Talk:Rachel Reilly

Record set

The record she set is not pointless trivia. It is a feat she accomplished that 12 other winners and runner-ups weren't able to accomplish. It should remain. Bastian (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The record itself is fine, but the "she's considered one of the best players" part really has no place. It's a matter of opinion, wikipedia is about the facts.(Kyleofark (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

This article's factual accuracy is disputed

• This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
• This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
• This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
• More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• • • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

• • • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

Let's all just discuss.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, let's all discuss this. First, I have removed your ridiculous tag bombing. Either tag the article with a template at the top of the article indicating the issue or problem or use inline tags for sources for possibly contentious material - not both. The key word in that phrase is contentious material, not obvious facts like the subject is a reality show contest. They subject was clearly on a reality show because sources talk about her being on a reality show. We do not cite every single sentence or very obvious and non-contentious material per WP:FACT. Also, you're adding the fact tag pretty willy nilly. So much so that you seemingly aren't even checking the reference following the sentence because you tagged sentences that clearly have a valid source. In fact, you even placed a fact tag before a reference! That is unacceptable and bordering on disruptive. If you have an issue with the source, use the appropriate inline tag for whatever issue that may be but don't tag a sentence claiming it needs a source when it clearly has one.

Second, you have provided no proof whatsoever that this article has been edited by the subject or someone close to the subject which would indicate a conflict of interest. Go back in the article of the history and please show us all the diffs where an IP or named account is adding content to this page transforming it into some fan puffery or else drop that accusation. If you do not have that proof, do not tag the article with the issue. Same goes with your claim that this article is not neutral. It is incumbent upon you to inform other editors on this talk page as to what content you find to be non-neutral. No one here can read your mind. I went through the article myself and nothing jumps out as being the opinion of someone. Ironically, the only non-neutral content that was added to the article was done by you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid or gossip site where people are shamed for minor personal issues or every argument between a couple is documented. I don't care what deep quote you copy/paste from another editor in an effort to prove your point (whatever that may be), you first need to understand what content is included in an encyclopaedia and you certainly need to understand what the hell "neutral" means. Thus far you've demonstrated that you don't understand either concept.

Lastly, from the vantage point of other editors, it seems like you do not have a firm grasp on how Wikipedia works, its core policies or the level of competence one has to have to edit here. If you cannot remain neutral about a subject because you're so chalked full of obsessive hatred for it/him/her, you shouldn't be editing an article pertaining to the subject. Full stop. End of. There are millions of articles here, find one that doesn't get your dander up. If you don't know what a reliable source is, you should not be vetting sources (which you're clearly not doing anyway ). If you don't understand or grasp the fact that even the most "high quality Wikipedia articles" aren't sourced within an inch of their life because obvious facts do not need to be cited, you should not be adding {{fact}} tags to any article.

A bit of advice - I suggest you hold off on tagging articles because your history clearly shows a tendency to slap incorrect tags on articles (with incorrect dates no less!) which indicates you don't understand how tags work or when they should be placed on an article. I also suggest you stop editing this particular article because it appears you have an odd, vengeful agenda against the subject. I can only surmise that you're making a huge mess of this article in a vain effort to defame the subject or get it deleted. Let me make this clear: That will not happen. Someone will always be around to remove the crap and an article will not get deleted unless it fails notability standards. If you continue on the road you're on, I think it's highly likely that the choice to edit here at all will be made for you and I doubt you'll be pleased with it. 199.15.104.149 (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you know not of what you speak. Quoting from your ip disguised post you said,

"It is incumbent upon you to inform other editors on this talk page as to what content you find to be non-neutral."

Maybe you missed the part about all of those issues being addressed on the talk page on 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)"

I will repost that part here since I guess you could not find it.(assuming you are acting in good faith)

"==This article's factual accuracy is disputed==

• This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
• This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
• This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
• More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• • • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

• • • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

Let's all just discuss.

ciao!!!"

User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ignored that, made no attempt to discuss anything and then summarily came and filed prematurely an "ani"

And you, IP poster, said " No one here can read your mind."

You don't need to, because I outlined my concerns about the article on the talk page inviting other editors to comment so we could try to come to a consensus.

But noooooooooo. No one commented, no one else discussed the article there after my post, and then some 3 - 4 days LATER posts a ridiculous bizarre tale on the ani board?

Well the ani is ongoing, and has not yet been resolved. So then you, the ip poster stops in and acting like, judge, jury and executioner. And you the ip poster are attempting to be intimidating and egregious toward me? And furthermore you went to the article and took it upon yourself to pull tags and whatever else you did there before any consensus was reached or even the ani being completed with some sort of disposition?

Who are you, JIMBO?

I am picking up the faint stink of sock puppetry in the area...

And please do have the most wonderful of an evening!!!

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I Jimbo? No. I'm a woman. Jimbo is not (far as I know) and I doubt he would get involved in such an interesting and riveting dispute. The above 199... is my IP address. It geolocates to Texas where I live. I have an account in good standing, as you can see. I also have a clean block log but do feel free to peruse it and copy/past any interesting stuff you may find. Anything else you'd like to know? Am I socking? Nope. I did forget to log in which is why I posted as an IP user but it wasn't an attempt to hide (hide from whom exactly?). Forgetting stuff happens in your autumn years. All that said, I saw this dispute on the ANI board and came here to see what ridiculousness I could see. I wasn't let down. To the matter at hand, I have no idea whatsoever what you're attempting to say or how you're attempting to justify your actions but rest assured, I'm not acting as anything except a Wikipedia editor who knows policy. You haven't explained why you're tagging sentences with fact tags that are sourced. You also haven't explained what proof you have that supports your assertion that someone connected with the subject is editing this article to promote her. Please provide these explanations so we can get started reaching a consensus. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

consensus

Can we not have a discussion, and at least even attempt to come to a consensus regarding the issues stated above by me referring to this article? There certainly has been no consensus reached, so j=just editing or changing the article anyway you see fit is inappropriate at this time. Appropriate tags re-instated until some sort of consensus is reached-thank you.

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you don't get to vandalize,deface, deform, or remove well-sourced content from BLPs on whim, and insist that your edits are supportted by consensus. Your vendetta against these two minor reality tv figures is not going to be furthered on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Again you are mistating what has happened here. I did not vandalize, deface, deform, or remove any well-sourced content from anything. I have however been the victim of multiple personal attacks by you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You only stopped the personal attacks against me after you were reported. So, you don't GET to continue to personally attack me anymore without any consequences. Are you actually interested in discussing these issues here while being civil and without any personal attacks?

I really hope your day has been quite pleasant!

ciao!!!

Not really seeing what the big hubbub is here. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we can use primary sources in limited situations, and I think the subject saying "this is my date-of-birth" is permitted under those criteria. The rest of the claims of problems ("article edited by the subject", "factual accuracy is disputed", etc...) appear to be claims being made without collaborating proof. Proof should be provided promptly, or such claims will be stricken from the conversation. Tarc (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel Reilly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120130174330/http://cbspressexpress.com:80/cbs-entertainment/shows/the-amazing-race/video?watch=4nbz2gvt8q to http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/the-amazing-race/video?watch=4nbz2gvt8q

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Family2016 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)