Talk:Lynne Spears

message: To the IP-hopper who is removing sourced content - please explain why you believe it should be removed here so that consensus can be reached prior to removal. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although American sites reporting the incident are of varying degrees of reliability, foreign sources are covering the topic ( example from Die Welt). If it is restored it should only be a brief mention in order to avoid WP:UNDUE. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Ponyo, that's not the way it works. Poorly sourced contentious information is removed under our WP:BLP policy, the onus is on anyone who wants the information in the article to reliably source it before it goes back in. Exxolon (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What's "not the way thinks work" exactly? The sourced content was blanked once by an IP, with no explanation or edit summary, then it was blanked again by a different IP address, again without explanation or edit summary. I left left messages on both the user talk page and here asking for information as to what the problem was. That's it. I came back to see the article has been protected and was continuing discussion as to whether the information should be included, and to what extent. It seems I am the only person trying to create some sort of dialogue - I don't see how your message applies. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is you don't need consensus to remove material in violation of BLP. The IP was perfectly correct to remove it, we seem to be objecting to the fact they didn't tell us why. Exxolon (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exxolon, I really don't need a lecture on BLP policy. I've had this article watchlisted for a very long time and it's a common target for IP vandalism and blanking. If two IPs come in relatively quick succession and blank sourced content without any indication as to why, it appears as vandalism. I only reverted each IP on a single occasion and attempted to start a dialogue. I have continued to initiate dialogue here - but so far I seem to be the only person willing to do so. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 00:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am very sorry about this incident I have left a reply about this on my talk page Kyle1278 02:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content - accident

message: I am in the process of opening an AFD within a week or so. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.45.210 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD 

message: This child (apparently known as "Lexie" to the family) appears to exist, as this interview with Lynne Spears on YouTube (1:29–1:34) posted on May 18, 2012 attests. However, I know YouTube isn't a reliable source, and I can't find anything else to reliably cite her birth or even her full name—only the interview, postings on various Britney-related fan forums, and an alleged picture of the baby posted on a fan site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randee15 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This Daily Mail article was the closest I could find. I added it. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2141075/Jamie-Lynn-Spearss-daughter-Maddie-joins-mom-Grandma-Spears-shopping-trip.html</ref> 108.93.72.117 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia Alexandra Sanchez Spears