User talk:73.169.127.110

September 2023
Hello, I'm Bojo1498. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Leigh Anne Tuohy, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! (bojo) (they/them)  (talk)  15:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Leigh Anne Tuohy. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (bojo) (they/them)  (talk)  16:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I cited an article reporting on Leigh Anne Tuchy's own court filing. Not only was she never the guardian of Michael Oher as Wikipedia currently states, her and her husband stated in the filing they never intended to adopt him. Why are you insisting on keeping demonstrably incorrect information here? 73.169.127.110 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits did not include any citations to reliable sources. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines about how we write about living people, and adding content like you did could be considered defamatory if defamatory if not well-sourced. Additionally, it is important that we maintain a neutral point of view. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Leigh Anne Tuchy's old version of the story is being presented as fact and not only is it being seriously contested in a court of law, but her filing admits that she never adopted him and never intended to adopt him. How does the article as written not at least break the Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts rule? 73.169.127.110 (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not currently breaking that rule because no citations have been presented that contest the currently written content. Again, if you can provide a citation to a reliable source there should be no problem with changing the content as long as you also maintain neutrality. Additionally, you keep referencing a court filing, and I want to make sure you've read Wikipedia's policy on using primary sources on BLP articles. Your citations need to include reliable, secondary sources not just the court filing itself. (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  16:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm... okay, that's fair. I'll use a better source (an AP article?) and leave off the "to take advantage of him financially" part, but I'm at least trying to update the information about guardianship over Oher. I'm about to post the edit again, I've read over the policy regarding neutral speech so I think I've got it this time. Thanks for the patience here, I feel a little strongly about this particular story but I regret getting snippy. 73.169.127.110 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate your willingness to take feedback and make improvements. Happy editing! (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  17:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)