User talk:TimothyImholt
Welcome!
[edit]Hi TimothyImholt! I noticed your contributions to Victor Vescovo and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Electricmemory (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Sources for articles on living people
[edit]Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY; in particular: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."
Do not restore that content to Victor Vescovo without a secondary reliable source. Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're right that the legit.ng source isn't a primary document. However, it is not a reliable source for articles about living people either. Please read the policy about editing articles about living people. Unless reliable sources have covered the incident, it doesn't belong in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- This document agrees with the court documents, so I don't understand why you would reject it as unreliable when those two things agree. That doesn't make sense to me. I'd agree if it existed in a vacuum, but it does not. It agrees with the court docs that are obviously accurate.
- So I am confused here. How can you pull it out with this policy when those two things are in line with one another? TimothyImholt (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should summarize what reliable sources say about a topic or person. We rely on those reliable sources to help establish what is important to cover in an encyclopedia article. If no reliable sources writing about Vescovo have found it significant to mention the common-law marriage lawsuit, then the article shouldn't either. See the "weight" section of the neutral point-of-view policy. (A Nigerian scraper site is not a reliable source.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- The wikipedia page on the news outlet seems to make it sound credible. Perhaps you can help me understand your point because so far it appears like opinion.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legit.ng TimothyImholt (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree that Victor Vescovo's net worth, age, family, what is he doing now? is a reliable source for a BLP. If you'd like to get other editors' input on it, please post at WP:RSN, perhaps consensus there will disagree with me. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles should summarize what reliable sources say about a topic or person. We rely on those reliable sources to help establish what is important to cover in an encyclopedia article. If no reliable sources writing about Vescovo have found it significant to mention the common-law marriage lawsuit, then the article shouldn't either. See the "weight" section of the neutral point-of-view policy. (A Nigerian scraper site is not a reliable source.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.