Talk:Twiggy Ramirez

message: Googling one can find both Jeordie Francis White and Jeordie Osbourne White.  Which is it? —thames 20:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle Name? 

message: "Goal! Soundtrack ("Cast No Shadow (UNKLE Beachhead Mix)" Oasis, 2005)"
What's this sourced from? I certainly can't find anything linking him to Oasis, and nothing apparently linking him to this UNKLE mix either.
*Nevermind, found it on his discography page, of all the unlikely places...--Monofiopia 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: The trivia section needs a lot of sources, it has barely any. The most outrageous one, I think, is the bit that says Jeordie masturbated with pizza dough. How can one make a claim as wild as that without providing a source??? Please provide sources for all bits of trivia. Julian Maestas 14:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Needed in Trivia Section 

message: Seeing that he is back in Manson, I think that would be logical  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.70.130 (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Twiggy Ramirez is a pseudonym/stage name, but his real name is still Jeordie White.  Since the article is about the person, not the Marilyn Manson performer, it should stay as is.  Besides, Twiggy Ramirez redirects here. Drewcifer (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change back to Twiggy Ramirez? 

message: I've removed these links again. WP:BLP is firm on this point:
:We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]
:
:Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
The links provided that link White to various women in music are questionably sourced at best, add no understanding to the subject, or do not actually demonstrate those relationships (the Miami New Times article, for instance, just mentions that White and Fodera were record store employees, without saying anything about their relationship status). I don't dispute that White dated these women, or that he met Jessicka while working in a record store. I do take issue with the idea that this is necessary and encyclopedic knowledge; if this is critical information, than it can surely be found in a source better than a fan page. 
Also please note that some of the pages provided as sources have been copies of this page. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, and any page mirroring Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Because of concerns about biographies of living people, these statements should not be included until they can be properly sourced. WP policy demands - not asks, but demands - that this material be properly sourced, and that it be removed immediately, without discussion, until proper sources can be found.
Note, too, from WP:BLP:
:In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.
I have looked, but am unable to find better sources. Granted, this was not a deep search - but it looks like that's what will be necessary to restore this material.
Snuppy 00:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only sources I personally know of for references are a book and a video, I'm not quite sure how to reference them. Though I feel the need to state that WP:BLP seems designed to block false/damaging information and not as a sheild to be used agaist editors re-adding content of which the encyclopedic worthiness is disputed, as is happening in this case! I also can't help but wonder why the content is only being disputed now, together with the content of several articles, containing reference towards the same subject, and the disputes seem to have all be started by a single user.   Doktor  Wilhelm  07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding of WP:BLP is simply incorrect.  As Snuppy accurately quoted above, WP:BLP removal requirements apply "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable."  This standard was reinforced by the Wikimedia Foundation's April 29, 2009 resolution on BLPs , which highlighted the problem that "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects."  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just twisting things around to fit what you want them to mean, and using all of the wiki-babble in some kind of vendetta against several people/articles and wiki editors (as shown by your aggressive Edit summary, comments towards other editors, and what seem like attempts at reverting articles in small steps, stating vandalism when it's edits done in good faith, to avoid WP:3RR)! As this is wikipedia, I have to assume that what you are doing is in good faith and actually an attempt to improve the articles in question, and isn't actually an attempt to undermine the articles, by slowly picking at the content! But by the same good faith, which I place in the admin of wikipedia, I hope that if you are carrying out a vendetta and attempting to undermine articles with bad faith edits while also twisting the rules of wikipedia to help you in the forementioned, you will be caught. You seem to be stating that WP:BLP isn't to block false information about living people, but instead it's to block articles becoming promotional tools? You quote that part like it is a mission statement against the few articles you seem to have a problem with: a reason to purge any content YOU don't like from articles, while you use WP:BLP as a shield, while you attempt to remove any mention of several peoples crossed histories.   Doktor  Wilhelm  17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic Links

message: Is there a reason these aren't included on this page? I understand that it probably takes a deft hand to deal with unresolved legal issues, or I'd add it myself, but it seems like these should be included somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.14.70 (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because he has a lot of crazy fans who keep removing it. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, this is continuing to take place even now, a year later. MutchyMan112 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rape Allegations