| Revision as of 06:16, 3 March 2024 editSilenuss (talk | contribs)70 edits →Genie (feral child): ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:30, 3 March 2024 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Genie (feral child): addNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :I'm not objecting to ], I think it's a good policy and have no substantive disagreements with it. If you take a look at ] it explicitly states that inclusion is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". As such, having a discussion about this on the talk page seems extremely reasonable; furthermore I think there's an obvious middle ground here that could help make things less contentious overall. | :I'm not objecting to ], I think it's a good policy and have no substantive disagreements with it. If you take a look at ] it explicitly states that inclusion is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". As such, having a discussion about this on the talk page seems extremely reasonable; furthermore I think there's an obvious middle ground here that could help make things less contentious overall. | ||
| :Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for you to unilaterally decide what does and doesn't belong on the talk page. ] (]) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | :Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for you to unilaterally decide what does and doesn't belong on the talk page. ] (]) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's an old discussion, and there is already a very clear consensus to not include the information, so continuing the discussion only encourages people to think they can add the material, which is disruptive. Unilaterally deciding is what many people do here regularly, not just us admin. ] - ] 06:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:30, 3 March 2024
…
Genie (feral child)
This isn't really a subject due to discussion or change. I have reverted you and re-archived the discussion. WP:BLP is very clear that for as long as she is alive, and up to a year afterwards, no real names or other names that tie to her directly will be published. It doesn't improve the understanding of the article to have that info, and it is a breach of her privacy. I've already removed, revdel'ed and blocked people for adding it in the past, as have other admins. No "local consensus" of editors on that talk page is going to change that fact, nor can it, as Misplaced Pages policy is crystal clear that we don't allow that. A consensus on the talk page of that article is meaningless. If you want to change BLP policy, go to the talk page of that policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not objecting to WP:BLP, I think it's a good policy and have no substantive disagreements with it. If you take a look at WP:BLPNAME it explicitly states that inclusion is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". As such, having a discussion about this on the talk page seems extremely reasonable; furthermore I think there's an obvious middle ground here that could help make things less contentious overall.
- Regardless, I don't think it's appropriate for you to unilaterally decide what does and doesn't belong on the talk page. Silenuss (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's an old discussion, and there is already a very clear consensus to not include the information, so continuing the discussion only encourages people to think they can add the material, which is disruptive. Unilaterally deciding is what many people do here regularly, not just us admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)