Pyxis Solitary (talk | contribs) |
→October 2020: reply |
||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
:::{{ping|Pyxis Solitary}} I would be more worried about restoring disputed personal information to a BLP that is referenced solely to two extremely subpar sources.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|Pyxis Solitary}} I would be more worried about restoring disputed personal information to a BLP that is referenced solely to two extremely subpar sources.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::The information is supported by the sources. ''[[Hello! (magazine)|Hello! ]]''magazine is a legitimate, reliable source. <br /> "3. She came out publicly last year, thanking her TV producer partner, Alex Lalonde, while accepting the Fan Choice Award at the CSAs." - https://ca.hellomagazine.com/film/02014102810886/10-facts-about-lost-girl-star-zoie-palmer . [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
::::The information is supported by the sources. ''[[Hello! (magazine)|Hello! ]]''magazine is a legitimate, reliable source. <br /> "3. She came out publicly last year, thanking her TV producer partner, Alex Lalonde, while accepting the Fan Choice Award at the CSAs." - https://ca.hellomagazine.com/film/02014102810886/10-facts-about-lost-girl-star-zoie-palmer . [[User:Pyxis Solitary|<span style="background-color: #eadff5; color: #6e02db;">'''Pyxis Solitary'''</span>]] [[User talk:Pyxis Solitary| <span style="color:#FF007C;">(yak)</span>]]. ''L not Q''. 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::Inclusion of sexual orientation in a BLP requires explicit self-identification by the subject, especially if disputed as it is in this case. A throw-away line in a "10 facts about..." or "what you don't know about..."-type articles doesn't cut it. This could probably be reviewed further at [[WP:BLPN]]. -- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">Jezebel's '''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 22:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:12, 28 October 2020
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Jimbo_Peeking.gif)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Click to leave a message
Thanks for reviewing the article JioNews Help Needed
Hi Snowycats, I read your feedback related to my JioNews article. The last edit was made from a neutral point of view. According to me, the references which I have added to the article are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article, I would request you to highlight the content or the references which are creating obstacles for getting my article approved. Rohit TrivediWP (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Baked Alaska
The user CozyandDozy made an unsourced edit in which he claims an individual is a "neo-nazi" with no substantiate source. Looking at his history of edits in Wikipedia it appears his primary purpose is defame people. The edit i made was consistent with the sources of the article and will be reverting it. Druaga18 (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- Druaga18, Thanks for clarifying! :) "no reason given for the undo" lacked detail so I was hoping you could further justify. Snowycats (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey. I saw your message about the 2020 Pittsburgh Steelers season about the removal of edits for no apparent reason. Sorry about that, I edited that on my phone and didn't look like it went through, so I tried doing it again, and I didn't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.24.182 (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Response to issues
Thank you for your commitment to upholding Wikipedia norms. Very much appreciate your scrupulous behavior and fair and reasonable attitude. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Dwayne Fields.
Hi Snowycats. Thank you for your comments. What do you mean with the statement above? And by merging, do you mean uploading information on the website? When writing, I read through a number of explorer's pages and followed the same format to write this. Plus, Dwayne has been under fire for a comment he made regarding the black rural UK, which is why I decided to write this page as I believe it could help me learn a few things. Please advice.
Thanks. Elishama Elishama Kaunda (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Elishama Kaunda, You can merge your content into that of the one that already exists. Snowycats (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
article moved to Draft:Voice to Service Request
Sir, ThankYou. Thanks for moving the article (VtSR, Voice to Service Request) to the correct location.
I'm just a layman when it comes to navigating in this Wiki World. Hope to understand it in time to come.
Two requests : 1. How to ensure that the concept I proposed is not a duplicate on Wikipedia ? 2. Would you suggest any videos to understand the process of creating a page in Wikipedia ?
Thanks again, Abhijit Rao
AR7777777 (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- We don't predict the future on wikipedia or share our original research thoughts. Snowycats (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for Color Denied Submission
Hi!
I just wanted to ask how I can improve the submission for my page Waiting for Color before I re-submit it. You said in your notes that I need to use footnotes to reference the information, which I've done. Any advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisatel88 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pisatel88, The sources that you have cited do not confirm the details of the longer form sentences that you have written. I'd suggest double-checking your sources and ensuring you are not drawing opinion/additional analysis in. Snowycats (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Draft: George Sully
Thank you for reviewing Draft:George Sully. I have read your decline reason and WP:MINREF, but I am still confused about what has not been cited properly. Can I have more specific information on what is missing in the draft? Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Z1720, Read the red box at the top of the page. It has details on what our inline requirements are. I suggest you utilize more of those. Snowycats (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Snowycats. Thank you for responding, but I do not find the comment helpful. Yes, I know what inline citations are; that is why I had inline citations at the end of every paragraph (except the lede, see below) and at the end of almost every sentence. However, an inline citation is not required at the end of every sentence as stated in WP:CITEDENSE. Instead, all the information before a <ref> tag is covered under the source in the <ref> tag. If you feel that a sentence contains a controversial statement and needed its own citation, I invite you to specifically quote the sentence from my draft in your feedback.
- I chose to not include citations in the lede as the information is included in greater detail in the rest of the article. Although not specifically banned, I did not assume any information in the lede was controversial so did not feel the need to cite the lede as talked about in MOS:LEDE. Again, if there was a specific sentence or fact that should have an inline citation, then I invite editors to specifically quote it in their feedback.
- I felt the feedback you provided was condescending towards me and unhelpful. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is difficult to collaborate if there is not clear, specific feedback from other editors on what needs to change. What I was looking for was a specific example from the draft that needed an inline citation, but the response asked me to "read the red box" (which assumes that I have not read the red box and does not WP:AGF) and to "utilize more of those" without describing where or in what context. My advice, and you can take it or leave it, is to slow down your AFC reviewing and take the time to engage editors asking for feedback and give specific advice using quotes and examples from their article. Afterall, there is WP:NORUSH and we can all afford to slow down to create the best project possible. I think WP:FAC is a great place to find examples of clear, specific feedback.
- For what it's worth, I have added in more inline citations and your request and fixed up an area that was grammatically incorrect. I will be reposting my draft shortly. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and reviewing my article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Z1720, I'm sorry you feel that way, as that was not my intention. Our BLP standards are strict, and I intend to uphold those in my review process of any article that I come across. WP:AGF would be an extreme statement, as I do assume good faith of any user that asks further questions about their draft submission. The way I see it is that if you understand our expectations but don't make improvements, I can not know what you understand. If you take a look, most AfC drafts do not receive detailed feedback. I appreciate your time and efforts to make Wikipedia a better place.
- Best, Snowycats (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for reading and responding to my comment, and I am sorry if I upset you. I have left feedback for people on FAC, responded to feedback to get my first article to GA this month, and responded to several AfDs (in fact, my interest in George Sully started as an AfD discussion about a different article, but that's a whole other story). I understand that the red box contains a short amount of information. However, that info confused me and I needed more clarification, hence this talk thread. When I asked for additional feedback, I was expecting the same quality that I had seen on WP:FAC and WP:GAN, and maybe my expectations were too high. When I read your response for clarification, I was taken aback by how general it was. When I read other responses on this talk page about other drafts, I was concerned by how short the replies were. It sucks getting stuff rejected and I have rejected things all the time and gotten harsh responses like this. However, I try to give constructive, specific feedback whenever I can. I want improve and follow #4 of WP:HERE, and I want to make sure I understand WP:BLP. However, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong with short, generalised feedback.
- For what it's worth, I have added in more inline citations and your request and fixed up an area that was grammatically incorrect. I will be reposting my draft shortly. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and reviewing my article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you will take this conversation to heart and continue to showcase that you are WP:HERE by quoting from the draft and commenting to help readers understand how to improve. And if that's not the way things are done at AfC? Well, I would ignore all rules and do it anyways. I'm going to re-read WP:BLP this week to make sure I am following this (very strict) policy in my future submissions. Thanks for your feedback today and let me know if you have any questions or responses. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Z1720, You did not upset me, I get it! I appreciate your insight, as well. :D
- I will be sure to make sure that I leave detailed feedback in the future for you, especially as you have made an effort to communicate in-depth with me.
- Feedback is generally shorter on AfC as the pre-determined feedback, especially for the first decline, can help an editor get back on track for a re-submit. I totally understand how that can be frustrating as an editor that wants to improve their article.
- If you ever want to chat more, you can find me here or on IRC - I'm in almost every major Wikipedia channel on there.
- Best, Snowycats (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Z1720, P.S. You have good news awaiting :) Snowycats (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I hope you will take this conversation to heart and continue to showcase that you are WP:HERE by quoting from the draft and commenting to help readers understand how to improve. And if that's not the way things are done at AfC? Well, I would ignore all rules and do it anyways. I'm going to re-read WP:BLP this week to make sure I am following this (very strict) policy in my future submissions. Thanks for your feedback today and let me know if you have any questions or responses. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Request on 15:14:21, 27 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kvng
Can you give me some specific suggestions as to what needs to be improved for this draft to be accepted? I am familiar with the linked articles in the decline message but I am unable to map this advice to problems in the draft.
~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng, While your article may be notable, it is essential to maintain a neutral tone as much as possible. I suggest reading the red box at the top of the page for more insight into rewarding. Snowycats (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Snowycats, as I said, I am familiar with the linked articles in the decline message (red box). Can you tell me specifically what set off your WP:NPOV detector with this one? Do you think this would be deleted if I moved it to mainspace myself? ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng, Comments in the early life and education section are fluffy and uncited... making me conclude that there could be a COI, but I left it at fluffy NPOV. The career section reads like a resume. Why is every role important if the articles don't exist? What makes them notable? If you want me to be picky: "over 450 pages..." is a bit bold. Snowycats (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Snowycats, "published over 450 papers and generated 26 patents" may sound like WP:PEACOCK but it is also a statement of notability describing why the subject meets WP:NPROF. We ask authors to explain early on why the subject is notable. Reviewers and readers want to know. Can you suggest a more WP:NPOV of presenting these impactful accomplishments?
- I have deleted the "Early life..." section. Keep in mind that inexperienced and COI authors are often incapable of fixing WP:NPOV issues to the satisfaction of some reviewers. Please consider taking a crude crack at it or accepting drafts with flaws so they can be improved in mainspace.
- You did not answer my question about prospects for deletion here. I see this as unlikely and so intend to resubmit and accept the draft. ~Kvng (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng, Comments in the early life and education section are fluffy and uncited... making me conclude that there could be a COI, but I left it at fluffy NPOV. The career section reads like a resume. Why is every role important if the articles don't exist? What makes them notable? If you want me to be picky: "over 450 pages..." is a bit bold. Snowycats (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Snowycats, as I said, I am familiar with the linked articles in the decline message (red box). Can you tell me specifically what set off your WP:NPOV detector with this one? Do you think this would be deleted if I moved it to mainspace myself? ~Kvng (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Declining Kashif Shaikh
Dear Snowycats, thank you for reviewing the article of Kashif Shaikh , can you tell me which sources are not reliable so that i can change them?
regards Saher AlSous (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Saher AlSous, I believe I was able to address your issue earlier in help chat. Please let me know if there's anything else you need. Snowycats (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Not amused
I noticed that you have reverted a total of eight (8) edits of mine, on multiple pages, over the past couple of days. You offered no explanation for any of your reverts. Then I noticed that you reported me to a noticeboard without letting me know and without even telling me that you found my edits objectionable. All of this is ridiculous and unacceptable. Stop WP:HOUNDING me, provide a reason if you are going to revert one of my edits, tell me if you have a problem with my edits, and have the courage and the basic decency to inform me if you report me for any reason. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- We don't remove content or add it without proper sourcing and explanation. Reverting vandalism and similar behavior is not hounding.
- Cheers, Snowycats (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- I did not engage in vandalism or anything close to it. The only person removing content without proper explanation is you. 24.29.56.240 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Request on 04:13:27, 28 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rohagr
Hi there! Thanks so much for reviewing my submission. I would really appreciate if you would just take a minute or two to let me know what you think needs changing so that I can amend the page in accordance to Wikipedia’s policies. I understand that this was denied because it read like an advertisement, which was not my intention, so I was just wondering whether you could perhaps give me some pointers about specific parts in the page that could be altered.
Thank you so much! Rohagr (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Rohagr
Rohagr (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Rohagr, It reads like a resume. I'd trim it up a bit and pick the best selections that make him noteworthy. :) See: WP:NOTRESUME for more. Snowycats (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for responding! I really appreciate it. I’ll fix that up, and hopefully it gets approved!! Rohagr (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I have been editing and submitting a page named "Prashant P" and you rejected it on the basis of notability. I read the notability guidelines for sports personality as mentioned in WP:SPORTCRIT WP:SPORTBASIC and it says that a person must have participated in a major tournament. This person has participated in the Asian Youth Championship and also the country's professional Volleyball League. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volleyball enthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Newsletter #130
Wikipedia: “… A heuristic technique, or a heuristic (/hjʊəˈrɪstɪk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, heurískō, 'I find, discover'), is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision….”
Is the STIC inventor using heuristic techniques on the edge of having discovered a method to cause a “Viscious Friction” model that has eluded science since Newton (1642-1727) through this current date of 2020. Often times discoveries and inventions arrive when an inventor finds a combination of solutions that results in a process and explanation that fits the description of a previously unknown problem. The STIC inventor without having known of the book describing, “Mathematical Models of Viscous Friction,” until 2020, the inventor in his website uses the following terminology: “The Revolutionary leap forward in fuel metering technology accelerates air/fuel into Ultra-Vapor through hyper-fast vortices, leading to more complete combustion…” The webpage and its contents were conceived during 2012 before the 2019 patent issued. Notice the inventor uses a picture of a tornado in his webpage description. Uncanny, as the Wikipedia description of Viscious Friction uses words like “vortices, and tornadic forces;” that the inventor had no previous knowledge of. Read the excerpts from Wikipedia: “…. In the absence of external forces, viscous friction within the fluid tends to organize the flow into a collection of irrotational vortices (tornadic rotations), possibly superimposed to larger-scale flows, including larger-scale vortices…..etc.”
The term “Vicious Friction” is a real term, and it is described in Wikipedia as well as a book title “Mathematical Models of Viscous Friction” published 2010 and 2015. Here are excerpts (Quotes) from this book, “Mathematical Models of Viscous Friction:” Introduction, page vii. “…The search of models of viscous friction is incredibly old. For instance, Newton himself tried to determine the optimal shape of a body to minimize the resistance of the medium. This book is not a review on this topic, too wide to be investigated here, we focus on some specific features of the problem, with the hope of stimulating the interest of other researchers in this subject….” “… To be more specific, let us consider the simple case of a body with a fixed shape that moves along the x1 -axis, subject to an external horizontal force of intensity (E) and emersed in a homogenous medium. At a heuristic level, the macroscopic evolution equation reads, X (t) = — G (X (t)) + E (X (t)) …. etc.” “… Of course, it would be nice to establish sufficient conditions for this class of models, but at the moment, it seems extremely challenging and it remain an open problem….”
Wikipedia defines Viscous friction: “…. In the absence of external forces, viscous friction within the fluid tends to organize the flow into a collection of irrotational vortices (tornadic rotations), possibly superimposed to larger-scale flows, including larger-scale vortices. Once formed, vortices can move, stretch, twist, and interact in complex ways. A moving vortex carries with it some angular and linear momentum, energy, and mass….”
Although this would be hard to achieve; the STIC process does this very thing in the absence of external forces. I have researched this over the years and believe I have developed methods to increase the kinetic energy within a closed system much like the description within the term “viscous friction.” see Wikipedia. Wikipedia: “…. In physics and engineering, fluid dynamics is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that describes the flow of fluids—liquids and gases. It has several subdisciplines, including aerodynamics (the study of air and other gases in motion) and hydrodynamics (the study of liquids in motion). Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and modelling fission weapon detonation. Fluid dynamics offers a systematic structure—which underlies these practical disciplines —that embraces empirical and semi-empirical laws derived from flow measurement and used to solve practical problems. The solution to a fluid dynamics problem typically involves the calculation of various properties of the fluid, such as flow velocity, pressure, density, and temperature, as functions of space and time. Before the twentieth century, hydrodynamics was synonymous with fluid dynamics. This is still reflected in names of some fluid dynamics topics, like magnetohydrodynamics and hydrodynamic stability, both of which can also be applied to gases….” — Preceding unsigned comment added by STIC Fuel Systems (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources Inquiry
Hi Snowycats, thank you for taking the time to review my article and leave behind such helpful feedback. However, I am a little confused as to what you mean when you say that my sources are not reliable. I used government and news articles. Is there any that seems to be particularly untrustworthy? If you were able to highlight these for me, I would greatly appreciate it and act on it. You can find the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hector_Carlos_Lora. Thank you in advance for your help. LMPAJ (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Declining Draft:Maria Svarbova
Hello dear colleague Snowycats,
Thank you very much for quick feedback for the Draft article. I'm quite new on English Wikipedia, but I've already published some articles on Slovak Wiki, so I'd be happy for any hint on English Wiki, which is much more strict.
So I've already fixed exhibitions part as Blablubbs suggested – it was much heavier, but I cut down it to the top 3-5 most notables each year. What is the ideal number for Wikipedia? Because I see this feedback also from you.
And what are the next steps how to change it to the more encyclopedic way? I've already rewritten it 2 times, so I'd welcome an advice or some example from more experienced editors. I don't want to break any Wiki rule, but there may be also a problem with my level of English.
Do you think I should ask for help in LiveChat?
Thank you for your time, I really appreciate that.
Jakub JakubTomis (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoie Palmer. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- Edits: You deleted infobox fields 1 and Personal life content that was sourced 2. Your summary "removing unsourced content due to media bias and assumption" is a both false and biased POV.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Pyxis Solitary, Hi. I appreciate your warning. However, this edit was done after verifying Zoie's identity in the -help IRC chat and looking at the sources. The "sources" were making an inference that she was coming out by thanking her partner.
- She is no longer with said partner and did not come out. If you look at the source, it only says that she thanked her partner - there was no mention of coming out.
- I will be restoring my edits. If you feel strongly against that, even though the information is drawn from inaccurate inferences, feel free to revert again.
- Best, Snowycats (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Warning: do not engage in an edit war. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Pyxis Solitary: I would be more worried about restoring disputed personal information to a BLP that is referenced solely to two extremely subpar sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The information is supported by the sources. Hello! magazine is a legitimate, reliable source.
"3. She came out publicly last year, thanking her TV producer partner, Alex Lalonde, while accepting the Fan Choice Award at the CSAs." - https://ca.hellomagazine.com/film/02014102810886/10-facts-about-lost-girl-star-zoie-palmer . Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 22:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)- Inclusion of sexual orientation in a BLP requires explicit self-identification by the subject, especially if disputed as it is in this case. A throw-away line in a "10 facts about..." or "what you don't know about..."-type articles doesn't cut it. This could probably be reviewed further at WP:BLPN. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- The information is supported by the sources. Hello! magazine is a legitimate, reliable source.
- @Pyxis Solitary: I would be more worried about restoring disputed personal information to a BLP that is referenced solely to two extremely subpar sources.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- Warning: do not engage in an edit war. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)