User talk:125mph

Regarding your edits to Vanessa Gleason
I'm sorry, but you have it backwards. Please look at No original research, an official policy of the Wikipedia. The no original research policy in a nutshell is :: '''Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published &mdash; arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements &mdash; that serves to advance a position.'''

As an editor of the Wikipedia encyclopedia, the burden of proof is essentially on you. Assuming that you actually have personal knowledge about Vanessa (which is difficult to verify), and that you actually did go to high school with her, and you have absolute personal knowledge of your claim (again, difficult to verify) -- you STILL can't put that data in, because that would be personal knowledge (in other words, original research). This is an encyclopedia, and the rules are tighter than a blog page, for example. If you have a published reliable and verifiable reference that you can use, then put a summary or a paraphrase of the reference in the article, with a proper citation. Note that even in that case, it may still run into limitations described in the Biographies of living persons policy about what is allowed to go into the biography of a living person.

To sum it up :: Unless you have written, verifiable proof of your claim, it's going to get removed. -- ArglebargleIV 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArglebargleIV (talk • contribs)

First, my comment above was already signed, a unsigned marker was not necessary. BTW, to sign your comments on talk pages, use  -- ~  at the end, which will timestamp and sign it.

Second, removing the natural breasts comment is perfectly okay -- whoever put that in should have documented it somehow. Thank you for removing it. About the breast size, I'm assuming that it was documented somewhere (perhaps in the Playboy article?). I'd research it, but since I don't read Playboy, I really can't do that. -- ArglebargleIV 18:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)