You (in your previous registered accounts and the various IPs you have used) have been asked repeatedly to abide by WP:CONSENSUS regarding the wording in United Bates of America about the family's not including any multiple births. Your persistence in deleting that language -- and doing it surreptitiously, with edit summaries that don't mention that change -- looks like evidence of contempt for other Wikipedians, the community, and its policies and conventions.
As for the personal details of Erin Bates' life (which you seem to be committed to publicize to the world) the fact that something has been published on a family blog site does not mean that it is something that deserves to be memorialized in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a personal blog site or a tabloid. --Orlady (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DC788, in ES you said, "If you guys can add all the miscarriages in the Duggar family, then you can keep the one for Erin Bates." You have to keep in mind that both of those articles are about TV series, the difference is that 19 Kids is still ongoing, but United Bates is no longer running. You could try to create an article for The Bates Family -- with good reliable secondary sources. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at United Bates of America, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If you continue to edit against WP:CONSENSUS regarding the wording in about the family's not including any multiple births, you can expect this account to be blocked (same as your previous account was blocked). Your persistence in deleting that language -- and doing it surreptitiously, with edit summaries that don't mention that change -- looks like evidence of contempt for other Wikipedians, the community, and its policies and conventions.
As for the personal details of Zach and Erin Bates' lives (which you seem to be committed to publicize to the world), the fact that something has been published on a family blog site does not mean that it is something that deserves to be memorialized in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a personal blog site or a tabloid. Your comparison with the similar details of the Duggars' lives is not valid -- those details were the subjects of reality TV episodes. Orlady (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A level 3 or 4 warning right off the top seems more than a little bit over the top. Especially when you consider the blog was already being used as a source and still was after you reverted this editor's edit and its been there since before this editor even made any edit to this article. Check this version[1] of the article and IC #31...William 21:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I look at this, I get more curious. In reverting[2] DC788 you wrote- 'not everything that these people put in their blog is worthwhile encyclopedia content'. WP:SPS says 'Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.' Yet however you did violate WP:SPS in this edit[3]. That IC, #33 in the current version of the article, is being used for three different sections. Yet another Self published source being used as a reference is IC #35. Tell me why any of this isn't gossipy or shouldn't be totally removed because none of those 4 sentences are reliably sourced?...William 21:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Look again, that second diff that you attribute to me wasn't by me. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A miscarriage and a wedding announcement are trivia but siblings working on a political campaign and who a family supported for President isn't trivia. Please explain that....William 01:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The marriages were already mentioned in the article. I removed the separate article sections that were created for the marriages, as well as gossipy and non-RS content like "On March 11, 2014, it was announced on Zach and Whitney's Facebook page they were expecting their first baby, later this year" and "On March 20, 2014, it was announced that Erin had miscarried her baby, which was due October 2014". That's not encyclopedic information about either the family or its reality TV show. On the other hand, the family's support for Santorum was not merely a personal political position. The family's campaign activity occurred during the period that they were getting a lot of TV exposure, and their involvement in campaigning for Santorum was widely reported in regional news media and made it into national media (I think they made at least one public appearance with him during the campaign).
- This edit summary[4] of yours reads reads 'Remove gossipy content sourced to Facebook and other non-RS sources;' Unless I'm badly mistaken, the only other source removed other than facebook was the Bates family blog which you yourself used as a source. How can it be a non WP:RS and a reliable source simultaneously?...William 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The blog-related edit that you attribute to me wasn't by me. --Orlady (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your persistence in removing reference citations -- and disguising the removal with nondescriptive edit summaries is disruptive to Wikipedia and may lead to your account and your IPs being blocked from editing. Speaking of your practice of using both IPs and registered accounts concurrently to avoid page protection, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DC788. --Orlady (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SPS before editing into the United Bates of America anything that is sourced from a blog....William 01:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
