User talk:Ralf whiggum1
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Julia Roberts
[edit]I didn't remove the addition the last time. However, I tried to verify this through other sources and so far, I cannot verify that Roberts father was from Scotland. It's known that she is of Scottish, English and Irish descent, but not that her father came from Scotland, which is what your addition says. He joined the US military in the 1950s in order to take advantage of education opportunities offered for vets, and to my knowledge, a person must be an American citizen for that. I could not find an archive going back to 2004 online through the website for the paper, but I did write an email inquiring about the article. Because that accessible information would contradict the source you are citing, it needs to be verified. This isn't something that is so pressing that it can't wait until it can be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with thinking you are lying. It has everything to do with verifying what source is given, and since 1) you are new to Wikipedia and 2) what the source given is said to say contradicts other information, it's entirely possible the source is wrong. That's why I wrote to the publication to request a copy of the article. Since it was newly added information that is contradictory, it can wait for verification. I certainly hope you aren't implying that you are going to try and gut the article if things already in it aren't cited. Perhaps your efforts could instead focus on trying to add proper citations, such as are explained at WP:CITE. Then again, if your intention is to be spiteful, tread carefully. There are specific policies governing behavior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- You know, I went to the trouble of explaining the issue to you, and if that doesn't sit well with you, I can't help it. There are a lot of policies here that govern all of the editing issues that come up. I'm not the only person who had issues with the citation you added being insufficient. It couldn't be verified, which is a core policy. I went to the trouble of finding out how to contact the place you said published the content, and went even more to the trouble of writing them to try and verify it. Most editors here wouldn't have bothered. There are policies that govern citations, and tagging existing content to ask for citations to sources and when that is appropriate and when it is not. Try reading WP:BLP, which is about biographies of living persons. Try reading WP:CITE, which explains how to cite sources. Try reading WP:V, which discusses verifiability. Try reading WP:RS, about reliable sources. If content is unsourced, but non-controversial or non-contradictory, then it is perfectly acceptable to cite it with a {{fact}} tag, requesting sources. There's a big difference between not verified and not being able to verify it. The content you added to Julia Roberts is not presently verifiable until I here from the publisher. If content is cited to published sources, there is no requirement that it be obtainable online. However, if that is the case, and the content is challenged, then it should be removed until it is verified. Again, I'm sorry if that process is too complicated for you to bother with, but it's something that is absolutely necessary in publishing. It isn't okay to go ahead and publish something and not be able to verify it at press time. That's essentially what the problem is here. I invite you to write to the Foundation and tell them that some big, bad editor on Wikipedia removed your content because it couldn't be verified at this time and explained that to you. I'm sure they get those sorts of letters all the time, because these subtleties come up all the time. Sorry you don't like it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm fine with it, apologies unnecessary. I have already emailed the publisher, so it's too late to undo that, but that's okay. The worst they can say is that they didn't publish it. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- You know, I went to the trouble of explaining the issue to you, and if that doesn't sit well with you, I can't help it. There are a lot of policies here that govern all of the editing issues that come up. I'm not the only person who had issues with the citation you added being insufficient. It couldn't be verified, which is a core policy. I went to the trouble of finding out how to contact the place you said published the content, and went even more to the trouble of writing them to try and verify it. Most editors here wouldn't have bothered. There are policies that govern citations, and tagging existing content to ask for citations to sources and when that is appropriate and when it is not. Try reading WP:BLP, which is about biographies of living persons. Try reading WP:CITE, which explains how to cite sources. Try reading WP:V, which discusses verifiability. Try reading WP:RS, about reliable sources. If content is unsourced, but non-controversial or non-contradictory, then it is perfectly acceptable to cite it with a {{fact}} tag, requesting sources. There's a big difference between not verified and not being able to verify it. The content you added to Julia Roberts is not presently verifiable until I here from the publisher. If content is cited to published sources, there is no requirement that it be obtainable online. However, if that is the case, and the content is challenged, then it should be removed until it is verified. Again, I'm sorry if that process is too complicated for you to bother with, but it's something that is absolutely necessary in publishing. It isn't okay to go ahead and publish something and not be able to verify it at press time. That's essentially what the problem is here. I invite you to write to the Foundation and tell them that some big, bad editor on Wikipedia removed your content because it couldn't be verified at this time and explained that to you. I'm sure they get those sorts of letters all the time, because these subtleties come up all the time. Sorry you don't like it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)