User talk:Marilyn 8133

March 2014
Your recent editing history at Kim Novak shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Kim Novak. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  14:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Sorry for the revert. Is it because the website sweeps.thirdingredient.com is not considered as a reliable source ? Marilyn 8133 (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, the original source was not reliable, but neither is youtube. First, the youtube interview is considered a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE so it should not be used especially for a biography of a living person, please see WP:BLP. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is considered WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and must be avoided. Second, the youtube source may be a copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO because it may be hosted on youtube without permission. Therefore you have to find a secondary source which mentions the fact, otherwise it has to be removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I understand and I did find another source. Thank you for your help and for giving me a better understanding. Marilyn 8133 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. However there is still a problem. The new reference only mentions that they did not "care for" or "like" each other, not that they necessarily "clashed". So the sentence should change to reflect that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. You are right. I quoted another source and changed the sentence. Let me know what you think. Marilyn 8133 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is much better now and it adheres better to the references. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)