User talk:Nemov/Archives/2021/March

The Battery Atlanta

 Done The Battery Atlanta. BilCat (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! Good job. Looks good. Nemov (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of it is cribbed straight from The Big TP's article. I forgot about it for a while, and remembered time it today while creating another draft. I couldn't remember what else I'd wanted to do, but it looked ready to me. Any bets on how long it will take for a list of concerts to be added? :) BilCat (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Bald and Bankrupt Incident Addition

Hello Nemov, I recently noticed you reverted my edit on the Bald and Bankrupt wikipedia page. The definition of incident, according to the Oxford Dictionary is "something that happens, especially something unusual or unpleasant". The reason I added the information I did is because it is an "incident" as the scene itself upset sensitive viewers and as a result, Ben made the decision to remove it before the controversy escalated. The title of the subsection did not specify major or minor incidents, it was just titled "incidents". The purpose of wikipedia is to provide accurate information to those who need it and as someone who watches Bald and Bankrupt regularly, I wanted to add this information so it would not be lost to time. As a disclaimer, despite me liking Bald and his videos, I do not let my personal opinions and preferences interfere with my wikipedia editing, as I try to maintain a neutral point of view. Secondly, I'm not trying to slander Bald in any way. I personally don't understand why people were so offended over this scene, but we're living in 2021 where everyone is pissed over something. However, this incident did occur and it must be documented from a neutral point of view.

I would greatly appreciate it if you reverted your deletion of my prior edit. Have a good day.

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal opinions are of no matter in this case. This is just Wikipedia basics. If you have reliable sources that have have covered the incident then it would notable. Without coverage from reliable sources this is not notable and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Nemov (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I added citations to the wayback machine archive of the original link as well as the link of the edited video, which is on his second channel. I was going to add links to a reddit thread on his official subreddit, but I wasn't sure whether it would count as a reliable source. Since wikipedia is a primary information source for many people, this incident should at least have brief documentation to explain the context of what transpired. I also explained in my original message how I try to edit in a neutral fashion, in order to provide accurate, unbiased information.

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That article only exists because it has received notable coverage from third parties. If something hasn't received coverage from reliable sources it doesn't belong on the article. His YouTube channel isn't a reliable source. Reddit isn't a reliable source. I recommend familiarizing yourself with policies and guidelines and the guide to reliable sources. That will help you identify reliable sources in the future. Happy editing. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point about Reddit, which is why I vary of citing it. However, regarding YouTube, the wikipedia sources guidelines state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...". In this case, Benjamin's YouTube videos would be included in this category. It is also mentioned editors must use their judgment and reasoning, in conjunction with the guidelines too determine whether a citation is appropriate. When it comes to writing articles about internet figures such as YouTubers, unless they are very popular, is unlikely reputable, mainstream sources will be reporting on their every action, which is why it is important for wikipedia editors to use their judgement. As Benjamin's YouTube is a main source of information, editors must analyze the details and come to a reasonable conclusion. For instance, lets say hypothetically in a YouTube video, Bald said his birthday was on January 1. Editors would have to determine whether Bald is being serious or sarcastic based on his tone and then use it as info if it seems accurate. In order too present an accurate and neutral view, editors could phrase it as "Bald stated on Video X his birthday is January 1, however other sources haven't confirmed whether this is true...". So YouTube videos can be considered reliable sources under certain circumstances.

Please let me know if you have any other reservations.

Unofficialwikicorrector (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in arguing about how things should be.... either follow the guidelines or don't, but the editors here will revert edits that don't follow the guidelines. Nemov (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User Nemov has indicated that he believes the latest entry mentioning that Ben Rich was acquitted of rape charges "Violates WP:BLPCRIME". This is not applicable as Benjamin Rich is a public figure (see WP:PUBLICFIGURE). "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojanthebeast (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. Bald and Bankrupt is notable for having a YouTube channel, but he's not a public figure. An article from 23 years ago isn't relevant to that channel. It's not even 100% if it's the same person. Even if you argue he's a public figure this would only belong if "an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." It's neither relevant to the channel (the only reason the article exists) and it's far from being well documented. If you have furter questions about this please take it to talk, but you'll need some consensus before getting this added. Nemov (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:PLEASEDISCUSS - "Neither an editor or a group of editors who watch an article and contribute regularly nor the creator of an article own an article and have the right to "approve" or "disapprove" of any edits to the article before they are made. The WP:Be bold editing guideline actually encourages editors to boldly make changes. It doesn't say "Propose your edits on the talk page and seek approval first"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojanthebeast (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please also see Wiki entry on public figure - "A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poojanthebeast (talk • contribs) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Your post violates basic guidelines that have already been discussed on the Bald and Bankrupt talk page. I disagree with your edit. Since we're at an impasse, find support for your change on talk. Further edit warring is a violation of Wiki policies. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)