Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tal1962: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:12, 7 January 2013 editFirsfron (talk | contribs)Administrators76,983 edits Joan Crawford: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 03:20, 7 January 2013 edit undoFirsfron (talk | contribs)Administrators76,983 edits Joan Crawford: commentNext edit →
Line 88: Line 88:
:Hi Tal, :Hi Tal,
:I encourage you to improve the article. However, you ''must'' include a full citation for the content you are adding, and remove sources for content which no longer verify what you've replaced. It's not possible for other editors to verify much of what you've written on the article without relevant page numbers for books. ] like http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927 will eventually go dead. Sourcing to fan sites needs to be avoided whenever possible, per ]. Include ISBNs for books whenever possible. I'd be glad to help you format the content correctly (that's easy), but you can't rely on other editors to add page numbers to incomplete citations... ''you'' must provide them. There's no way any editor is going to go through your on that article and try to re-source what you've already written. Statements like "Charles Kidd, in Debrett Goes to Hollywood, also says Lucille was probably born in 1904." need sources. You added "Her older siblings were Daisy LeSueur, born in 1901 and died in 1904", but included no ''new'' source, leaving in the old source: does ''Abilene Landmarks: An Illustrated Tour'' truly verify what you wrote? In short, there are problems with your added material, although I don't doubt much of it is 100% accurate. Other editors must be able to verify the content. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) :I encourage you to improve the article. However, you ''must'' include a full citation for the content you are adding, and remove sources for content which no longer verify what you've replaced. It's not possible for other editors to verify much of what you've written on the article without relevant page numbers for books. ] like http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927 will eventually go dead. Sourcing to fan sites needs to be avoided whenever possible, per ]. Include ISBNs for books whenever possible. I'd be glad to help you format the content correctly (that's easy), but you can't rely on other editors to add page numbers to incomplete citations... ''you'' must provide them. There's no way any editor is going to go through your on that article and try to re-source what you've already written. Statements like "Charles Kidd, in Debrett Goes to Hollywood, also says Lucille was probably born in 1904." need sources. You added "Her older siblings were Daisy LeSueur, born in 1901 and died in 1904", but included no ''new'' source, leaving in the old source: does ''Abilene Landmarks: An Illustrated Tour'' truly verify what you wrote? In short, there are problems with your added material, although I don't doubt much of it is 100% accurate. Other editors must be able to verify the content. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:§Thanks for the reply. However, I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added.

:Once again I have reversed your undo as, according to Wiki it was unjustly done, nor did you follow their STRONG suggestion to use talk page before you do such a thing, thereby avoiding the situation we are in, namely, an edit war. What you are strongly encouraged to do is as for a citation or further details.

:Among other things, wiki says: ''Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".''

:''Furthermore: experienced editors avoid being becoming involved in edit wars This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Shortcut: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR''

:''In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.''

:''Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.''

:''The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.''

:You are, by virtue of continual undoing of my edits without discussing them first, bringing about this edit war. I believe you have no reason other than wanting to improve the article, but your method is in question as per Wiki's guidelines. Please follow the appropriate guidelines and ASK for more clarity or better sources or page numbers as need be. This can easily be done using "who said?" or requests for "citation" etc.

:As for links to websites, I did not provide a link to a fan website. I DID provide one to an archive for a valid newspaper article. There is nothing in wiki rules to suggest one cannot use such links because they "might eventually go dead."

:Basically you are saying that some of my sources are questionable - according to Wiki, they are not: ''Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.'' The link for the news article, which is in itself verifiable by virtue of the link, is not questionable. Therefore it cannot be challenged simply by UNDOING everything.

:As to page numbers, I am wrong to have not included them and will remedy that immediately. However, again, according to wiki, this is not a valid reason to undo an edit.

:Hopefully we can work together for the benefit of the article within the guidelines set up for us.

::Hi Tal,
::I will absolutely undo any edit which appears to mix in any unsourced content with ''sourced'' content, per ]: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." In your edits, you mixed in sourced content with unsourced content, adding and changing material but leaving in the original source, making it appear that the citation left in supports the new material. I've given examples of that, directly above. You absolutely will need to add full sources to the content you added. I will be glad to assist you with formatting, but you must provide citations ''including page numbers for books''. It is not my responsibility to come up with pagination for your cites, and if you want that content to remain, you must provide that information. I also strongly urge to provide full citations rather than bare URLs, per the guideline I've already linked above. I'm glad to see that you are how to cite your additions, and I will never remove content that is well-sourced and fully cited to reliable works, as long as it can be verified. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:20, 7 January 2013

Welcome!

Hello Tal1962, welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Reconsider! 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:UNICEF+Ball+Honoring+Jerry+Weintraub+Inside+UDnRJjWn5URl.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:UNICEF+Ball+Honoring+Jerry+Weintraub+Inside+UDnRJjWn5URl.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Closedmouth (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reread the rules on this and I am at fault here. I will not try to stop the deletion.--Tal1962 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

The Music Barnstar
This Barnstar is awarded to Tal1962 for the tireless contributions to the discography section of Billie Holiday. Thanks! Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dark Shadows (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Della
List of Dark Shadows characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jeff Clark

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosemary Clooney discography, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages White Christmas and Red Garters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thriller (U.S. TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ireland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Lynde, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peter Marshall and The Good Fairy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1972 Andes flight disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropophagy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of film noir titles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strange Cargo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marion Lorne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Paul Langton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ironside and It Takes a Thief
Peyton Place (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Heather Angel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Joan Crawford

Re: Joan Crawford - The usual method of asking for sources is not to undo an edit, but to ask for sources to be added in order to back up the addition to the article. As such, I undid your revision and rewrote what I added to include sources for the comments relating to her birth. Likewise with her boxoffice receipts for films leading up to the so-called box office poison label, I have researched this subject VERY thoroughly and all box office stats are in my possession from the Eddie Mannix Ledger, which is in print and can also be accessed in its original form at the NY Library for the Performing Arts as well as at the Academy of Arts and Sciences Library in LA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1962 (talkcontribs)

Hi Tal,
I encourage you to improve the article. However, you must include a full citation for the content you are adding, and remove sources for content which no longer verify what you've replaced. It's not possible for other editors to verify much of what you've written on the article without relevant page numbers for books. Bare URLs like http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mp0fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gdUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=joan%20crawford%20television&pg=858%2C6180927 will eventually go dead. Sourcing to fan sites needs to be avoided whenever possible, per WP:SOURCE. Include ISBNs for books whenever possible. I'd be glad to help you format the content correctly (that's easy), but you can't rely on other editors to add page numbers to incomplete citations... you must provide them. There's no way any editor is going to go through your 38 consecutive edits on that article and try to re-source what you've already written. Statements like "Charles Kidd, in Debrett Goes to Hollywood, also says Lucille was probably born in 1904." need sources. You added "Her older siblings were Daisy LeSueur, born in 1901 and died in 1904", but included no new source, leaving in the old source: does Abilene Landmarks: An Illustrated Tour truly verify what you wrote? In short, there are problems with your added material, although I don't doubt much of it is 100% accurate. Other editors must be able to verify the content. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
§Thanks for the reply. However, I AM conversant with how one is supposed to question unsourced information and, no offense intended at all, you are not following those guidelines when you simply UNDO what I have added.
Once again I have reversed your undo as, according to Wiki it was unjustly done, nor did you follow their STRONG suggestion to use talk page before you do such a thing, thereby avoiding the situation we are in, namely, an edit war. What you are strongly encouraged to do is as for a citation or further details.
Among other things, wiki says: Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".
Furthermore: experienced editors avoid being becoming involved in edit wars This section in a nutshell: Communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Shortcut: WP:AVOIDEDITWAR
In general, communication is the key to avoiding conflict: follow Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing. Once it is clear that there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. It may help to remember that there is no deadline and that editors can add appropriate cleanup tags to problematic sections under current discussion. When discussion does not produce a conclusion, bringing wider attention to a dispute can lead to compromise. Consider getting a third opinion or starting a request for comments. Neutral editors aware of the dispute will help curb egregious edits while also building consensus about the dispute. When these methods fail, seek informal and formal dispute resolution.
Some experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of only reverting edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse. They revert only when necessary. This policy may be particularly appropriate for controversial topics where views are polarized and emotions run high, and as a result edit warring is more frequent.
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
You are, by virtue of continual undoing of my edits without discussing them first, bringing about this edit war. I believe you have no reason other than wanting to improve the article, but your method is in question as per Wiki's guidelines. Please follow the appropriate guidelines and ASK for more clarity or better sources or page numbers as need be. This can easily be done using "who said?" or requests for "citation" etc.
As for links to websites, I did not provide a link to a fan website. I DID provide one to an archive for a valid newspaper article. There is nothing in wiki rules to suggest one cannot use such links because they "might eventually go dead."
Basically you are saying that some of my sources are questionable - according to Wiki, they are not: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. The link for the news article, which is in itself verifiable by virtue of the link, is not questionable. Therefore it cannot be challenged simply by UNDOING everything.
As to page numbers, I am wrong to have not included them and will remedy that immediately. However, again, according to wiki, this is not a valid reason to undo an edit.
Hopefully we can work together for the benefit of the article within the guidelines set up for us.
Hi Tal,
I will absolutely undo any edit which appears to mix in any unsourced content with sourced content, per WP:SOURCE: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." In your edits, you mixed in sourced content with unsourced content, adding and changing material but leaving in the original source, making it appear that the citation left in supports the new material. I've given examples of that, directly above. You absolutely will need to add full sources to the content you added. I will be glad to assist you with formatting, but you must provide citations including page numbers for books. It is not my responsibility to come up with pagination for your cites, and if you want that content to remain, you must provide that information. I also strongly urge to provide full citations rather than bare URLs, per the guideline I've already linked above. I'm glad to see that you are gradually learning how to cite your additions, and I will never remove content that is well-sourced and fully cited to reliable works, as long as it can be verified. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)