User talk:Xeyn

Welcome!
Hi Xeyn! I noticed your contributions to F1NN5TER&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Categories and verification
Hey, just so you know, I've removed the OnlyFans creator category at F1NN5TER. It's not that you're wrong, but categories need to be verifiable based on what's in the article's text. And currently F1NN5TER's OnlyFans work isn't mentioned in the article because it hasn't been discussed in independent sources, at least as far as I can tell, and we look to independent sources to determine what parts of someone's life are relevant to include (since, with someone like F1NN5TER, there are mountains of primary-sourced information and we're not best-situated to decide what's relevant). If you know of any sources that do discuss it, feel free to add them to a suitable part of the article, or just let me know and I can take care of it. Thanks! -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh alright. Thanks for the welcome message and letting me know. I didn't find any reliable independent sources that discuss his onlyfans, but it's a major part of his income so I feel like it's important info about him. Isn't his own YT channel reliable source of info about him? If we added it to the article and source was his YT video would that not be considered reliable source? I understand either way, I just wanna make sure. Thanks! Xeyn (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So there's two related concepts when it comes to sources. One is verifiability, which, yes, F1NN5TER's self-sourced stuff is adequate for under these circumstances. Now, there's certain information that any article is expected to cover if known, and that's why it's okay to use F1NN5TER's tweets to verify his place/date of birth and current pronouns. But the other consideration is our neutral point of view policy. While that might sound like it's only about political bias or such, it also covers stuff like which aspects of a person's life we talk about. If you imagine a situation where someone is mostly known for one thing, but also has an OnlyFans, and doesn't want that OnlyFans' existence to be very well-known, the importance of this approach should be more clear. As a tertiary source, we're not really in a position to assess how central F1NN5TER's OnlyFans work is to his life, no more than we would be for that hypothetical side-hustle-r. So we go off of the secondary sources, which currently aren't interested in that aspect of his career (unless you count this brief mention in LA Weekly, but that is such an utterly trashy article that I don't think we can really consider it reliable). I'll bet you that'll change in coming weeks/months/years. But for now, it's not that unusual for Wikipedia to lag a bit behind common-sense appraisal of someone. For instance it took us ages to say that Taika Waititi and Rita Ora were married, even when everyone knew it, because the secondary sources were slow to confirm. Anyways, again, if sources arise, please feel free to add them and/or to let me know. Happy editing! -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the detailed response. I'll keep it in mind in the future and if i see some articles about his OF work I'll either try to make the edit or let you know. Thanks again! Xeyn (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)