User talk:AboutGirl

Welcome![edit]

Hello, AboutGirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Woody Allen has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello, thank you for welcoming me in Wikipedia. I am curious how come my edits are not considered to be true, but the current state of page is considered valid? Citing Wikipedia:Verifiability: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Current state of article is not neutral and is not presenting both sides, more disturbingly, it is presenting halftruths. It is more relying on third-handed accounts than court ruling. How come is that possible to be called reliable information? I am deeply concerned about this article bit. Please give more thought to the edits I make. Thank you.

AboutGirl (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me this looks like a content dispute which should be discussed on the article's talk page. You already commented there; please give other editors some time to respond. Personally I rather doubt the likes of Vanity Fair should be used to replace The New York Times. Also, Wikipedia should not rely on court documents; see WP:BLPPRIMARY for the relevant guideline. Huon (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the validity of your change, just the reliability of your source, as Huon sates, it's hard to replace a NYT citation in favor of Vanity Fair. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]