UAA reports
I would consider taking both names you've reported to WP:RFCN. Thank you, Nja247 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia'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)
- 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 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 Wikipedia's purposes is to have a well-referenced encyclopedia. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:10, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Your reply makes it sound as if you are inflexible on this issue. So am I. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:17, 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)
- 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)
- 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)