User talk:PatBrennan

Pat,

Your contributions need to be referenced from a known and credible source.

Before continuing please take the time to learn what is a quality contribution and what is garbage, point-of-view, opinion, etc.

Please refer to and review:

Help:Contents

This is an encyclopedia, if you can find it in a printed encyclopedia, it should be here. If not it should be questioned. This is not a blog, forum, or fan site.

Thanks,

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2009

(UTC) Dear Wik,

On second blush my entry was a bit soft but nevertheless accurate. I have seen The Searchers like 15 times. Doesn't that make me an "expert"? I think it does so feel free to cite me. I also have been a bit of a comedian and a student of comedy for most of my life. No intelligent viewer of the film can argue with my assertions. They just represent something that other more serious film reviewers would ignore I stand by the assertions made be they opinion or fact. Any review of a movie is subjective and can't easily be fully referenced. I only amend Wikipedia to the extent I am knowledgeable about the topic. I notice you had no problems with my Buffett, Goodman, or Margaritaville, Hombre or One Eyed Jack Posts posts. I would never post falsely because I have too high a regard for the site. Bottom line I'll try to be a bit more studious.

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis [1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=22645776 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Justified (TV series), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to And the Rockets' Dead Glare, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Also, the content was not really relivent Weegeerunner (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search of Steve Crosetti & Lincoln generates numerous hits but for you I cite www.thefullwiki.org Steve_ Crosetti To say that his interest in the assassination was not relevant to the episode or the show or the character is to demean Wikipedia. I say this respectfully. The fact that you treat any citeable source as sufficient for a contribution or edit is also questionable. I take anything on Wikipedia as subject to verification. The page I choose to edit here is proof why. Thank you- Pat Brennan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.208.222 (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Don't Stop the Carnival (novel), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Enby your response is reasonable and hardly Chaotic. My remarks on the Buffett/Wouk collaboration that failed to go to Broadway was not based on a citable source. I have been a Jimmy Buffett fan since 1977. I own the DVD for Don't Stop the Carnival" (DSTC) I attended a concert in Montauk, Long Island in summer 1994 hosted by Paul Simon who opted not to join guest artist Jimmy Buffett. I have read novels of Herman Wouk including DSTC. I will concede that the stated reason given by the parties was creative differences. I deduced that there was another logical reason. You are right at blocking publication. It was a controversial posting. I apologize. Wikipedia owes me an apology for all the accurate, truthful and harmless postings I have made about television shows for example, that you have omitted. See Lon Chaney, Jr.- Lawman. See James Caan -Naked City, see Steve Crosetti as obsessed by thew Lincoln assassination. See episode of Justified (based on Elmore Leonard novel) wherein a character was watching the movie "3:10 to Yuma" on her television. That movie a novel/film by Leonard. I have informed your readers that Jerry Jeff Walker incorporated lyrics from "Is Anybody Going to San Antone?" by Charley Pride into his song Sangria Wine. Again I state that just because you can cite a source that doesn't guaranty truth or accuracy. It just means you have covered your ass. My posts make your encyclopedia more detailed and interesting. PatBrennan (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of our strongest editorial policies at Wikipedia is known as WP:Verifiability. If there is no published source available that can be cited to support a given assertion or fact in an article, then it doesn't matter if you are Paul Simon's manager or a Jimmy Buffet roadie and were personally there and observed what happened and recorded it on your phone, you still cannot add it to the article, unless you can provide a reliable, published source for it. That's just the way it works here. And it's cool if you are not okay with that, there are plenty of other websites where you can say whatever you want to your heart's content, and nobody will ever ask you to prove a word of it. Try Reddit, or Fandom, or Substack, or Medium. But Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and here, you cannot do that. Basically, their game, their rules. If you don't accept them, then this may not be the right place for you. If you would like to continue to contribute, great! Wikipedia could use the help, but adherence to WP:Verifiability is not an option, it is mandatory. Hope this clarifies things. Mathglot (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept your policy, but I won't likely be contributing anymore. I will use Wikipedia as a resource. Despite its safeguards, it is clearly less than accurate or complete. You are highly subjective. A fan of " Justified" and therefore its author, would be happy/informed to read about the connection to Elmore Leonard via my reference to "3:10 to Yuma" as appearing on the television set of story's character.

A fan of "Homicide" who witnessed Steve Crosetti's obsession with the Lincoln assassination as evidenced by the storyline in "Rocket's Red Glare" would smile or chuckle in obvious agreement. There's the nuance you miss.

Footnotes and references are not a guaranty of truth. Look at the contributor's posting history and the likelihood of accuracy, not merely the sourcing. Why would I lie about such trivial matters? The submissions of posters with a clean record should be presumptively accurate if not controversial, negative or unreasonable. By that standard, used by the court's in the U.S., your policy fails. It is only in a criminal proceeding that the Government, for example, must prove it's case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That seems to be your standard.

Save my recent post about Jimmy Buffett's "Don't Stop the Carnival", you cannot prove any of my many posts are false or inaccurate. This is because they are all truthful. You are so caught up in your beliefs about accuracy and provable truth that you are inaccurate and incomplete.

Respectfully

Joel Cohen, a/k/a Pat Brennan

BTW tell me who Pat Brennan was. I know without researching the matter. PatBrennan (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]