User talk:FilmFan123

April 2010
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stevie Vallance, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Citations.
Please note, wikilinks are not citations, as you indicated here and here.Please see Citing sources for information on how to cite sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The citations that you've just added to Stevie Vallance are all primary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, particularly for biographies of living persons, as set out in Verifiability, a core policy of Wikipedia. Since most of the information seems reliant on Vallance's own website, the site does rely on one source, so use of the "onesource" field is entirely valid. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stevie Vallance, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. ''As I have indicated above, all of the parameters used in the multiple issues template are valid. Please do not remove the template again without correcting the problems that have been identified.'' AussieLegend (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stevie Vallance, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. IMDB, which is not a reliable source is not being used to support all of the claims in the article, the actors own website is being used to support most of them. AussieLegend (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to reference absolutely everything on the page as you are now doing. That sort of editing is just disruptive and it doesn't resolve the issues that have been identified. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Stevie Vallance. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You've actually made 4 reversions. AussieLegend (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this, so I did not mean to go against any rules. I have tried to add the citations that you requested. All the current information on Stevie Vallance's page is correct with cross references. I'm just trying to be accurate. Thank you.


 * As I indicated above, Wikipedia relies on reliable, secondary sources for citations. This is set out in Verifiability, a core policy of Wikipedia. This is reinforced at Biographies of living persons, which is the guideline we follow for biographies of living persons, such as Stevie Vallance. The citations that you've added from http://www.stevievallance.com are primary sources and are not suitable for verifications of claims made in the article. IMDB is not a reliable source because it can be edited by anyone. It is generally a tertiary source. However, some of the information at IMDB, such as Stevie Vallance's resume has been provided directly by the actor herself, so it is almost a primary source., and therefore unusable for references. You need to find something that isn't from Stevie Vallance's websites or IMDB to confimr the claims that have been challenged in the article.


 * Regarding the Multiple issues template that I added to the article, peppering the article with multiple, identical references does not resolve the issues that were identified as I have been trying to tell you:
 * "This biography of a living person needs additional references or sources for verification" does not mean that adding 38 references from primary and unreliable sources will resolve the problem. it means that the article requires additional citations from reliable, secondary sources. You did not add any of these so the problem remains unresolved.
 * "It relies largely or entirely upon a single source" is not resolved by adding citations from unreliable sources as you did here. Sources must be reliable, secondary sources. None are present in the article so the issue remains unresolved.
 * "It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications." Having read the above, this should now be fairly self-explanatory. IMDB is not reliable and http://www.stevievallance.com is not a third-party publication (or website) so this concern has not been addressed.
 * Despite adding 38 additional citations, none of which were necessary as they were used to reference claims that were not disputed, none of the concerns listed in the template were actually addressed. If anything, the addition of all of these identical references was almost vandalistic in nature. You admit that you are new so please don't ignore advice given to you by editors who are not new. Instead, familiarise yourself with the various policies and guidelines so that you don't make the same mistakes again. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)