd like to know why the content matches the People magazine article found here word for word. If you want to bitch about someone removing content they don't like from the article - direct that at the actual person removing the content instead of the person taking the time to make sure valid, verifiable content is not removed. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

References removed

A large deal is made of the need for references at Wikipedia, so why were the references I provided to newspapers articles detailing Stacy's conviction and subsequent behavior removed? Does someone have an interest in a less well referenced article?Nicmart (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the content being removed nearly two years ago because it wasn't properly cited because the article is currently referenced. As you were already told (this will be the third time), controversial content needs to be properly cited. That would mean a list of references is not sufficient. The user who removed the content explained that in their edit summary and on this very talk page. Again, the content is now properly cited so this issue is moot. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the link Pinkadelica provided, you did not, in any way, provide valid sourcing to that content. A laundry list of unobtainable, therefore, unverifiable, "sources" were added, although none of it was added as valid inline citations to support what you claim it sourced. If you don't like this, take it to ArbCom. Take it to WP:BLP. Take it to an administrator. But don't start throwing around bad faith accusations of removing properly and reliably sourced content, because that is so not true. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)