User talk:Alwayssourced

September 2022

Hello, I'm Knitsey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Knitsey (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The recent contributions are sourced, verified, and cited. All editing and additions are factual and true, with exact source material providing verbatim confirmation of information. Alwayssourced (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the links. Links to primary sources (link1) are not valid. Only secondary sources. The other link only states there is an ongoing allegation. Knitsey (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ongoing allegations of sexual violence and brutality against women. The band published the website with allegations and details of assault. They also published their apology on their own Instagram account, which is quoted. Alwayssourced (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first link to the bands website is a primary source. That can't be used. You need a secondary source stating what they've said. Knitsey (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Court records are public records and a secondary source. These documents are sourced in that citation. This is irrelevant to the purpose of this site as an Encyclopedia. Both citations are secondary. Alwayssourced (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY can I respectfully suggest you read through some of Wikipedia's policies? Particularly WP:BLP and the section about court records. Knitsey (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a public court document. The url of a public source is irrelevant. These are legal documents, not first hand from the band. It is a legal filing, thus inherently a secondary source. It does not matter where it is published. This information is relevant and appropriate on an adaptive encyclopedia website especially for chronologic relevancy purposes by the public. May I also respectfully suggest that if you find the information unfavorable regarding this topic, this might not be the correct website for you. I will continue to edit the information as it develops and maintains verifiable; In nature and concurrency with events and Wikipedia policies and protocols. Alwayssourced (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith, I will add more sources and more secondary citations with more details and evidence. These sources are in abundance and will be easily added. Thank you for letting me know Alwayssourced (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY and the section on court documents. The information isn't the problem. The source is. Knitsey (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will be sure to add many more secondary sources and material. Alwayssourced (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, when looking for a reliable source the check out WP:RS as it might help in determining if it's usable or not. Good luck. Knitsey (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as mentioned, check WP:BLP on what should or shouldn't be included. Knitsey (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read the link. Thank you for the information.

Yes, criminal history is commonplace information in a band’s history tabs. Neutral point of view, recitation of facts and publications, and source material. There is no question of concern as individual biographical autonomy, per Wikipedia, as the subject of the biography self-published these claims as well, although these self-publishings in themselves cannot be cited.

Relevant to an editor when the issue of safety of the subject is concerned- The subject has hence consented to the information and is dually validated as not contentious and follows Wikipedia protocols. Thank you

Alwayssourced (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the empowermentlalawsuit website does not have an author listed and there is no way to establish that it is indeed not first-hand. It is written in third-person, with no endorsement or author listed. It was also published by a proxy server in Arizona, so it is not self published. Alwayssourced (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK we need to take this to the band article talk place so that we can form consensus about this. Its even worse if it's and uncredited source. I will post on the article talk page later as I have an appointment soon. Cheers Knitsey (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. We need not take a consensus, this is not a chat site or social media page. If you have opposing information that this case does not exist, one must provide the criteria and sources. This is not subjective or consensus site, it’s Wikipedia. Done. Alwayssourced (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a federal case. This is not a chat site. Alwayssourced (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[WP:WHATISCONSENSUS] let's try get this sorted out together? I've pinged you on the band talk page. Knitsey (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is a misuse of Wikipedia. It is not a personal or conversation site. I am not engaging in a chat room with a strange. Do not message me again. Use the site accordingly. Or use Reddit for fun. Alwayssourced (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger* Edit the page with sources. Done and done. Alwayssourced (talk) 11:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from now on are on the bands talk page. Cheers Knitsey (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alwayssourced (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These editors are using Wikipedia as an advertisement erasing true edits they find unfavorable. Alwayssourced (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since you wish to keep criminal public record of violent crime off this site that’s no problem. I will create one Alwayssourced (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work protecting violent sexual offenders and child abusers 👍🏾 Alwayssourced (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]