User talk:LisaTaridis7

.

April 2022
Hello, I'm Tamzin. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NazariyKaminski, 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. Please see WP:DAILYMAIL for more information on why that source is considered unreliable.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source."
 * Dear @Tamzin, I had perfectly sourced the little paragraph I wrote with a dozen reliable sources in two languages adding up to the sources already on there about the same facts. The only two sources you deemed "unreliable" were both from the 126 years-old award-winning Daily Mail with an average daily readership of more than two millions and more than 218 million unique visitors per month on its website. Someone chose to deliberately remove and hide the facts that Ezra Miller had been accused of "stealing a social security card, wallet, passport, driver's license and bank cards" because they deemed the Dailymail unreliable instead of taking a few seconds to cite any of the many other sources, such as NBC News, also reporting said facts. The Daily Mail is far from perfect as ANY news institution but at least, it has the merit to divulgate materials, videos, hidden camera recordings, legal files or court documents mass media hides on hundred of topics every year. Therefore, it is not a surprise to me that Wikipedia's administrators banned it. I would be intrinsically grateful if you could refrain from that kind of lecturing on my page. Warmest regards. LisaTaridis7 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Lisa. First off, my apologies that, in the above warning, I linked to the wrong page. I think I copy-pasted the wrong link from my clipboard. I'm glad you understood that I meant Ezra Miller.As to the matter of the paragraph you added to Miller's article, the simple answer is that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. In fact, it was the first major publication we ever categorically banned from being used as a source. This was not a decision of "Wikipedia's administrators", but rather the result of multiple long, well-advertised conversations attended by dozens if not hundreds of users, most of them not administrators.Furthermore, when it comes to biographies of living people, we hold ourselves to the highest standards regarding sources, especially when discussing allegations of crimes. This amplifies why the Mail is unacceptable here, and also explains why court documents quoted by the Mail are insufficient: we do not attribute controversial claims about living people to primary sources, including court documents.But you're right that other outlets, including NBC News and indeed The New York Times, reported on the allegations that Miller had stolen from the couple. But again, with biographies of living people, we are very cautious. In general, we do not report in detail on "he said/she said" lawsuits, at least not until independent sources have investigated the claims. Otherwise, we run the risk of giving encyclopedia-level emphasis to, well, tabloid fodder. This is about respecting the dignity of those we cover and about our status as an encyclopedia rather than a news source. Unsubstantiated allegations may be newsworthy, but they're rarely of encyclopedic merit. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)