User talk:SajeArbeiter

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Nadya Suleman, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. — raeky  t  19:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. The sources have been exposed on talk and also in edit summary. Good for you and I to help supply them into the article body and it's not to say either that every verifiable statement on the database is notated by its verifiable source but that never does harm.
 * You need to read WP:RS. None of those sources qualify. — raeky  t  19:15, 7 May 2012 (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 Talk:Marvelous Marvin Hagler. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats just trash as you didn't raise such concerns on the other, that is to say the initiating end which set its tone and which you permitted to remain unchallenged and unreplied to as though it were fact, parties of the discussion
 * Do I need to call the waaaaaaahbulance?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. With your trash you already have. What you need to do is if you don't like the tone of discussion you take your concern first, or at least the same time, to the party that initiating who'd been left unchallenged and unresponded to.SajeArbeiter (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman
I have reverted your edits to the Nadya Suleman article once again because the sources you are attempting to add are not at all reliable. Further, I watched the video you supplied as a source (which is dubious at best) and it merely says that Suleman was offered a deal to star in a pornographic film. An offer does not support your claim that she is now a full fledged porn star and should be categorized as such. You were told this on the talk page of the article by myself and another editor. In short, find a real, reliable source that clearly states Suleman is now a porn star and she can be categorized as such. News of "offers" and other such nonsense don't support your position. Lastly, be aware that Suleman is a living person and any potential controversial information needs to be meticulously and reliably sourced - YouTube videos of random talk shows and blogs are not reliable. Thank you.  Pinkadelica ♣  00:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the 'controversy' is your presuming to call BS on the fourth largest circulation newspaper in the US who've directly interviewed her, fully confirming it.SajeArbeiter (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't call "BS" on anything. I told you flat out that the YouTube video you have attempted to add to support the content isn't reliable. The link you presented above is also of marginal reliability as it is basically re-reporting what TMZ (a gossip site) is reporting. Again, gossip sites are not considered reliable sources. Also, the link you keep using (which oddly you're not using a source) still doesn't support your assertion that Suleman has appeared in a pornographic film. It says very plainly that she has only signed on to do a film. Signing on to do a porn and doing a porn are two very different things. You seem to keep missing that detail in your zeal to categorize this woman as porn star. Regardless, you have already been reverted by an admin so if you wish to keep up this crusade, have at it.  Pinkadelica ♣  02:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your addition of the controversial information again as a violation of WP:BLP. The New York Daily News merely reports that it got the porn video information third-hand from TMZ.com. Additionally, signing on to one solo masturbation video&mdash;which has not yet even been shot&mdash;does not make her a pornstar. It definitely does not indicate that her main vocation is that of a pornstar. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)