Twiddlebug

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Little People, Big World, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Denniss (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp}} Your question / request.

Why am I being threatend with banning when I posted something that was true, complete with citation? It is the Little People Big World page. I have seen Jeremy Roloff's MySpace page and the National Enquirer article. It isn't vandalism if it's true. That makes Wikipedia a joke if people are banned for posting true things. I'm a librarian and I'm now seriously rethinking using Wikipedia for anything more than a joke resource if this is how it works. Are Deniss and Erik official people who have the right to threaten me with banning? How do I tell if a post is from someone official? Is Wikipedia just about posting PR for TV shows?

Hi there. This question doesn't really need an admin. I'll take a look at your contributions, and answer in a few minutes.  Chzz  ►  01:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to answer your questions;

The text you added should have been removed because the references aren't reliable sources. Verifiability is extremely important, especially with contentious information.

However, I do disagree that it was considered 'vandalism'. I'll ask the people who warned you, and we can discuss that.

I'm sorry you've had problems with Wikipedia; all I can say is, most Wikipedians are great, helpful people; as in all large communities, some are not. Sometimes people misunderstand policies, rules, etc. 'We' (the community) do what we can.

As regards 'official people', we don't have any. Well, that's not strictly true; there are a handful of employees. But almost everyone is a volunteer. It's true that we have administrators, but all they do is carry out the actions dictated by policy. For example, blocking a user. Anyone can warn a user; only an admin can actually perform the block. However, the admin would review the warnings first, and make up their own mind whether the block was appropriate. And if the admin got it wrong, another admin would revert the block, etc.

Wikipedia is certainly not about PR for TV shows; it's about creating great articles about everything that is notable, using verifiable, reliable sources.

I really do hope you'll stick with it for a bit longer; the 'system' does work. Mostly. And when it doesn't, we (and that includes you) - can simply change the system. All the policies etc were written with the consensus of the community, through discussion. Policy can, and does, change.

If you require any further help, please do any of the following;

1. Use a {{helpme}} at the end of this page.

2. Leave me a message on my talk page.

3. (Quickest/best?) talk to us live.

Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that what I said about Jeremy Roloff is true and Matt Roloff personally admitted it. But what I stated was that he came under fire because of the article. A quick google search will demonstrate that he did come under fire for it. The NE article was not posted as proof that he came under fire, but as documentation of the article that caused him problems. Twiddlebug (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite of what Wikipedia is looking for, though. If he "came under fire," cite the sources that "fire" on him. If those fit our WP:RS guidelines, we can use that to point out the controversy. If it's just a bunch of random blogs, it's not notable enough to include in the article. Finally, Wikipedia is not about The Truth. It's about verifiable facts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)