Talk:Steve Ressel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

website now defunct[edit]

TheLostComic.com redirects to a spam site with porn ads.2600:8805:810A:C700:C1B8:946F:F94E:470A (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grooming allegations[edit]

I note the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Ressel&oldid=1152504918 has been reverted. I would agree with the reverting editor that this needs to be widely reported by reliable sources before inclusion in any form. We can then discuss how it should be represented in the article. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit of the section and I presented the following justification that can also be viewed on the page history: I want to note that all the information included on the section is factual; it's not alleging that Strucci's acusations are real, it's just reporting on them existing. Also despite not being widely reported on by traditional media, Ressel dosen't seem prone to be so; and Strucci's claims, being a person of modest notoriety online, should be noteworthy enough.
The section was previously removed by an anonymous user with a justification that can still be read in the page history.
The anonymous user is, as for their own admission in their justification, coming from a biased point trying to protect "Ressel's legacy". Their second point is that this information apparently is not relevant enough to justify it's own section despite the fact that this is one of the major pieces of information of any kind relating in any way to Ressel that has surface in the last years; and also, that many other articles regarding people have sections concerning any kind of alleagations of misbehavior.
I want to make it clear that this anonymous user is obviously a bad faith actor trying to undermine the right of a marginalized individual to share their side of the story on a personnal relationship, because of an individual bias; as it is very common now on day. If I see this section being removed without an admissable justifiaction again I will just reverted it back as I have just done so. Marco Livelli David (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]