DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing important info

[edit]

Onorem why are you removing info from the page without explaining why? Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Info about his father

[edit]

For posterity's sake, I am removing the aside about his father because it violates multiple policies, including WP:BLP. The sourcing is terrible: a profile of Scump on Youtube that is now dead, a tweet from Scump saying what his dad's name is, and then an article about the actual felony that does not mention Seth at any point. There is no indication that sources connect this story to Seth. The material is on the dad's page, and there is no need for it to be here. See WP:COATRACK. The fact that his dad may be a felon is not his defining feature, not is it a repeated theme of coverage of their relationship. Per WP:BLP, we have a presumption in favor of privacy, and adding this material beyond the dad's page, which is the only place it is relevant, is a violation of that rule. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss this with you. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to make any response you would like. I encourage you to read WP:COATRACK and this section and think about why, exactly, do we need to mention Shawn's criminal conviction on a page that is not about Shawn. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo I have read it, you are yet to explain why exactly you feel it's a coatrack because we have established that I disagree with you on that. I think that Re-iterating that it's a coatrack without explaining why you feel that way is not a productive use of either of our time. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects." Shawn's criminal status is "connected but tangential" to Seth, the nominal subject. I cannot explain that any more clearly. You have not explained why we need to reference Shawn's criminal conviction on a page about Seth, when the information is already on Shawn's page, as I asked you to do above. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly my point, replace the felon line here with the famous baseball player line and your point is equally as valid. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't answering my question. I would disagree with the inclusion of the felon clause regardless of whether the article says anything about him being a baseball player. Ignore the baseball part--it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. You want to include the felon clause, so the burden is on you to explain why the felon part should be included. So again I ask, why should we include the felon clause? Alyo (chat·edits) 15:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I feel the felon part is relevant information.
I think that you Saying the baseball part is irrelevant just confirms you do not understand my argument.
I want to include the felon part because of the baseball part, I feel they are both equally relevant, I've still yet to see a valid explanation as to why they're different.
The felon part is relevant because it's a notable fact about his father that people might know him from, same as the baseball line.
The baseball part is integral to this discussion, I think that I probably would not have included the felon line if the baseball line hadn't have been there in the first place. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong. Just because it's relevant, doesn't mean we have to include it. See the quotes from Wikipedia policy below:
1. "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion"
2. "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
3. When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced.
I understand your argument just fine. That said, it's not correct. Don't re-add it. Thank you. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo I still don't see how any of those points apply to this situation.
Again, you do not understand my argument, falsely reiterating that you do is disingenuous and just comes across as if you are purposefully misrepresenting my argument so you can get your way. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how any of those points apply to this situation. then I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand Wikipedia policy well enough, or have the perspective to apply Wikipedia policy to these facts. Again, you're welcome to ask other people, but if/when you get a chorus of responders saying "you're wrong", are you going to accept that? Wikipedia operates on a WP:consensus-based system, meaning that if that discussion results in an outcome you disagree with, you must abide by that decision. In this case, I would also suggest you would not just accept the decision, but accept that the way you view this particular rule (my three linked quotes above) is wrong. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo If those responses give me good faith and valid arguments then yes I'll accept that.
However if they give me the same immature arguments that you have, consisting of them saying what amounts to "you are absolutely wrong and I know better than you" with zero willingness to even try to understand or see my point then I will not because I don't believe that's how a debate should go.
I think that to me this seems almost like some sort of superiority complex, as if being on Wikipedia for a long time means you are unable to be wrong and/or engage in good faith discussion about a topic. Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scump's father is notable for being a baseball player. That's the only reason he has his own article, and that's all that needs to be said in this article...because this article isn't about Scump's father. The information on his crime is definitely warranted in his article, but there is no reason for including it here. --Onorem (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Onorem I disagree, they're both equally relevant to his notability.
Also I'm curious as to why it took you multiple years to reply and why you happened to do it less than forty minutes after another person replied to me?? Johnmichaelsonreal (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't "equally relevant to his notability." (At least not his notability on Wikipedia.) There would be no article if he wasn't a baseball player. It took multiple years because I don't follow this article and never saw your comment. I reverted, warned, and moved on with what I was doing. I'm back now because you pinged me on your talk page a few days ago...and it took me a couple days to look into what it was about. --Onorem (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]