User talk:FairyKingCorn

July 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Twelve Forever has been reverted. Your edit here to Twelve Forever was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/AvitalShtap/status/1171778399477620736?s=20) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Aoi. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, 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. The sources you provided are not reliable sources, see WP:RS for an overview of what qualifies. Aoi (青い) (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I did cite them with 2 reliable sources so please revert that back. If I must add more citation I can. FairyKingCorn (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, the sources you added do not meet WP:RS. Specifically, forums are user-generated with no editorial oversight and therefore do not qualify as a reliable source (see WP:RSSELF). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The first citation would be a secondary review source, with screenshots from the primary source within their review article. The second source was the article screenshot. The wayback machine is an archival website that screenshots other websites constantly. The time and location it was set for was the original post from the primary source which is what caused her to have allegations in the first place. FairyKingCorn (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The Lip Stick Alley sources are secondary sources but they are not reliable sources because they are user-generated. Please read the reliable sources content guideline for what qualifies as a secondary source. Per our WP:BLP policy (which I also think would be beneficial if you read), citations to reliable sources are required for contentious material regarding living persons. Forums do not meet this standard. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Essentially every source would be a user-generated source. Twitter itself is user-generated, so I do not fully understand, however you are not saying that the wayback machine is not and so- would it be acceptable to put back the parts citing what the wayback machine has shown as true? I will find proper citing of her Twitter commentary. FairyKingCorn (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The way back machine itself just archives a source. The original source being archived is Tumblr, which is user generated and not a reliable source. In this case, it appears that you're using Tumblr as a primary source, but I don't think that is necessary because there is already a secondary source in the article that discusses the Tumblr post. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * For clarity, user-generated in this context means that anyone can go and register an account and publish content. This means for sources like these (e.g. Twitter, Tumblr, etc.), there is no editorial oversight and the source cannot be considered reliable. This is in contrast to a reliable source like, say, The New York Times or an academic journal, which has editorial oversight. Someone actually fact-checks the stuff being published, so there is less of a chance for inaccuracies. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've realized the wayback machine has the posts lipstick mentioned within it's database, along with other archives. Will that suit? It has no bias commentary, seeing as it is without commentary entirely and it's only purpose is to screenshot the internet much like how Google Earth will take images of the earth at random. FairyKingCorn (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If the source that is archived by the Wayback Machine meets the requirements of WP:RS, then it's OK to use. However, if the source that is archived does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, then the source cannot be used because it would violate Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. I guess my first question is who is making the commentary? If it's a news article from a mainstream news source, then that would be fine. If it's a Twitter post, a forum post, or a random website, then it's not OK because self-published sources are not considered reliable. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It is Twitter and Tumblr posts the subject that the controversy in question is about, has personally stated. I'm not really sure how else a person can cite a pedophilic children's show maker's words, written in a tweet and blogged about in tumblr, if citing Twitter is not at all allowed. But if no one can know she has said so many pedophilic things then that just seems confound. FairyKingCorn (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you have an alternative suggestion? Or is your suggestion to swipe it under the rug because it was written on Twitter? FairyKingCorn (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It can be mentioned, but our BLP policy requires a citation to an independent, reliable source to back it up. Aoi (青い) (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What reliable source could there be, if all the words she has stated have been on Tumblr or Twitter? FairyKingCorn (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I've opened up a discussion about this and my subsequent edit at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, to hopefully get feedback from other editors. I've referenced this discussion in the post; feel free to give input there. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will try to keep up with that discussion. FairyKingCorn (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to add that I was willing and able to replace the citations all with wayback Machine's screenshots of her Twitter and Tumblr posts directly from her? FairyKingCorn (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Also I would like to mention I am not upset with you, if that is your thought. I'm upset with the confusing level of Wikipedia system but I hardly find that to be your fault, you agreed to work for Wikipedia for the same reason I am posting to the page that I am. To get information correct and spread valid knowledge to the public. I could be misunderstanding what you wrote, but either way. FairyKingCorn (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the noticeboard is not protected so you should be able to post whatever you want to the discussion there. Just go to WP:BLPN, go the section at the bottom of the page about Twelve Forever, and hit the edit button, and you should be able to edit that page just as you are able to edit this page.
 * Also, don't worry, when I made a reference to annoying a user, I was referring to some edits to the same page a while back that rubbed another editor the wrong way, I think my tone came off stronger than I intended.
 * I also wanted to say -- I know Wikipedia can be frustrating with all of its policies and content guidelines. There are so many rules that I understand why it's hard for new editors to jump in and start contributing to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for a while and I still don't know everything (which is one of the reasons why I asked for outside opinions). In any case, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue civilly.
 * In addition, I think I misunderstood your intention about screenshots; I thought you were talking about screenshots of the forum. If you're talking about screenshots of Vickerman's social media, note that WP:TWITTER says that self-published sources like Twitter or Tumblr are OK to to use as sources to support certain statements about the social media post's author in certain circumstances. That is, for certain types of edits, you can just add a social media post as a reference (no screenshots required). However, I don't think this circumstance is one of them.
 * Let me try to explain. If you want to include a link to the creator's Tumblr or Twitter, that might be OK depending on what the post is being used to support. For example, it would be fine to use a social media post for non-contentious factual statements (if a creator wrote on Twitter that they're "excited to start working on this new project with Netflix", that Twitter post could likely be used to support the statement, "On [date of post], [name of creator] announced on Twitter that she was working on [name of project] with Netflix"). However, Wikipedia's policies would not allow me to independently analyze or synthesize the Tumblr or Twitter post to reach conclusions that aren't expressly written in the post. For example, if person X writes a post on social media about murdering clowns, I can't use that post to support a statement in an article that says "What person X wrote is evidence that she hates clowns" if the post didn't actually say that they hated clowns (due to Wikipedia's policy prohibiting original research, which says that Wikipedia shouldn't say anything that a reliable source doesn't clearly say).
 * However, if a reliable source (say, the Associated Press or Vanity Fair) comes out with a story that says, "Person X posted a story on social media about murdering clowns. People close to person X have independently confirmed to the AP (or Vanity Fair) that person X hates clowns," then that would be OK to add as a source because a reliable source reported it. This is why it would be much better if there was a reliable, secondary source that discussed the situation independently that we could cite to. As I noted in the BLPN post, I looked for reliable sources about the situation regarding the creator of Twelve Forever that you described in your edit but have not been able to find any sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements. (What counts as a reliable source isn't always straight-forward, but in short, a reliable source for a statement about a person generally should be neutrally written, independent of the subject, and of good quality (e.g., not tabloid journalism). The relevant policy is at WP:Biographies of living persons.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah! This is extremely helpful. I definitely understand now. I could write up a new version using purely quotes from the screenshots. It would indeed have to from the wayback machine as my cite most likely since she deleted the comments after it started to get traction. I'll just make sure with them beforehand anyways.

It's goof to know I haven't upset you at all and we're on good terms and thank you for understanding. You've been a great help. If I get approval I could submit my re-edit to you first if that makes anything easier. FairyKingCorn (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to try and help. However, let me note that the BLP policy discourages the use of primary sources, like an original social media post, to support contentious material (like allegations that someone is a pedophile). While social media sources are acceptable for certain non-contentious material about the author, using social media as a source would most likely not be acceptable in this instance. Likely the only acceptable way the Tumblr post could be referred to is if there was a good secondary source that we could also refer to, and I don't think such a source exists.
 * In short, Wikipedia generally summarizes what reliable sources say. There's another Wikipedia policy, the Neutral Point of View policy, that says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, there are zero reliable sources that posted about this topic. If no reliable sources have posted about this incident, then we cannot discuss it in a Wikipedia article without violating this policy.
 * I saw that there were some responses to the post at WP:BLPN. The users that responded there agree that there aren't any good sources to cite regarding this issue, and that including this material on the Twelve Forever article would be a violation of the BLP policy. Feel free to post more about this topic on that board.
 * Also, I know there's a lot of policies I'm throwing around, so I'm going to leave you a standard welcome message after I publish this post that links to most important Wikipedia policies. If you have any questions about them, you can ask me or at the WP:TEAHOUSE, which is a message board where there are a lot of experienced editors that can help answer questions. I hope this helps. Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh! I only saw this after I'd already posted to Teahouse. Thank you greatly. I am trying to reasonably compile the evidence, however it's definitely difficult because the show itself was never so well-known that a news channel would really cover something like this. The creators current verified Twitter includes her apology of sorts with many commenting on what she'd done, and I have a large compilation of other quotes from her. I am also going to look into a podcast she was a part of in case it has more resource, however, given this happened some time back I doubt a reliable source would cover the topic unless she publicized working for another children's show. FairyKingCorn (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

They told me not to ask there. 😅 FairyKingCorn (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, FairyKingCorn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Twelve Forever. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)