| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fátima Ptacek article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In a mass edit of the article by 142.255.52.135, a variety of information has been wiped from the previous revision of the article ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F%C3%A1tima_Ptacek&oldid=534057130 ... just for the record. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text about Fatima was copied from her website. The autor worked to bad with this information because with this informations he can create a perfectly article. --Maleeetz (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is speculation based upon tabloid sensationalism and not supported by evidence. The court documents, which are accessible and were viewed by credible journalists who refused to run with this story, do not support the allegations written here. Wikipedia must hold higher standards than to simply reprint tabloid articles, especially when an examination of the court documents contradicts what is alleged in the tabloids. Wikipedias should also be more sensitive to avoid slandering a minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A0DA:B400:CD37:2C74:2D33:9F92 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Thparkth. There should be exceptional caution in regurgitating unsubstantiated tabloid reporting in Wikipedia, particularly since Ptacek is not specifically mentioned in the lawsuit (which would be illegal in New York State, as she is a minor). Additionally, the information extrapolated from the sections of the court documents cited do not justify the allegations being reported in the media. It's a really irresponsible stretch. And let's be honest, in reading these reports, the court documents indicate that the device was tested and found to contain caramel flavored vapor juice with no traces of nicotine, tobacco, or controlled substance. And according to the lawsuit, there were three girls in the bathroom - one who received no punishment at all, one who was suspended three days (allegedly Ptacek), and the girl who was expelled. It's obvious that there is something more to the story related to the expelled girl... history? Lets face it, the only reason it's being reported is to create an excuse to create Dora memes! At the end of the day, we should use Wikipedia to provide accurate facts, not to serve to spread tabloid sensationalism. 67.243.183.29 (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the Good Morning America piece is fairly reliable, isn't this pretty much BLPGOSSIP territory? Rebbing 05:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fátima Ptacek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{dead link}} tag to http://www.manhattantimesnews.com/February-22-2012/ivamonos-dora-and-boots-come-uptown-to-visit-on-valentines-day.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fátima Ptacek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
