User talk:MariusSterzinger

Welcome!

Hello, MariusSterzinger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Mentalism did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reposted the text with citations, and it still keeps getting deleted, without comment or explanation. Can you please explain why this is? MariusSterzinger (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain: because it's just too much, and there's a lot that's original research. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, again with due respect, none of it is “original research”. There is nothing in my addition that is not justified by the Strivings and Wind texts (or either of them, in fact). May I ask, did you read them before making your deletion? Also, what do you mean “it’s just too much”? Too much by reference to what? In my view the added text is no longer than necessary to explain an important aspect of Mentalism properly. MariusSterzinger (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all you don't explain what you are doing: that's often a red flag. Second, that book by Mark Strivings is self-published, and I think he's running that Penguin site; the second reference is really spam for a book sold on that site. The next paragraph is uncited, the paragraph after that is cited to a blog (we don't accept that here), and the last paragraph is uncited... So I appreciate your efforts, but they need better sourcing, from independent sources. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by the comment “you don’t explain what you are doing”; could you please elaborate? I am trying to fill in an important part of the subject which is wholly omitted in the current treatment. Mark Strivings does not run Penguin - it is one of the largest retailers of magicians’ props and sales generally, with an international reputation, as a cursory Google search would have revealed. Moreover the Strivings book is currently out of print, and is now only available (for free) on Scribd. Books for magicians are for a very small readership and usually have only a small print run. It is also not unusual for them to be self-published for the same reason. With due respect, I don’t think you have thought your objections out, but have made them on the basis of inaccurate guesswork, and without due regard to the subject-matter. MariusSterzinger (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and specifically WP:RS/SPS. Self-published sources are almost never acceptable on Wikipedia. If there is no published information about a topic other than self-published sources, then unfortunately that information does not belong on Wikipedia. CodeTalker (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CodeTalker. MariusSterzing, please stop pretending as if this is our fault, as if "a cursory Google search" would have solved the problem. It wouldn't, and it's not our job. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I merely pointed out to you that your judgment call was predicated on a guess based on absolutely nothing - that Mark Striving “runs” Penguin. Not only was it wrong, it was patently wrong to anyone who knows anything about the subject, and a perfunctory Google search would have shown you that. With respect, I think it is your job to approach what you do with circumspection and not to indulge in wild guesswork. You may not get paid for the role, but it does have a public nature, and with that goes a duty to undertake it soberly and responsibly. MariusSterzinger (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]