User talk:Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon
Hello, I wanted to let you know that The Daily Mail has been deprecated as a source on Wikipedia per WP:DAILYMAIL. If you want to see whether or not a popular media source is reliable on Wikipedia, please take a look at WP:RSP, which has many sources that have been the subject of repeated discussion about their suitability on Wikipedia. If a source you are looking to use has not been added there, feel free to start a discussion at WP:RSN to ask the community what they think. This is especially important with regards to using sources for content about living people, so I highly recommend you take these paths going forward before adding a source to support a content into article, especially a biography of a living person (BLP) as you did at the above article. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you. Actually I was quite aware of that and know that page quite well and usually (always?) do take theses steps when I deal with BLPs, but the Mail, whose status on WP and in real life I do not ignore -and could not, when editing a page, even if I wanted to (a pop up reminds you it is deprecated)- and that particular article seemed OK to prove Hill had a given role in a given film (see TP). Feel free to remove it if you think it's a problem. In other words, yes, it was for such an uncontroversial detail and the article was presented in such an uncontroversial way to verify an uncontroversial fact, that I decided to ignore all rules. Thank you all the same for taking the time to explain all this so thoroughly and kindly. Cheers. Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I do get where you're coming from about being an uncontroversial fact, but I tend to be very cautious about seeing deprecated sources in articles, especially BLPs. Once again, I appreciate your response, and I will say that the Vanity Fair article is a much better choice for a source here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I see you removed the reference. On the other hand, this edit was not exactly necessary. "this much weight"? For 10 words? There is no possible "dispute" about this. She has an acting career and 10 words seems completely OK. Oblige me by reinstating a few words in the intro mentioning it. Thank you. Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I used the word "dispute" because of Hipal's objections on the talk page. I want to say what that user thinks about this edit, given their issues with her acting career being noted in the introduction (I originally sided with them on the talk page, but given that 162 etc. has offered some high-quality sources, I now believe it does merit a mention in the intro). See WP:BRD for further information about the fact that there needs to be discussion before an edit that is disputed is reinstated. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for yet another kind and thorough reply. Let's wait, then. But I do firmly believe that this too is quite obviously uncontroversial and that having a brief mention in the lead section is pretty standard. Again, thank you. Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
- I used the word "dispute" because of Hipal's objections on the talk page. I want to say what that user thinks about this edit, given their issues with her acting career being noted in the introduction (I originally sided with them on the talk page, but given that 162 etc. has offered some high-quality sources, I now believe it does merit a mention in the intro). See WP:BRD for further information about the fact that there needs to be discussion before an edit that is disputed is reinstated. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Taylor Hill (model).
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
162 etc. (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
[Edited: I had left the following text in an unblock template but it was reverted [see my talk page]; leaving the text here as it is useful for the moment]: I can see no reason why this account should be blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". Please see my talk page and Materialscientist's one, where he states:
there was no obvious abuse on any of them.
(here) I wrote two mails to PhilKnight (one to which he kindly replied) and one to Liz at their own invitation, regarding this issue.- Eva Ux 08:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)