User talk:79.116.111.185

August 2022

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Leah Remini, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please read MOS:LEAD Etriusus (Talk) 15:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Per Leah Remini

According to MOS:LEAD, you generally do not need citations in the lead paragraphs. Remini's birthday is cited already in the body paragraph. There is an exception in that controversial info should be cited in the lead but I doubt her birthday is anything controversial. Also, please read WP:3RR, last thing we need is an edit war. Please ping me if you have questions. Etriusus (Talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Your proof of her DOB is a book called "My Greatest Day in Show Business: Screen Legends Share Their Fondest Moments Paperback – October 1, 1999 by Raymond Richmond (Author)"

1. Wikipedia claims to be free yet that citation costs money to read.

2. Wikipedia claims to love science so Where's the scientific evidence of her DOB? 79.116.111.185 (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS; sources don't need to be available freely on the internet to be used on Wikipedia. |Madeline. 09:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

So the aggregated content on Wikipeda is free but the sources are off limits to poor people? So to poor people, Wikipedia is a free dry river bed. That's mean considering you beg for donations and claim to be free and of benefit to the entire human race.

What about independent verification and scientific evidence? Where's that at?

How can a paperback book on Amazon, which contains unscientific and biased personal claims from the person in question, be a reliable source of information in a world which teaches us not to simply take somebody's word for it but to always seek independent verification and scientific evidence?

You're telling me that no independent verification or scientific evidence is required when it to comes to Leah Remini and Raymond Richmond.

Why is that?

What makes them so trustworthy that we should just take their word for it when they speak? And why on earth do we need all those scientists, police, judges, journalists and independent committees if we have the infallible word of Leah and Rayond?

More importantly,, how do I join this special club where people speak and everybody believes you no matter what? 79.116.111.185 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Leah Remini can't remember being born so she can't know the date.

You should be quoting her parents not her if you're not into science. 79.116.111.185 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Per above, please read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Journals need to keep the lights on too and it is not our place to dictate how 3rd parties monetize/market their content. Please also read WP:V and WP:Reliable, as paywalls are not violations of verifiability nor reliability. The book is only citing her birthday, that is non-controversial information coming from a 3rd party source (WP:Secondary) that discussed multiple authors.

Just to humor that idea of a moment, why should we even consider her parents as reliable? They're fallible and could've forgotten the date. What about scientists, police, judges, journalists and independent committees, they could be wrong too when they publish something. Hell, even veteran author/writer Ray Richmond could be wrong. If we begin to exert a standard of evidence that high, we'd have to delete the wiki. I applaud your skepticism, truly I do, but we have to be discerning on where to pick these battles.

What isn't going to be humored is the WP:Edit War you've gotten yourself into. 4 reverted edits in 24 hours is a violation of the WP:3RR and could be grounds of disciplinary action. Let this serve as a formal warning. Etriusus (Talk) 20:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---