User talk:Keelerface

Welcome!

Hello, Keelerface, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Lindsay Lohan[edit]

Sorry, but your assertion here is incorrect; verifiability policy states that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and this "report" in this "gazette" cannot yet be verified (I've tried the three biggest search engines with no results). Further, the gazette would not qualify as a reliable source per encyclopedic guidelines. Even if/when verified, the data would go in the biography section, not in the lead, per WP:LEAD. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to dial back the insults and explain to me how a University gazette qualifies as a reliable source... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University Park is a city in Texas whose Newspaper is known as the UP Gazette a la the Montreal Gazette.So that's how.Keelerface 15:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size? Readership? Readability and verifiability outside University Park, TX? This is the web-link issue; not whether the Gazette has a link, but whether any source outside the city can or has verified the veracity of the report. That's why it fails. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, I cannot verify the existence of a Gazette in University Park, TX—though there is one in University Park, MD. The closest I can find in Texas are the former Gazette-Courier in McKinney (now owned by Star in Plano, 15 miles away), and the Gazette-Enterprise in Seguin, 250 miles away. Based on the utter lack of verifiability outside University Park—if there, for that matter—the policy on biographies of living persons demands this data be removed until and unless a reliable source is established. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's an issue of "undue weight" rather than verifiability. The issue is that a local paper published that a star dated someone local. Well, that may or may not be true, but we don't care. She's single, popular, and not in a monastic order, so presumably she dates people. Unless there is something unusual or very important about this particular date (are they engaged to each other? engaged to someone else? expecting a child together? jumping up and down on Oprah's couch?), it's not worth a sentence in her article. Last month a different paper no doubt had an article that she dated someone else, and next month a different paper will have a different one. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax[edit]

Do not add any more hoaxes to the encyclopedia. This is your final warning. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]