User talk:Snoops5454

January 2020
Hello, I'm KylieTastic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Zoe Ball, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. 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. Thank you! KylieTastic (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoe Ball. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. KylieTastic (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I think we should all take the view that not all we read in published papers is necessarily true. So, to your question, in respect to what has been written and what you’re refuting to, was this confirmed by the person(s) concerned? I think not. We need a broader view and one which is not just confined/limited or questioned to the press reports. Sloppy Journalism, shouldn’t be allowed on Wikipedia. I hope you agree and can see my point. I have corrected it thus far to leave it open as it should be. If the information gathered from the papers is used on Wiki as reference and taken as gospel then I presume a large majority of wiki is wrong. You personally do not know the facts in this and many other celebrity lives. I think your assumption and constant attempts to try and correct information constitutes to vandalism as you do not hold facts and relying on sloppy, weak, lazy journalism. These are people’s lives you are playing with and trying to alter. Thank you for trying to understand. What is your concern really in this entry? Regards Snoops. Snoops5454 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia requires sources - yes some sources can be wrong, but they are considered more trustworthy than a unknown person on the internet. A quick google shows many sources covering the story. If it wasn't true I would expect later reports from the parties in question. If you find a good source that contradicts, then you can use that to change, otherwise it's just an unsourced edit contradicting multiple sources and thus taken can be taken as vandalism.
 * Personally I think such dating information is non-encyclopedic trivia, but it appears the consensus is it counts if widely reported. I note that it was actually you that originally added the trivia here happy to use the 'news' sites as references. You then added they had separated (with no source) and removing other sourced information here. Then later changing your mind and removing the separation and sources again here.
 * Find valid reliable sources for your changes or don't change at all. If you have a point to make discuss it on the article talk page. KylieTastic (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)