Kevin Lyda

May 2021

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ricky Schroder, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I cited a news source about actions he took during a major worldwide event. Explain how that's vandalism. Kevin Lyda (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

And I note that an extended version of my "vandalism" is now on the page. I expect an apology. Kevin Lyda (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll assume good faith and strike the warning. This happened during a period where the page was being vandalised literally every few minutes, and your addition, even though it was sourced, did appear problematic bearing in mind that this is a biography of a living person, where we need to avoid unsourced or poorly sourced claims. Even with a source, what you added is quite different to what is there now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source, so we need to be very careful about rushing to add things, especially to a biography, before all the facts are known. It was certainly not a "major worldwide event". What is there now reflects a neutral point of view and further developments in the story, including Schroder's apology. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The pandemic is a major worldwide event. It has been for 18 months now. And I would be interested years from now to know how public figures behaved during it - I know that early on I researched how people behaved in the 1918 pandemic. His "apology" is a good addition but it had not yet happened when I added what I did. Though if we're all keen on having a neutral point of view, it was barely even a Non-apology_apology. A lot of that going around these days. You clearly have an opinion on this however, so it will need to remain as is lest I be accused of "vandalism" again. Kevin Lyda (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The "event" in question is not the pandemic per se. The event you added was a publicity stunt by the subject of the article, which seems to have spectacularly backfired on him. When the history of the pandemic is written, the fact that Ricky Schroder had an argument with a Costco employee over wearing a mask is unlikely to be mentioned. The fact that he hadn't yet apologised is one of my points. Especially when it comes to additions to a biography of a living person where there is some controversy involved, it is better to wait until as much information as possible is available, including any comments by the subject of the article. As I said, Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It is an encyclopedia that, after the fact, collates information available in reliable sources to give a dispassionate overview of the subject. Rushing to add contentious material, even when sourced, is problematic.

That said, given what you have written here, I accept that you acted in good faith and there was no need to warn you, which is why I have stricken the warning. But I would urge caution in future about rushing to add things, especially controversial things about a living subject - even where a source can be found. From an encyclopaedic perspective, it is always better to wait until things have become clearer and a full, dispassionate account of an event can be written. As WP:The world will not end tomorrow states: "An encyclopedia should not begin to move at lightning speed to keep up with the rat race. Indeed, as a record of history it must necessarily be a few steps behind current events, watching, listening, pondering, arguing, digesting the output of humanity. Even when a subject's notability is not in question, our policies on original research require us to wait for reliable secondary sources to come to full fruition before we even get our boots on. (my emphasis) Lard Almighty (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)