Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:53, 20 July 2009

User:Mythdon/Talk page header

Archives

December 2007 - January 2008 January 2008 - March 2008 March 2008 - October 2008 October 2008 - February 2009 February 2009 - April 2009 April 2009 - May 2009

UAA reports

I would consider taking both names you've reported to WP:RFCN. Thank you, Nja 06:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Future Episodes from Burgundy's Site

Here is said link to the list of upcoming episodes from Burgundy's site. The same list of upcoming episodes is also listed on the TV.com site by Kyle. While neither site is credible enough (according to Misplaced Pages standards) to outright list on the page, I do believe that both informers' past episode info. has been reliable enough in the past to at least merit listing in "ivisible mode" in accordance to the the listed "pre-requisit" that states that episodes can't be revealed until the episode either airs or a source (thats reliable according to Misplaced Pages standards) lists the same episode info. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/prstuff/prgrid.html 172.190.76.93 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Common Era

What is the logic behind this edit. I'm curious. JPG-GR (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as WP:V goes, all information is to have first been published by a reliable source to ensure that the information is not original research. If you haven't already found out yet, I've recently been policing various articles with respect to sourcing by either removing some content, or adding {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} tags to the aritcles. Check out my contributions log. It's filled with them edits. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is why?, especially on an article that contains a "Notes and references" section containing 73 items. JPG-GR (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was because there was some information on the article that was unreferenced, but I didn't want to use {{fact}} templates as that would only clutter the article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of the belief that this recent series of edits is rather pointy, especially in the case of non-BLP articles. Please cease these machine-like edits. JPG-GR (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

These edits are not "pointy". These edits are intended to give editors a clear message of "this article does not have all of it's information referenced. Please provide citations". No matter if it's a BLP article or not doesn't matter. Being non-BLP does not make the edits any less appropriate. After all, one's of Misplaced Pages's purposes is to have a well-referenced encyclopedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging a bunch of articles that they need references is ridiculous - there are literally thousands of articles where this is the case. Rather than tag these articles, try actually looking for the references. Adding these tags does nothing but inflate your edit count - it does not improve the encyclopedia. Once again, please cease these taggings immediately. JPG-GR (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

These edits are being made so people will look for references. Tagging articles that aren't completely referenced is a common procedure. We go by "verifiability, not truth" here. I am of perfect understanding that these edits are machine-like. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these edits. I could just remove the information, but I'll leave that decision to some other editor for later review. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

These edits are unnecessary if you would actually look for references. You tag lots of articles, but I have never once seen you add any references to any articles. I recommend that you cease these unnecessary edits immediately until you consult with your mentor for further guidance. JPG-GR (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question; Is the issue more that I'm making the edits, or the machine-like way in which I'm making the edits? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that you seemingly love to tag articles but you never actually seem to fix them. Why just place a wet floor sign when you can clean up the spill? JPG-GR (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So others can clean it up. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Others are already cleaning up. Why not help us?  Frank  |  talk  12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretiation of WP:V and WP:CITE is incorrect. It is not necessary that every statement be previously published or be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source. Statements need not have been previously published; they just have to be verifiable. Furthermore, a citation is only required for (1) direct quotes and (2) statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged.

I plan to follow up any persistence in this pattern of edits in appropriate forums. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is a common procedure if you don't want to do it yourself. If any statements go unreferenced, it can bee questioned as to whether or not the statement is verifiable or not. That is true of all information. This pattern of edits is my way of reinforcing the policy adherence. Also, if the information is original research, then somebody else can remove it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reply makes it sound as if you are inflexible on this issue. So am I. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I am inflexible on this issue. Verifiability is not something we should be flexible on; Mainly because it is one of our more firm policies, and our policy on original research destroys the exemption of that policy, which is why it is so important that citations are present. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, as has been pointed out, you are misinterpreting policy. Not every sentence or statement in an article must be directly referenced. Plenty of articles have references that are not specifically marked inline; some have bibliographies which provide general background on the subject and are sources, even if they aren't directly linked.  Frank  |  talk  19:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

References are the only way to fully enforce it. We can't go without references. Articles without a citation can be questioned as to whether or not the information is original research, unverifiable, etc. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but the way to do it is not to delete the information. It is to request it by marking it. Nobody is saying we don't need references.  Frank  |  talk  20:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the edits in this recent pattern have been marking with a bit of removal. Deleting the information is a very good procedure. Instead of waiting for days for a reference, remove the information until it is referenced, although these edits more than 90% are "waiting for days for a reference", actually. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, deleting information is a very bad procedure. I'll give you an example: Joan Van Ark. I just looked at this article last night, and saw this version. Note there are two requests for citations in that paragraph. I looked up the info and added it to the article, resulting in this version. If you had gotten to the article first and deleted the paragraph, I would not have known about her experience with Julie Harris and Yale, and subsequent readers of the article would not either. Yes, the details were not quite correct when I got to it, but now, the article is better because a contribution was made. When you delete stuff without even looking, you're destroying content and making articles worse. (Mind you, if material violates policy, that's a different story.)  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope the reference sorts out the situation for her article. While not the point, I would like to bring your attention to this modification of your edit. An IP editor changed your edit with the edit summary "she was on Knots for 13 seasons (1979-92) not 12". I don't know which version is correct as the reference is not an internet reference, but I do hope that the correct version is in place soon. Given that the article is a biography of a living person, the citation was extra important that it be made. Why? Well, just read the policy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The subsequent edit was correct. You are bringing up BLP as if it makes all non-referenced deletions mandatory; that simply isn't the case. The information that was in that article is a perfect example; a claim was made but not supported. That doesn't mean it was libelous, privacy-invading, or otherwise damaging, which is why we worry about BLP violations. And, in that case, anyway, the details were largely correct but still not referenced. Again, my point is this: given your recent edits, if you'd seen the article, you might have removed the information. I know I'm not alone in requesting that you instead find citations for information and help improve articles rather than removing content.  Frank  |  talk  20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that being unreferenced doesn't make the information damaging in that respect. It may not damage the person, but it indeed damages the article as long as it remains unreferenced. Yes, you're correct; I did not bother to look for references before removing the information on these articles; These removals were based soley on the fact that no citation was given. I am of perfect understanding that information not being cited doesn't make the information wrong, but that doesn't excuse the lack of a citation; Not that I think you excuse the lacking though. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We agree more than it may appear. The last sticking point, though is in the response to the lack of references. Your response, too often, is to simply remove the material. I believe the better response is to look for the information and determine whether or not it is actually verifiable. If it is, let's get the citation in there. If it's not, let's take the info out. But taking it out without checking is often more damaging to an article. In addition, because a claim is not directly cited does not mean a reference doesn't exist; there are "see also" and "further reading" sections which may very well support every claim made in an article. Also, one of the existing references may support a claim even if it isn't directly cited. Going back to Joan Van Ark, the paragraphs I rewrote contain a number of sentences, but the citations are only at the end. Frank  |  talk  21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So should I ask for references on the respective talk pages following each removal/tagging? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What I think you should do is one or more of the following, not necessarily in any particular order:

• Look for references or evidence that the information in question should be removed, and act accordingly (add ref or remove info)
• See if you can get access to offline references through your local library or university if you are affiliated somehow with one that has online library resources (student / faculty / alumnus / etc)
• Definitely check Google News (news.google.com) for information; even if you can't see an entire article, it's an excellent pointer to where a reference could be found
• Check the revision history to determine when the a "citation needed" tag was added; if it was very recent, maybe just leave it alone
• Check the revision history to try to determine when the information itself was added and contact the original contributor of the information in question
• If you find info that you think is questionable, look at the references that are already in the article and see if all that is needed is another cite to the same ref

Those are some of my strategies; others have their own ways. I've ordered books from the library - including inter-library loan - as well.  Frank  |  talk  21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And if I don't do those things, do nothing? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes it's appropriate to delete material. And yes, sometimes it's appropriate to do nothing. For example, I don't think this and this added anything to Wurduj District.  Frank  |  talk  21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

While I too don't think the diffs added anything to those articles, I hope they do encourage editors to add something, like a citation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What it looks like you're being told, right here on this page by more than one editor, is that others don't see it that way. And, in the case of that article, it's already marked as a stub, and since it's a place, there's no danger of BLP violations.

As a followup, this seemed quite unnecessary; the article had two excellent references, and others which were supportive of the content in the article. That doesn't mean the article was (or is) the greatest article, but to mark it as unreferenced needing additional citations doesn't really fit.  Frank  |  talk  21:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The page was not marked as "unreferenced". It was marked with the statement of "this article needs additional citations for verification.". No matter how good the references are, now matter how verifiable the information is, tagging was necessary, just as it is in any other article in this situation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong choice of words, which I've corrected above, but the comment stands otherwise. It had a number of references, including two excellent ones, and they were cited in the text of the article.  Frank  |  talk  21:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but the tag is still necessary until something is done. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, but in that particular case, it's a moot point since I have - while carrying on this conversation with you - rewritten the article and converted all the bare refs.  Frank  |  talk  22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job with the re-writing. I hope it helps. But, I still see one part that is not referenced, at least not from my look. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Did you read his entire web site, and/or the references in the article?  Frank  |  talk  22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Since you won't allow him to reply please do the only fair thing and remove this from the thread as his comment above was in no way uncivil. Cheers! Theresa Knott | token threats 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Theresa Knott | token threats 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that your accusation of incivility was in itself uncivil. Your dishonesty does you no credit. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me how it was incivil? It's not an accusation. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the words. All of them, even the big ones. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No. "Please read WP:CIVIL. Comments like that are not compliant" is in no way incivil. I kindly ask you to read the policy, note the word "please". "Comments like that are not compliant" is not in any way incivil. Sorry, but its true. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Some advice. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother UK Talk Page

I was archiving sections of the page as the talk page is very active and I wanted to avoid an edit conflict. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/King Mondo

Regarding the above noted AfD, I question whether or not you consulted your mentor before undertaking this process, as this seems to be a continuation of your misinterpretation of policy. I recommend that you cease any future XfDs until you consult with said mentor, as continuing to do so may be a violation of the remedies set forth in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not consult my mentor beforehand. I really do not think that the mentorship has anything to do with this. You should also note that ArbCom is talking about disposing the mentorship and replacing it with a probation. See here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the original remedies still apply. Mythdon should consult and take guidance from the mentor when issues arise concerning their editing or behavior. This AfD is an example of an issue concerning your editing and your behavior. I repeat my previous statement: I recommend that you cease any future XfDs until you consult with said mentor, as continuing to do so may be a violation of the remedies set forth in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. JPG-GR (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that will probably be until the mentorship is dead. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, we just had a long conversation about sourcing three days ago; it's still right here on your talk page. Wouldn't it be easier to add find and sources instead of trying to delete content, either sentence-by-sentence or entire articles at a time? As I pointed out at the AfD, there are definitely reliable sources available.  Frank  |  talk  15:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked for sources, but didn't find any. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, we discussed this above. Did you use any of the strategies I suggested? And, now that I've provided you with a list of sources, perhaps you can improve the article?  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a content contributor. Perhaps you can do it, or ask somebody else to. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking you, because you are the one that nominated the article for deletion. If you refuse to contribute content, you could at least refrain from nominating content for deletion that clearly does not meet any criteria for deletion. And, as we discussed at length above, and as others have pointed out to you, your continued marking of statements as requiring references falls into the same category.  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I nominated the page for deletion because I could not find sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And now you see my point. Because you couldn't find them does not mean they don't exist...and also, because you couldn't find them doesn't mean that deletion is the next step. If you're "not a content contributor" then how would you be able to determine if sources exist? Deletion is not the answer.  Frank  |  talk  18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A Google search. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Google does not determine WP:NOTABILITY, and anyway, Google News did find sources (see above).  Frank  |  talk  18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but it can be useful to finding sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You're totally missing the point here. Yes, Google can be very useful, and in fact, I used it to find legitimate sources establishing notability of the subject of the article you nominated for deletion. You claim you couldn't find sources so you nominated it for deletion. The problem with that is that you claim also to not be a content contributor, so it looks like your experience at finding sources may not be sufficient to determine that a topic is not notable.

Remember - just because Google hits are few or non-existent does not mean something is not notable, just as thousands of hits does not automatically make something notable. Practically every company in the United States has many hits on Google; most are simply not notable enough for an article in Misplaced Pages. Conversely, there are many topics where there are relatively few hits but which are certainly notable enough for an article. There simply isn't a super-high correlation here.  Frank  |  talk  23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really about Google hits. It's about what the results of the search were. I found sources, yes, but they were either:

A) Irrelevant; These include mere quotations, collections of nonsense links, etc.

B) Unreliable or not listed as reliable; For example, fansites, forum posts, video websites, etc.

Is that clear. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning has been clear all along; it's just not consistent with policy around here, which is the reason I'm taking the time to discuss it. Is it now clear to you that there are, in fact, sources that show notability for this article?  Frank  |  talk  03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources are insufficient for a Misplaced Pages article. The article needs to be deleted, but given the results already, I won't be surprised if it gets kept. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you do not understand what reliable sources are. Please tell me which of the following sources is insufficient:

• Griffiths, Ian. The famous five power back: A new breed of Power Ranger is eyeing your money, warns Ian Griffiths. 1997-03-23. The Independent.
• Sutherland, Catherine. I've Got The Power; From Stranger to Zeo Ranger! 1997-03-15. The Mirror.
• Mangan, Jennifer. Costly Changes - A New Generation of Power Rangers Means New Toys. 1996-05-09. Chicago Tribune.
• Maurstad, Tom. Power Rangers Being 'replaced'. 1996-04-20. Wilmington Morning Star.

There are more; those are just a few, all of which were found by a Google News search, which you said revealed only "nonsense" or "unreliable" sources. This is the "head bad guy" in an update to a franchise that generated over $1 billion in toy sales by 1996. For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, the notability of this character is plainly shown, and it is shown in reliable sources, just four of which I've listed above. Sure, there are blogs, fansites, and other items which aren't reliable sources. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there are reliable sources, which you seem to be continuing to deny by saying "the sources are insufficient". Your claim that they are "insufficient" is simply not supported by any policy associated with Misplaced Pages. If you believe otherwise, please provide the link to it.  Frank  |  talk  05:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The first three are not direct enough to be used as sources for King Mondo. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask: please provide the link to any policy associated with Misplaced Pages that supports that claim. (It's a new claim you're making, by the way; you started with "irrelevant" and "unreliable" and when I provided four completely relevant and reliable sources, now you're switching to "not direct enough". Still, I ask the same question: where's the policy link that supports your position?) You must keep in mind that some of those links do not provide the entire articles, by the way.  Frank  |  talk  05:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a policy statement, but a statement of common sense. (note this response applies to the "not direct enough" and "irrelevant") —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Common Sense" is, by definition, something that people in common would agree on. Yet you are the only one who feels this way about these policies (and, currently, the AfD in question). JPG-GR (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I said at 06:01 applies to the "'not direct enough' and 'irrelevant'". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you - I can read. So, allow me to repeat myself also: "'Common Sense' is, by definition, something that people in common would agree on. Yet you are the only one who feels this way about these policies (and, currently, the AfD in question)." JPG-GR (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat yourself. I read your comment above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)