Talk:Lindsay Lohan/Archive 8

Why is this Article so Long?
Really...especially the personal life section, and do we need to subsections with lengthy details on individual arrests? Anarchonihilist (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * She, like Britney Spears, and other young celebs, generate a lot of media coverage so the article seems to be a magnet for every detail and citing. It should be cleaned up but it's an overhaul process followed by housekeeping. Banj e  b oi   10:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Blood Alcohol
Under "July 24, 2007 arrest"

"...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 percent - above the California legal limit of 0.08 percent."

I realize this is the wording from the source, but it's mathematically wrong. 0.12 should read as "12%", not "0.12%". The difference is two orders of magnitude, or 100x. If you really had a BAC of 0.12 %, you likely drank a teaspoon of beer.

The line should read as follows, "...her blood alcohol level was tested at between 0.12 and 0.13 (12 to 13%) - above the California legal limit of 0.08 (8%)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidsimmons (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're wrong. The legal limit is 0.08% (that is, eight-hundredths of one percent). Read Blood alcohol content. Someone with a BAC of 12% would probably be dead. Ward3001 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ward3001's right. A human body contains about 5 liters of blood. 12% of 5 liters is .6 liters of alcohol. Beer is about 5% alcohol, so to drink .6 liters of alcohol would require you to drink 12 liters of beer, roughly 6 six-packs. That ignores the fact that your body would have to somehow magically excrete the water in the beer while retaining all the alcohol. Kww (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Try looking to a source such as webmd (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/alcohol-abuse/blood-alcohol); I bet they know a thing or two more than the sources claimed at the bottom of wikipedia's page on the same topic. Are there percent signs in the notation on webmd's site? No, not one.  So why the discrepancy?  Because super-smart American culture has trained folks to say "percent" when talking about BAC, even though it's [usually] inaccurate.  If you don't trust webmd to know a bit about BAC, go ask a doctor or chemist or somebody, I have.
 * Also, I'll address your math. You did your calculation with beer.  Personally, I know several folks who have successfully drunk a lot more beer than that in one sitting.  That notwithstanding, what about folks who drink stronger (100 or 150 proof ) alcoholic beverages?  You're saying they can't drink more than a liter or two before croaking.  Again, there is a significant population who have done that on several occasions and lived to tell about it.  Also, using your numbers: 5L of blood in a human -> 0.02% is 0.0338140227 fluid ounces BUT a 20oz beer with 5% alcohol has one whole fluid ounce (1oz), nearly 30 times the amount that would get you to 0.02%.  I know your body filters some of the alcohol out, but not that good.  Check your math again.Reidsimmons (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're digging yourself in deeper, Reidsimmons. WebMD has no percent signs because they use widely accepted standards that omit the percent sign. This is simple biology. A human body cannot tolerate 12% alcohol. That is medically impossible. And Kww didn't say you can't drink more than one or two liters (i.e., physically impossible to drink that much). He said someone would have to drink more than 12 liters of beer with all the water removed to achieve a BAC of 12%. Let's use a little common sense. Ward3001 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just use per mil (‰)? And even 1% BAC would be 2½ times the normally lethal amount (which is 4‰)84.238.113.244 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Ronson
You wanted a respectable publication to mention the relationship: here you go.

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4343457.ece

Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And nowhere in the article will you find confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. In fact, the only response from either of them is: "Ronson’s response was succinct but deadly: “Are you retarded?”" Ward3001 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LA Times also had a meta-article about them: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/celebrity/la-ca-lindsaylohan20-2008jul20,0,4097826.story Siawase (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, no confirmation from either Lohan or Ronson. There is a lot of reference to "gossip media". So far this is mainly a story on the tabloid stories about Ronson and Lohan. Not exactly the kind of reliable confirmation of information required by WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Neither person in a relationship is required to explicitly talk about it before we can write about it. That would be ludicrous. The most reputable newspaper in the world has stated, as fact, that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship. The Times is not a tabloid, it is a broadsheet newspaper with rigorous fact-checking processes and what it says on almost any topic can be referenced.

You talk much about WP:BLP. Show me where in WP:BLP it states that we are not to mention someone's significant others when we have reliable references to back it up. As the LA Times wrote, "we've reached a moment in which the Lohan-Ronson pairing can simply be reported as a fact because people have, you know, eyes". I will write up a paragraph using these two sources and any other reputable ones I find - it is absolutely acceptable on Wikipedia to add new information as we find it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have added information to personal life section. Also found an article from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/gayrights.celebrity?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

This really isn't a rumour or secret by any stretch of the imagination. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you say is even more nonsense. How else are you going to know if someone is lesbian if they DON'T talk about it, unless they have sex publicly (and don't give me the crap about them kissing in public; Madonna and Britney Spears kissed in public and no one is writing that they have a romantic relationship). Yes I do write a lot about WP:BLP because it is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia (something that I'm sure you would prefer to ignore). It is fundamental not simply because it is the basis for quality writing, not simply because it pertains to the lives of living people; it is fundamental because it affords Wikipedia legal protection against lawsuits for libel. I suspect you have not read it in it's entirety or you would know that (on second thought, maybe you have read it but decided it's not important). You want something directly from WP:BLP. Here it is:
 * Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies.
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
 * Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively.
 * You can write what you wish, but if it stretches the truth (i.e., is not clearly verifiable with a reliable source), it will be reverted. If you choose to edit war about it, you will be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You really are approaching this a very aggressive perspective, aren't you? All I've done is provide reliable, verifiable (and high quality) sources to substantiate the stories of Lindsay's relationship history and you've responded by accusing me of never having read WP:BLP, which I have, many times (more times than you, I bet), the last time being just before I wrote the above post to ensure that it hadn't changed, you have lectured me on the importance of WP:BLP, and threatened to have me blocked in an extremely unpleasant tone. All this and I have never even set foot on this article before. Assume good faith please. Wikipedia is a harsh place without it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put it back at Ward3001's version. The lack of confirmation from either party is an important point, and the "breath of fresh air" crap is completely unnecessary. I've tried a few times to just delete these silly love-life sections from celebrity articles, and can't make that stick, but there really is no reason to have them. Whom she dates and what she does with their genitals is really of no import in an encyclopedia. Even when confirmed, there's very little reason to have them. Unconfirmed, it's just gossip. Kww (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that someone's love-life is categorically unencyclopedic? There's nothing to support this in wikipedia's policies, nor is it something other encyclopedias categorically shy away from. And since you say you can't make your deletions "stick", it's obviously not something that there is consensus agreement about either. Siawase (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that my paragraph takes into account what the sources say, which is that Lohan and Ronson are in a relationship. The sources I have used are reputable, they are national broadsheets that employ fact-checking and aren't in the habit of libellous gossip-mongering. Furthermore, I am making no assumptions about the sexuality of Lohan and Ronson: I neither know, nor care whether either of them is actually lesbian or not. What cannot be denied, however, if one reads the sources (and indeed, checks google news for more similarly upmarket publications) is that these two are in a relationship. Ward's version not only ignores this, but employs weasel words in order to suggest the opposite. WP:BLP is being bandied about a lot, and I agree sensitivity should be taken when writing about the personal lives of celebrities, but there is a difference between sensitivity and censoring. WP:BLP contained no guidance to the effect of "ignore high-quality journalism". There is no violation of WP:BLP to state facts and to supply references with which to verify them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the weasel word is yours: "relationship". I am in a "relationship" with lots of people, but no one uses that word to describe our friendship. There is powerful inneundo in that word. And I have not denied that they are friends, that they have been seen publicy together. I have simply not led everyone to believe that it is more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...ok, if that's the way you choose to interpret that word, we can add the word "romantic" in front of it to make it perfectly clear for you. I have no desire to "lead" people to believe that Lohan and Ronson are in a romantic relationship either, what I want to do is use three national broadsheets to calmly and non-hysterically mention that they are together (romantically). You have to agree, surely, that The Times is a reputable publication which employs fact-checkers, no? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But what are the facts? That Ronson and Lohan have been seen together a lot, in positions and circumstances that make people think that there is a romantic relationship between them. Many gossip columns have stated that there is one. Those are the confirmable facts, and that's what the LA Times story you quote says, and then spends a lot of time discussing the ins and outs of journalism about gay relationships when one or both parties hasn't publicly stated that he is homosexual or bisexual. Not a bit of that is important enough to be in the article, and most of it isn't even relevant to the article. Kww (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, I am not trying to quote any gossip columns or tabloid rags. I am trying to use three (or two, if you don't care for the LA Times) reputable, national broadsheets to state that the two are romantically involved. I am not attempting to insinuate anything that can not be clearly referenced by this articles. I am not trying to state that either of them is gay. I don't really see what wrong with adding a sentence or two about there with such firm sources. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (just putting a little note in the middle of this to say that there is no reason to discount the LA Times. It's one of the most circulated broadsheets in the US, and has won something like the third most pulitzers of any American paper. It's absolutely a WP:RS. Siawase (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not saying that you are quoting tabloid rags. Your reliable sources aren't talking about a confirmed relationship between Ronson and Lohan. They are talking about how the gossip about them is of a flavor that surprises them, because no one is acting shocked about the lesbianism. It would go well in an article titled Gossip tabloid treatment of lesbian relationships throughout history, but they don't cover anything of interest in this article. Kww (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. As I said, the reliable sources are mainly writing about the gossip and taboid sources. And until Lohan or Ronson make a public acknowledgment about anything more than friendship, the reputable sources know better than to say more. Ward3001 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're being very misleading. Of course who a person's partner is is of interest to this article. It doesn't warrant a large space, but then I'm not trying to give it one. Just because the broadsheets are talking about public reaction doesn't mean that they don't accept the relationship is there. The reaction of the world is the angle of interest to the broadsheets, not the relationship itself. And they are very clear that the relationship is real. The very first line of the Times article is, "So, Lindsay Lohan is shacking up with another woman, the DJ sister of Mark Ronson, Sam." Not allegedly, not rumoured to be, is shacking up with another woman. That is a baldly stated fact, a fact that would expose them to a costly libel suit if untrue, and fact which has been vetted by the paper's fact-checkers, and got through. I don't see why we can't use that as our source? We are in the business of sharing facts, after all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's you who is being misleading with more weasel words. Neither Lohan nor Ronson have used the word "partner" (which clearly implies romance) to describe their relationship. You are simply assuming, quite unjustifiably, that they are partners, just as you have assumed that they have a "relationship" in a romantic sense. And Lohan and Ronson have not used the words "shacking up". To my knowledge, the only words they have used publicly are "friends" or "friendship". You may wish for it to be more, and you may prefer to ignore the fact that what Lohan and Ronson say about themselves is critically important to what is written here, but that's not the way it works with biographies of living people. Ward3001 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where in BLP does it state that the subject of the article must confirm each fact before wikipedia can cover it? Siawase (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Whether either person has acknowledged it or not is not the only standard by which a fact can be established. The standard is whether the claim can be verified/substantiated with reference to independant reliable media sources. Which, in this case, it can. Stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship without a source in a Wikipedia article violates policy - stating that Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson are in a relationship and then citing a national broadsheet newspaper with fact-checking policies as the source for that information is responsible editing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the best language to use is, but treating this information neutrally and encyclopedicly with sourcing needs to happen. BLP is not violated when we have reliable sourcing, which we do. In addition to the ones cited above there's these. Frankly the personal life section should be trimmed of much of the voluminous car crash fluff and something about her new romance can easily be added without violating any policies whatsoever. Banj e  b oi   08:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the car accident segment should be shorter. It should be mentioned, but we don't need a blow by blow. Some of it was trimmed off in FortyFootEcho's big deletion spree, but more needs to go. (and some other things probably needs to be restored instead.) Siawase (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will give that section a copyedit. My problem is that I don't really follow Lindsay's life and might chop something critical off. Watch my edits. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, down to a much more sane size. I do think we do need to add stuff about her partying and notorious reputation in the press. Then add information on her relationship history, current relationship with Ronson, and possibly her relationship with her family, because they seem to get on quite well and I think this is probably notable in her circles. :) And then that will be comprehensive enough. What do you think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you did a great job cutting that down! The July 24, 2007 and August 23, 2007 accounts could probably be cut down even further. Your ideas for expansion sounds good. This old version has sourced material, both on relationships and her partying. But some of the sources aren't the best, it'd be better to search people magazine, as they have probably covered most of this. It could probably be cut down a bit, and I don't think there needs to be a "relationships" header. Siawase (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proper Calum best source, and if we're keeping the mention of when Lindsay got together with Wilmer, here's a source for that . People on the feud with Duff ending Here's an account of her partying ways that could be used to support a sentence on that  Siawase (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with impeccable sourcing, why do you think the feud with Duff or dating Wilmer is important enough to mention? Kww (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they have been very widely reported by the media, including by reliable sources, and wikipedia is supposed to represent all significant aspects of a subject that have been published by reliable sources. However, I think the Wilmer source is pretty weak on when they got together and it'd be better to just mention that they were dating in 2004, without specifying the timespan (unless someone finds a better source.) Siawase (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we went by "widely reported by the media" as a standard, I could probably include a few lines about every bar she has ever been spotted in. Her notability is three-fold: 1) an actress; 2) a singer; and 3) a party animal. We tend not to emphasise number 3, because we aren't a gossip column. Even if it was, I don't see the Duff or the Valderama stories as being significant in any of the three lights. Fifty years from now, would anyone consider either of them to be a defining and memorable part of Lohan's life? Kww (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Agree with Kww. This information about spats as a teenager and previous boyfriends needs to be done with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. There's a lot more to this than whether the information can be sourced. We could write endlessly about her life with sourced information, but is it all equally important? These are blips in the life of Lindsay Lohan. And in a few years, these personal matters will be even more trivial. Let's keep things in perspective. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for overwhelming coverage of them, just a sentence or two, which would not be WP:UNDUE. Lindsay and Wilmer has been given almost as much attention as her movies, and a lot of coverage from reliable sources. every bar that she's been spotted in has not   . (and no I'm not using WP:GOOGLE as final proof, but it does give a decent rule of thumb measurement of the scope of the coverage.) If fifty years from now they're completely forgotten, come back and edit them out then. It's like you're trying to WP:CRYSTAL to keep material out. I don't understand why you two are so adamant on this, but seemed not to mind the massive undue weight that was given to the car accidents. Siawase (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, did I say anything about the car accidents? Ward3001 (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not, which was my point. You are very concerned about WP:UNDUE where her love life is concerned, but not when it comes to other aspects of her personal life. Siawase (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please practice your mindreading skills elsewhere. You don't know what I think about her car accidents. I simply pointed out the need to treat her personal life with consideration of WP:WEIGHT. Ward3001 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweet tweet!
OK, everyone out of the pool and no splashing please. Lol! Seriously though we are making progress and everyone agrees that reliable sourcing and adhering to BLP are both important. I think it's reasonable to state something like Lohan's romantic relationship have also been widely covered, for instance with _____, ___ and ______. As of ____ 2008 she has been seen romantically involved with _____. I agree going into unneeded details isn't helpful but either is leaving out Valderama et al if it's been so widely covered that not even mentioning it will stir more drive by drama. Let's continue to clean up and source items and if we report things in a well written manner, I think, a lot of the vandalism will melt away. On another note I've cleared off most of what seems to be resolved talk page items, I'm not sure about the rest. If they are resolved please feel free to either mark them with resolved or even move them to the archives. Banj e b oi   22:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Lohan, so the fellas I left in were because I don't know how long they lasted - I would to venture to say that anyone who was serious, however briefly, needs to be namechecked and referenced, even if nothing else is added. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the basic content as it stands right now is fine, thought it needs more cleanup. Maybe move the entire relationship chunk down to the bottom of the Personal life section, because it feels a bit jumbled and not at all chronological right now, for example the life and style comment on her partying coming after the coverage of the partying. Sources from people.com for her relationships should be in the old version. . Vilmer was her most significant boyfriend, not sure about the others, other than that Riley has undue weight right now. Oh and thanks for archiving the old talk  benji! Siawase (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right, okay, well if you want to rearrange that so there's no undue weight, that would be grand. I'm just wondering if anyone knows where we might be able to get some more images? Flickr's not turning up anything but the article seems a bit sparse. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Lindsaylohanmugshot.jpg ? ;) I gotta leave right now, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Siawase (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did actually add that, although it's a DREADFUL photo... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A few of you apparently have no respect for the concept of consensus on Wikipedia. There has been no consensus reached about stating that Lohan has been "involved" (another term for "romantic relationship") with Ronson. This continues to be a point of significant disagreement, and if a couple of you continue trying to railroad your version of her "relationships" into the article without consensus, this is going to WP:ANI, and if necessary mediation and/or arbitration. Ward3001 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree, we all seem to have a consensus to include this with you alone deleting. Banj e  b oi   01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, look again. And consensus is not determined by voting. Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, looking. And I see me, Benjiboi, and Siawase in favour of including the information, you against, and Kww somewhat ambivalent but concerned about BLP. No, I put that at about, ooh, 75% approval, normally considered the threshold for consensus. Obviously consensus is not determined by voting, except in RfCs which you have convened... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One more time: Consensus is not determined by voting either here or in the RfC below. There is an ongoing RfC to get the opinions of more than four or five editors. This is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia, and if editors continue to edit war this will be addressed at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you desist from throwing around threats about going to ANI? I have been there plenty of times to report edit warring, and all that will happen is lots of people will weigh in about how lame it is to come to ANI over who Lindsay Lohan is dating, someone will protect the article until we come to an agreement on the text, and then it will be unprotected. That's it. Throwing ANI around like some kind of boogeyman simply highlights your own inexperience of it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And would you desist in barking out orders that you expect other editors to jump to. I or any editor can go to ANI as I please, and excuse me but I'm not convinced that you have a crystal ball to tell the rest of us how ANI will respond. And you also don't have a clue how much experience I have with ANI. So please stop the personal attacks, because your attacks on me have reached that level. I will assume that you understand the consequences of personal attacks and that as a regular you don't want to be templated, so I will kindly ask you here to stop making personal attacks. Disagree with me all you want on the issues, but stop making this so personal between you and me. I've tried to ask you to do that repeatedly, but it does not seem to be sinking in. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't sinking in Ward because I'm not attacking you. A personal attack is writing "You are a moron", it is not "you are misrepresenting everything I am saying and Wikipedia policy and I have a right to correct you". You will find no evidence where I have been even been incivil to anyone over this issue, let alone engaging in personal attacks. However, your own comments include, "don't give me the crap about them kissing in public", "it is one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia (something that I'm sure you would prefer to ignore)", "I suspect you have not read [BLP] in it's entirety or you would know that (on second thought, maybe you have read it but decided it's not important)", "If you choose to edit war about it, you will be blocked.", all within approximately twenty minutes of an entirely innocent post. I think it is obvious who has been indulging in threats and personal attacks. And I must say, I find it highly ironic that you have ordered me to "desist in barking out orders" given your own commands (including templates) to other editors to cease edit warring when we weren't, to stop making personal attacks when we weren't, to discuss on the talkpage when we already were, usw.
 * You're right, I have no idea what your experience with ANI is, but to judge from the way you seem to think it will magically solve this dispute immediately and, from other things you have been writing, get people blocked, you seem to have little experience with filing reports there. Please, don't take my word for what will happen, go read it. I'm sure there are many similar cases on the current page where editors have brought editing disputes, the collective adminship has yawned and said "Pft", and one admin has locked down the page until disputes are resolved. And if you want to risk getting sucked into the BLP wheel wars, be my guest. But it won't achieve much. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why it isn't sinking in, but you are making personal attacks. You don't have to call somone a moron to make a personal attack. You have accused me of making statements about you that I have not made (several times on this page). And how is "desist in barking out orders" any worse than "desist in throwing around threats", or any worse than "highlights your own inexperience of it" when you have no idea how much experience I have (and you admitted that above)? Basically you're accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about, or maybe of being a "moron". Or accusing me of thinking that ANI will "magically" solve this dispute when I did not say or even imply that. The composite of all of this is a personal attack. So please, stop talking about me and focus on the issues of the article. I'm willing to put whatever you think I've done to offend you behind me if you will please stop talking about me and instead talk about whether you agree or disagree with my edits about Lohan and Ronson. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk)
 * You don't see the utter irony between incivilly starting your allegations of personal attacks with "I have no idea why it isn't sinking in"? Also, I am discussing the paragraph with the other editors, and we are steadily working towards a compromise - you seem content to leave warnings on other people's pages and claim I'm attacking you. Yes I am saying you don't know what you're talking about as far as ANI goes, but so far as I know this is not a personal attack, it making a statement of what I am observing from your edits, unless you consider inexperience some kind of damning epithet. You may not have said that ANI will magically resolve the dispute, but you certainly implied it when you wrote "if editors continue to edit war this will be addressed at WP:ANI".


 * Now, in the interests of fairness, I did actually look through your contribs to see if you do have any experience of ANI. I noted that you have posted to it four or five times in two years, mostly to report users who were editing in a way you didn't like. The one exception is the ANI report you filed three days ago about Wikimancer, with whom you are disputing the exact same thing as here, but on Talk:Samantha Ronson. I note with interest the conclusion of that case: an admin told you that Wikimancer was not attacking you as you claimed, but was reponding to your points, and that no admin action was necessary. Rather as I predicted above.


 * I couldn't possibly agree or disgree with your edits regarding Lohan and Ronson as you haven't made any, you just keep asserting that we can't put any information in because of your own standards of evidence that no-one else on this page agrees with. So, let's reach a deal where, you will stop aggressively asserting things are in BLP where they are not (and having now seen the problem you're having at Talk:Samantha Ronson I understand why you approached my mild suggestion all guns a-blazing), like we have to remove all facts that haven't been confirmed by the person themselves, and I will cease having to point out you are mistaken. Regardless, I intend to continue productively collaborating in the sections below. Deal? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're trying to negotiate a deal with me by asking me not to defend my positions regarding Wikipedia's policies (i.e., WP:BLP). I'm sorry, but that is one of the most outrageous requests that anyone has ever made to me on Wikipedia. In fact, it's one of the most outrageous things (apart from blatant vandalism) I have ever seen on Wikipedia, period. And you tell me you're not attacking me, but you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. And, PLEASE, a scan through my edit history hardly puts you in a position to judge what I know and do not know about Wikipedia's practices and policies. I could selectively scan your edit history and create all kinds of false allegations about you -- but I will not do that because (1) it is inappropriate behavior and (2) it would be dishonest.
 * I suppose I have no choice but to try to ignore your personal attacks because pointing them out seems to provoke you to do it even more. I may be able to do that up to a point. But I will not abandon Wikipedia policies to appease you. I will move forward with expressing my opinions about the contents of the Lohan page and Wikipedia's policies. It's up to you whether you can focus on my edits or continue to attack me personally. I sincerely hope you will not continue the personal attacks. I truly hate for this to turn into something uglier than it already is. I find this very sad that you have decided to personalize honest differences of opinion about Wikipedia contents by trying to portray me as some sort of maniac who has no knowledge of Wikipedia. But I am entitled to express my opinions about the Lohan page and my opinions about Wikipedia policy, and I will continue to do so. I hope you can accept that. Ward3001 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh, making distinctions between your own position and that of BLP. I shall consider that progress. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)