User talk:Flavo Felicitia

This is Flavo Felicitia's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Few Minutes War (Syria-Israel) (February 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at February 2018 Israel–Syria incident instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Few Minutes War (Syria-Israel) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Few Minutes War (Syria-Israel), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flavo Felicitia! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bkissin (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi Flavo Felicitia! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Norm Macdonald several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Norm Macdonald, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new to this and thought I was being reverted with no justification, but I just found your comments on the page history.

However, I still disgaree with them. The three examples above are identical to mine in that they are direct or indrect quotes with only one primary source as citation. So I don't understand why youre telling me I need a secondary source for my direct and indirect quote.

I also noted you implied I was sharing my interpretation of what he said, which is most certainly not true. I invite you to simple click on the links and watch the clips where Norm says exactly what I said he did. Flavo Felicitia (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue, no secondary source is provided to demonstrate WP:DUE. Primary sources like that have no weight on their own, and shouldn't be used in that manner. If we just picked quotes we like with no secondary source to provide weight the article could be the length of a book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it is a problem.

Ideally the section about Norm's views on comedy should be an essay about comedy as if Norm himself was writing it, with hundreds if not thousands of primary sources as evidence for that essay.

In the absence of that, a small clip showing Norm's view on imitation, or his views on poorly researched jokes, illustrate his beliefs.

I also very much dispute you saying "primary sources like that have no weight on their own", as if a secondary source is somehow better.

That is saying "Why should we listen to what Norm has to say about his own beliefs when we can listen to what someone else says about his beliefs."

At the end of the day this isn't a philosophy article, its an article about Norm, what he says is the best source about him we could possibly have. Secondary sources should only be used in the absence of primary ones (such as in an abstract topic like philosophy). Flavo Felicitia (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about a lot there. Encyclopedia articles should not be written in essay style, articles should be based on secondary sourcing, and primary sources should be used with care, and only for basic statements of fact. We should listen to what an article subject days about their beliefs, but not every belief is necessary, or even reasonable, to include in an encyclopedic summary. I suggest we move any further discussion to the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]