This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Toronto Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toronto, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Toronto on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TorontoWikipedia:WikiProject TorontoTemplate:WikiProject TorontoToronto Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts

Someone with the username BloordaleBeachGuy should not be editing a page about Bloordale Beach. This seems like a conflict of interest. These are edits created on April 29 and 30, 2025. They will be deleted. 72.229.59.64 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch that all the information that this user deleted is true. I undid the deletion by this user, which appears to be vandalism with an agenda. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user above has deleted the information again. The section being deleted is titled "2025 statement from the person who 'made' the Beach". That 2025 statement takes issue with claims repeatedly made by another person that she is the person who created Bloordale Beach. The user above, who has repeatedly deleted the "2025 statement from the person who 'made' the Beach" section is almost certainly the person who has falsely claimed to have created the Beach, attempting to erase evidence that her claims to have created the Beach are false, and is herself in an obvious conflict of interest. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I’m raising a concern about edits to this page that have been made since 29 April 2025 that appear to be made by someone with a personal conflict of interest. The language added is misleading, biased, and includes defamatory claims that aren’t verifiable by reliable sources. The edits appear to be part of a personal campaign against one of the subjects of the article, and this has happened multiple times in the past.

Wikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability, neutrality, and conflict of interest prohibit this kind of behavior. I request that administrators review the editing history and consider page protection and user warnings as appropriate.

Thank you. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section you keep deleting merely summarizes the context and content of the 2025 statement in very neutral terms. You may not like the statement, but that doesn't give you the right to censor it, or to rewrite history to fit your preferences. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2025 statement is a self-published personal document, not a reliable source under Wikipedia’s verifiability or Biographies of Living Persons policies. Its inclusion or summary is inappropriate unless covered by independent, reliable secondary sources. Without that, even a neutral-sounding summary constitutes undue weight and opens the article to misuse for personal disputes. Strongly recommend removing until and unless better sourcing is available.

--Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it since it wasn't sourced to reliable sources. However, be careful about using words like "defamation," since it may give an impression that you are making legal threats. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:47, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Reference number 7 still includes a link to that same article referenced in the section that was removed. Can you please remove that as well? The link does not meet the standards of a reliable or verifiable source. I’d appreciate editors reviewing and removing that link. Thank you. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Reference numbers 4 and 5 also link to that same page. Can you please remove Reference numbers 4, 5, and 7? Thank you. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it yourself if you want. The only reason you were being reverted is because you didn't provide an edit summary or your provided edit summary was misleading. Clearly explain that the source isn't reliable and people shouldn't revert you. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement was confirmed to be an authentic statement from the person who created the beach by a twitter account that was closely associated with the beach throughout its existence... Surely an authenticated statement like this is a reliable source. It was published and distributed to the public in paper form, and published on the internet on archive.org. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. According to Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy, reliable sourcing requires third-party, independent, published sources with editorial oversight. The statement in question is an anonymous, self-published document distributed informally and posted on Archive.org, which does not meet these standards.

While it may have been circulated and referenced on social media, that alone does not make it a reliable source for contentious material about a living person. To protect all subjects from harm, Wikipedia prioritizes verifiability and reliability over informal or self-published materials.

Therefore, I believe removing this source from the article is consistent with Wikipedia’s policies. Thank you for understanding. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biography of a living person. This is an article about a fake beach. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that up. Even though the article focuses on Bloordale Beach, it contains material about living individuals, which brings it under the scope of Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. This policy requires that all information about living people must be supported by reliable, independent sources to prevent harm or defamation.

Therefore, applying BLP standards here is appropriate and necessary. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using ChatGPT or other LLMs to communicate. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you are the person who the information concerns, and the information you've just censored away is a statement by the person who created Bloordale Beach which (among other things, including providing history of the Beach and his thoughts on it) calls into question your claim that you are the person who created the Beach. You are lying about your role, repeatedly, and increasingly, and you've just bureaucracied away the voice of the person who actually made the beach.

You know this is wrong. What a sad legacy this is for the Beach. 76.65.22.120 (talk) 01:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my reply at ANI. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 01:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ChildrenWillListen. I’m good with how the article currently reads. I think it’s important for the page to reflect contributions of multiple people, without elevating an anonymous statement hosted on a personal archive page as if it’s a reliable or neutral source. I'm just noting this for future editors, in case the same content comes up again later. Quickfoxlazydog (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]