User talk:TEHodson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Kate Bush. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WP:REF and WP:V might help you with a way to use what you have as a reference | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have given several valid reasons, several times now, but you keep just automatically undo-ing my edit, without paying any attention. No other CD requires a citation for a simple song list. There are two songs on the King of the Mountain single: King of the Mountain and Sexual Healing, by Marvin Gaye. One can link to Marvin Gaye's page and see the mention of Kate's cover, where it is listed without a citation. I have asked you to please explain why you are demanding one here. Anyone who owns the CD can look at it and read the song list. One can go to Amazon.com or other vendor and see the song list. Or just go to Gaye's page, as it is linked. I see no valid reason for a "citation required" here. Please explain why you think one is needed. I've gone to your talk page, but you haven't replied. Thank you. TEHodson 22:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)TEHodson

Kate Bush

Biographies of Living Persons are held to a higher standard here. Articles of the quality of Kate Bush are held to an even higher standard. If you see a "Citation required" tag, it has probably been placed there for a good reason. In this case, it wasn't that difficult to find and add the requested citation from a verifiable source. It didn't help that you were busy doing nothing more than reverting edits while I was trying to add the citation, however, but I got it done regardless. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It was not placed there for a USUAL reason, and was therefore very confusing--I could not have understood that you required someone else's songlist as a back-up for what is self-evidently there on the CD itself. The CD itself is generally considered a "verifiable source." You did not require a citation for any other CD song list, no one else ever has required one, so your constant demand was not only bizarre, but unfathomable. I'm happy you found what you consider a reliable source; we'll all sleep better tonight. TEHodson 23:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on User talk:Uncle Milty, 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. Please do no retroactively change the timestamps on other user's talk pages. | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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) 03:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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) 00:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

SWT changes

Hi ! I reverted your changes: 1) Although the stuff there was crap, your additions did not realy improve it, and what I did was standard accepted and easily documentable. 2) I am not opposed to anyone improving the instant article, it is my job here to facilitate that, however, the changes you made did not further the purpose of the article. If you want to discuss the origins of Puritanism there is an article about it which you have found, and where it is appropriate to discuss that, please consider making your additions there. Because these are linked articles the content will be easily available to readers of the SWT article and will also be useful to those who want to delve into the origins of Puritanism. 3) The instant article is linked to a taskforce page, if you can't find it ask me and I will direct you further. Anything controvercial in this series of articles contents is discussable at the task force page, and we welcome new members. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, My guess is that you are new here ? Or, have you been editing here a long while anonymously ? Either way you may want to take advantage of your user page. You can post all sorts of opinions and thoughts and personal info here on your discussion page and on your user page (see the tab at upper left of this page). Don't get too wild about it, but if you get trapped in an edit issue, or stuck in an intellectual area this is the best place to formulate while it is getting acceptable. If you have questions ask me and if I can't figure it out I may be able to tell you who can.

My job is coordinator of the taskforce which deals the Salem Witch Trials series of pages. I am a bit new to this job, which was abandoned a while ago, so for the moment if you ask a question there or anywhere on my watchlist I am likely to respond with in 24 hours. If you want to join the task group, or if you are just curious there is a link to the task foce in the boxes at the top of the discussion page, and on my user page in the designated user box.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify some of this for you, John5Russell3Finley has no more authority over Salem witch trials, or any other article, than any other editor here on Wikipedia. The project to which he is referring is Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force which is pretty much moribund. Being coordinator of this project would not confer any special authority on him even if it were highly active. Projects sometimes produce style guidelines for article within their scope and its members might be consulted by other editors to get specialist advice but article ownership is never assigned to anybody on Wikipedia - it is considered against our principles. To resolve this you need to provide the sources of your infomation. Citing your sources makes it much more difficult for your edits to be removed if the sources are reliable. Once you have done this you can remake your edits with suitable inline cites. Without sources to refer to, editing disputes can never be resolved since no one can say who is right, it is all each editor's opinion. SpinningSpark 00:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Spark. It was nice to get such a simple question answered by someone. What was strange was that Finley never requested citations or even disputed the veracity of my edits, all he said (as you can see) was that when correcting the definition of Puritan on the SWT page they "didn't really help" (but didn't say why not), and that he'd prefer to leave in its original form (which he states was "crap" to begin with) so as to match it to the main Puritan page. It's okay with me that it match the other page (despite still being incorrect, or rather, very loosely sort of in the ballpark correct but not really), but it's not okay with me that someone pull rank and represent themselves as having an official capacity that automatically trumps me. I happened to catch the inaccuracy as I read the SWT page for the 1st time, simply because I was up to my neck in English history of the period at the moment, and had just read 5 volumes that covered the subject pretty thoroughly. It bugged me that the opening paragraph of "Religous Context" was so casually written, without shedding any insight into how these people ended up here, and the religious baggage they brought with them. I didn't lengthen the article, just tightened up the history. As nothing else in the paragraph had citations, I didn't worry about "proving" my case, especially as the Puritan page, which is linked to this paragraph, bears out everything I wrote deeper down the page. His "matching" effort is to their opening, general info paragraph, which isn't very insightful in the context of the SWT. But mostly I just wanted to understand why I was being leapt on within hours and auto-reverted in the name of his "job." To his statement that he is "not opposed to anyone improving the instant article" I can only say, "Gosh, that's nice of you." The edit he reverted to eventually includes some of my improvements, but is still not as good as it could be. But I'm not sure I want to deal with it anymore--I just happened to be there when my head was full of this stuff. And thank you again for answering a question Finley should have answered himself.--TEHodson 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you have been put off editing the article, but I fully understand why, this place can be a bit of a jungle sometimes. Your contributions appeared to be valuable, and I was considering reverting Finlay myself, but in the end I was not willing to do so because your contributions were unreferenced. Although a great deal of material is added to Wikipedia without references, any such material is open to be challenged and deleted. While agreement between Wikipedia articles is desirable, other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources and should not be used as a reference. This might seem strange at first sight but the reasons are obvious if you think about it, every article is expected to independantly verify its contents. Your books, on the other hand, would certainly make excellent sources for the article by the sound of it, if you care to add them. SpinningSpark 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

HI !

Are you a Hawyard descendant ? John5Russell3Finley (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca Towne Nourse (Nurse), Mary Towne Eastey (Estey), Sarah Towne Bridge-Cloyce, were my Great-Aunts (x10). --TEHodson 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

then clearly you're NOT a Hayward descendant? since Susanna who is my ancestor is quite clearly born too early to be their sister John5Russell3Finley (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Towne's came to Mass. colony in the 1630s. I don't have my family tree unpacked yet and I can't just grab their birth dates from memory, but Rebecca and Mary at least were born well before that, in England. Sarah may have been born here, I'd have to check. I don't know who the Haywards were (or is it Hawyard? you've spelt it both ways). Is it important? --TEHodson 07:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot length

To answer your question, here's the WikiProject Films plot guidelines, which gives 400 to 700 words as the suggested length. They are supposed to be summaries that don't go too deep into detail. IIRC, when I tagged it it was still around 1100 words. It's now 798 words, not so long that I'd tag it. Your work trimming plot summaries is appreciated. Yworo (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Libertine plot length

Well, thanks for letting me know, and I do appreciate your hard work--I know summarizing is harder than fleshing out. But I must be honest in giving you my opinion of this manner. So I know you're telling me it's too long...but in an Encyclopedia that is supposed to be accurate and detailed? With so much information available, why would we limit what we put on here? The more information, the more you can learn, and the more knowledge, the better. The movie has a lot of intricate, subtle things that are very important to the full understanding of the story, which is what we owe the filmmakers (storytellers). Filmmakers make films to tell their stories how they want them, not to appeal to the masses, believe it or not. So it's the least we can do for them, to acknowledge their hard work. If it were an article about the actual Earl of Rochester, people would be going nuts to read all the "real info" behind the film, so why do we have to shorten article? It doesn't say "synopsis" or "summary", it just says "Plot." We shorten it because it's a film, and not "real-life"? Do we shorten it so there isn't too much there period? If someone is looking up the article, someone wants to know about it, so let them know about it! If they wanted an abridged version, they would've gone to IMDB. Seems silly to me, is all. I think all film plot articles on Wikipedia should be longer, frankly. I get that Wikipedia recommends a length for these sorts of articles, but as you can see here, my opinion pretty much opposes that rule entirely. I really feel, for the benefit of the general public, that I should reverse the version of the article back to my most recent one. I mean, what's the point of adding our knowledge if we have to fit within constraints?

Let's discuss this please, and discuss what we can do about it to avoid any unfriendliness, OK? I propose that we change it back to within a few of the very small typo edits after my most recent one (theres one that details removing sexual details--which is silly because it's an R rated movie and many pages on wikipedia feature far more explicit content than this--but the edit before that one is the one I want to select for this), and I can then pare it down as best I can. It's about 1400 words, and I think after I go over it, you can go over it, and we can have the shared goal of getting it under 1000 words. Hows that for compromise? If you agree, let me know and I'll start on it. I think I'm being fair here. And trust me, its not pride or hubris about my great narrative description...its about the desire to share knowledge beyond limits.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corypark (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates

I understand that you are new. As to the wikipedia approach to uniform format for dates in an article, please see MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:STRONGNAT. Before reverting editors on matters such as these, where as was the case here they may have been correct, it may be better to check for a relevant wikipedia guideline, and in the absence of finding it to pose a query on a talk page as you are learning the ropes. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A tip about edit summaries

When you're reverting apparent vandalism, it's usually a bad idea to repeat the questionable text in the edit summary. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure it was vandalism at first; it was so smoothly done, I thought maybe there was a definition of "menstruation" I'd been unaware of all these years!--TEHodson 04:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Album Capitalisation

Hi. Please read the Wikipedia style manual on album capitalisation before modifying any more articles. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. You have a point, I'm not sure it looks correct either and perhaps both "up" and "that" should be lowercase. However, the point of a manual of style is uniformity. So if you don't agree you should address the manual of style and taking it up with those who implementing it. Your revert on the Running Up that Hill article left the article name at odds with what was in the article itself, and also broke the link to the cover image. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-existent "convention"

There is no such "convention that, on these shows at least, each episode has it's own page" for any show, not even Firefly; I'm not sure how you got the impression that there was. An article about an episode of a show, even an American network show, even an American show by Joss (or Seth McFarlane), must establish that it is notable; or it goes. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Help settling in

Hey TEHodson. You mentioned you found my way of explaining things helpful, you understood and accepted my explaination. Now, I focus on helping new ediors and I even run an adoption school to help them. I know you've been around for a while, but if you ever do have any questions or would like to discuss a problem you come across, feel free to wander over to my talk page and ask. As the old adage goes, there are no stupid questions :D Worm^TT · (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly difficult for someone with actual writing experience to get used to the collaborative and shared environment of wikipedia, but lord knows we need more writers! I generally take independent to mean "not published by the studio" in the case of television programs, but even then interviews on dvd commentary can make the cut. It's quite a lot of work to confirm nobility on episode articles, but can often be worth it. And if you do invest in a few of these books, you can do a lot of articles based upon it. If the articles aren't improved, it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and tries to delete them all in one foul swoop. I've seen it happen a few times on the Star Trek articles, and also on Heroes and Pokemon. They're not really areas I edit, but I do watch them, and tidy them up some times. Anyway, I believe I'm rambling now, so I'll wander off! Worm^TT · (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: help

Hi there. First, what you are asking is by no means too much. Unfortunately I'm editing from my phone which makes things very difficult, I'm unable to offer substantial help until the weekend. However, I can offer some advice. Take a step back until I get back, if you can. Perhaps wander over to my adoption school and read some of the lessons there particularly the one on dispute resolution. Edit warring is never helpful, it just doesnt work and will end up getting you blocked. If you get reverted, write on the talk page and wait.

I know it's not the most helpful of advice, but hopefully in a week I'll be back and able to offer you more help. If you need some sooner, wander back to where we met at WP:EARWorm^TT · (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This time I don't think I am wrong about the fundamental issue, as I was before. The only changes I made to the pages were for greater accuracy on an important episode and one grammatical change on the other. If you read the Talk page I linked for you when you get back, I think you'll find I've been very clear and precise and have been yelled at in return. At least the user in question admits he has a problem with letting others edit, but he still thinks that means he should win. He actually isn't saying that my changes are inaccurate, just that it doesn't matter to him because he wants the page to remain as he wrote it. Have fun on your vac.--TEHodson 07:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm back. I'll see if I can have a look at what happened, offer any post event advice. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For collaborating with Moni3 and finding an amicable solution to your issues on a couple of Buffy articles. WormTT · (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Kate Bush Pink Vinyl

Hi, thanks for the message - I still struggle with getting citations right on Wikipedia - links on it are below:

http://www.recordstoreday.com/SpecialRelease/4858 http://www.katebushnews.com/index.php/2011/03/limited-edition-hounds-of-love-10-vinyl-ep-on-way-from-audio-fidelity/

Hope this helps! MagicBez (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry... :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.27.52 (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, "do as thou will", as the saying goes; however, I find it funnier that WP:LITTLEBROTHER makes no mention whatsoever of Cain and Abel. Perhaps there is some stoicism in standing up for another who clearly did wrong; but then, I don't fashion myself a masochist, either. What do I do when a real problem has no good resolution? :( Orethrius (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you did exactly right. I thought the LB thing, which I'd never heard of, was funny because of the other day. I don't think I said anything to imply you were lying. If it doesn't apply to you, don't sweat it. I'm from the Bay Area, by the way. Are you at Cal?--TEHodson 07:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, actually, more along the lines of the Delta. I just find it disconcerting when the prevalent Internet-based attitude is that everyone's lying (now, in all fairness, you never said that, but I found it a little insulting in the way which Cobra phrased it). However, I suppose I should remember the original rule of the Internet.

"You can't trust that Internet. Everyone on there's a liar." "Even when they're telling the truth?" "Especially when they're telling the truth."

Good times had by all, even if he wasn't particularly lulzy. Sorry, but pointless humour never really got my attention. Though I imagine I'll be explaining some posts to him in the morning... in short, easily-pronounced words. XD Orethrius (talk) 08:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"Humor, it is a difficult concept." (Lt. Saavik to Spock)--TEHodson 08:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. For instance, I find it funny that I have to keep explaining societal norms to him; I'm sure he finds it funny that I recognize Wikipedia as a collection of contributing users, rather than a single user posting under literally thousands of names (nevermind the mind-boggling logistics behind that statement). Honestly, it worries me that he's pursuing a psych degree... if he actually achieves one, humanity as a whole is screwed. XD Orethrius (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Severus Snape talk.

Hey there. I'll see your Yoko Ono page, and raise you New World Order (conspiracy theory)... a_man_alone (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you. They get rude and nasty (and truly disgusting) on poor Yoko's page, but that stuff is downright scary. Almost makes me prefer the "old" world order.--TEHodson 22:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Stewart & Weiner

He was talking about Weiner and then he said "he's my friend, contrary to reporting, we never roomed together, a few weekends I crashed at a shore house with him in Delaware" You can watch the full clip from today's show here... http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-31-2011/distinguished-member-of-congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.10.138 (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was me that posted above. I knew it was here because I've heard it mentioned a few times and checked and saw it here. However, this was the first time that I heard Stewart contest the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You can watch the full episode at the link in my previous comment. However, I recall Jon saying something to the effect of 'I don't know why people say that we were roommates, we never lived together. Unless you call 'crashing at the same shore house' as "roommates".

I have friends who go to the jersey shore in the summer. People rent a 4-6 bedroom house and fit 8 guys in there, so that appears to be what they did, maybe multiple years in a row. I watch a lot of The Daily Show and have a keen eye for his jest, sarcasm and nervous laugh+truth and this was definitely the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstorman (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Restless

Congratulations on the GA! You guys both put a lot of work into it (and waited a long time for the review), it's well-deserved! rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you, TEHodson (a woman, and not a man, my mistake, haha), your contributions to the article were fantastic and really helped me during the GA review (copyediting, etc.) and your improvements such as adding the background section. So thank you again! :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a pleasure to work on it with you, Drovethrughosts; you are a good and generous collaborator. Rjanag, your suggestions were concete and well-organized, making improving the article much easier. I have still have a few tweaks, such as checking for redundancies and standardizing the way in which the cards are discussed (I used quotes, then noticed that below the cards were in italics). I've been under the weather so will have to wait another day or two. No more big changes, just a bit of fine tuning. It's a fantastic episode, a favorite to watch just by itself when I want to see a bit of surrealism. I still am playing with the idea of discussing it within the context of surrealist filmmaking, but it's unlikely there are scholarly articles on that particular aspect of the ep., so I'd have to compare it to other work such as Un Chien Andalou, maybe Maya Deren and some of Jean Cocteau's work, but this might be considered OR. We'll see. If I decide to go through with it, I'll get in touch first. See you all soon on some other page. Ghosts: is there another Buffy ep you'd like to tackle?--TEHodson 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

enrol / enroll

I see the potential edit war going on between enrol and enroll in the Kate Bush page. For my money, I feel more comfortable with "enrol" as it feels more correct. I note that both spellings are valid, but I have an "instinctive" feeling that the one-l version is perhaps older and therefore maybe has more test-of-time-ness behind it (I would not be surprised to find that the two-l version is an American variant). Just saying. --Matt Westwood 21:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up, and "enrol" is considered a variant, not the usual spelling (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enroll). If you look up enrol, you get directed to the two l spelling. It doesn't mention British vs. American usage.--TEHodson 23:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. Someone mentioned in the comments that two-l is US, one l is UK. Bear in mind MW is an American dictionary (and now I've read the article on Noah Webster I finally get to grips with why spellings are different: "As a spelling reformer, Webster believed that English spelling rules were unnecessarily complex, so his dictionary introduced American English spellings, replacing "colour" with "color", substituting "wagon" for "waggon", and printing "center" instead of "centre".")

As KB is herself British, I wonder whether the one-l version would sit better after all. Your call. --Matt Westwood 05:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Technically you're right, in that the usage should be British, but it should also be accepted British English. I went to the Oxford online dictionario (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/enrol) and it is there under "World English" (rather than British; are they the same thing?), but all the other forms of the word (enrolled, enrolling, enrollee, etc.) use 2 l's, so I'd leave it as enroll as even you guys grab the second l when you need it. The word has been in the article in that form for years, and those who are always correcting American English to British never bothered before. To me it looks really silly with one l, as though the other fell off! Why don't we wait and see if others join in and start changing it. If more than one Brit insists, I won't argue.--TEHodson 05:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's how British English often works - it doubles the final consonant before adding the suffix, e.g. level, levelled, levelling, etc. Same with enrol. Interestingly, US English frequently doesn't. Caused me all sorts of headaches when I was a child when the school bought a load of text books from the US and then wondered why our spelling suffered. :-)

Interesting, this. "World English" is the version of English that is (in theory) considered standard throughout the world except in the US (and possible regional variants which are considered non-standard). American cultural dominance since (in particular) WWII is gradually (or not so gradually) causing World English to be replaced by US English as the language of choice. So it goes. --Matt Westwood 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Terminator 2

I don't always leave edit summaries because it takes up time. As for the article itself, it is in a massive state of disrepair, I can't really inflict significant damage on it, but I will try to provide summaries in the future. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the article, and have been watching your efforts with interest. I hope they pay off. Summaries are a useful tool, though, and make it easier to remember which edit is which. In the future, please leave replies on your own page (see the top of my Talk page for where I will answer you).--TEHodson 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TEHodson. You have new messages at Worm That Turned's talk page.
Message added 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Swarm 06:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Followup comment

Hi there, TEHodson, just a quick followup reply to your last comment. To be clear, you're right that a "normal" reliable source (i.e. a news report, "official" website) is usually preferable to a Twitter posting for information. It's the fact that Twitter can be the first source of new information that makes it helpful. Anyway, if you ever need a second opinion (or if Worm's too busy :P), feel free to drop me a message. Swarm 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your help.--TEHodson 20:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Twitter, Wikipedia, and Reliable Sources

First let me extend an olive branch, I apologize for coming off a bit harsh in our interaction. Editor that take an overly dogmatic stance on policies have always rubbed me the wrong way, however after further interacting with you more it became clear to me that this is not you. Instead you seem to be more of an editor that if focused on editing one area of the project, not involving yourself in the deeper Wikipedia politics and drama, which is commendable. I have been an administrator for quite some while and a good chunk of that time was spent dealing with Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs) and that takes a great deal of policy application, mostly related to sourcing and determining what should be included in articles. So I have a fair bit of experience of with this kind of stuff, not to toot my own horn.

The reliable sources policy is a cornerstone of the project, alas its application in most cases is rather simple. Unless you're editing one of the highly contentious articles on the site you can summarize the policy as "in the context of the article, is the source reasonably reliable about the subject while also being reasonably neutral." Context is a very important element that a single policy will never be able to express. For example, in the various science article on this site the standards for sourcing are placed extremely high. To assert almost anything fact on the article you need an article not only from a scientific journal but a very reputable one. With BLPs it gets more murky, let's take the sentence "President Obama visited a factory in Detroit to make a speech." In that case a informal, primary source would be considered adequate. A different case, "President Obama signed a secret memo authorizing torture," would require multiple secondary sources of a very high quality and even then might be questioned.

Sources also often have more subtle factors that go into reliability. Let's use the Running Up that Hill dispute as an example. The first two sources I provided were from Twitter. First off, Twitter is not verboten on Wikipedia, by policy or community standards, it is however heavily frowned upon and entirely inappropriate for sourcing many things. The example above would be an example of one proper use. In reviewing the two Twitter sources we have to take a number of things into account, namely if the Twitter account is who they say they are and if so are they in a position to be an authority on the matter. The official SyFy channel page for the show lists both account as being the official accounts of the respective actors, this leads to a reasonable conclusion that we can be sure they are who they say they are. Wikipedia has articles on both actors which also verifies they are members of the cast of the show. The next question is if the sources are neutral, as cast members of the show and not band members we can make a reasonable assumption of neutrality. So the two sources, while not the most reliable can be shown to have a reasonable degree of authority, knowledge of the subject and neutrality. Next up is the iTunes store page. There is nothing wrong with using iTunes because it is commercial, that in fact makes it a great sources in some cases. What is posted to iTunes can generally be accepted to be the official product of a record label and Apple is almost certainly neutral in most matters where iTunes would be cited. A caveat to that is almost anybody can get something on iTunes, so the mere existence of something on iTunes doesn't mean too much. When we examine the iTunes page for the Running Up that Hill cover we see the copyright is attributed to "2011 Universal Network Television LLC", the parent company of the SyFy network and the producer of the show. That would lead us to believe the iTunes page is reasonability authoritative about the song. Put together we can again assume this source has a reasonable degree of authority, knowledge of the subject and neutrality.

When everything above is taken into account it provides a reasonability reliable account that the stated band performed the stated song on the stated show. Would that level of sourcing be appropriate for many things on Wikipedia? No, it would not. In this case it's a rather simple fact and no source with a higher degree of reliability disputes what is asserted. At the end of the day the goal of Wikipedia is to provide a factual account of the subject matter. Brandon (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for both the olive branch and the elucidation re Twitter. I see what you're saying and can concur re RUtH. I think two things were making me so stubborn at the start of the dispute: one was that I had no idea who those Tweeters were and something in the way you were communicating led me to believe it was possibly your band, and the Tweeters were possibly you and a bandmate, or something. Also someone else had just claimed it was Placebo and the source stated it was them, so there was confusion and I wanted a reliable source so there wouldn't be a back-and-forth about which band really had been used--that had already started, and I hoped to avoid it. The obscurity of the second band made it seem likelier that this was somehow personal for you, and the fact that initially there was no other source made the whole thing feel very tenuous and like an attempt at self-promotion. The other thing is the constant difficulty of keeping the Kate Bush pages free of trivia and fan cruft, and that page in particular is getting filled with every instance the Placebo version of the song appears anywhere, even if only for 3 seconds, or every instance when someone somewhere performs the song. I was, in hindsight, also short-tempered because of your refusal to discuss, rather than be flippant and rude, and really, too brief. Taking the time to write the above at the start would have made all the difference, as I would have understood you to be a serious editor with a genuine case for your edit. There aren't very many serious editors on what you might call the "pop culture" pages; we get mostly anonymous editors who make drive-by edits that can be really troublesome to deal with, and that was what I thought you were, especially because your attitude at the moment was of that sort (I should have checked your contributions, and I apologize for not doing that). I am not usually dogmatic, but get so when dealing with those sorts of edits. I work, too, on the Buffy pages and again, there are only a few of us there who are serious writers and researchers, and we tend to all know one another. I hadn't seen you on any of Kate's pages, so again, I made a wrong assumption about you. On Swarm's Talk page I gave an example from my own life: my daughter's cover of "Ain't No Sunshine" was used by Channel 4 to promote the UK broadcast of the AMC show "The Killing," but were I to put that into an article, I wouldn't use her Facebook page or even YouTube as a source, as anyone can say anything on those pages; I would have used the Channel 4 site as the only source. I was applying that standard here.

Regarding the edit you made, I don't know yet if you've gone back and put it back in, but what I'd recommend is using only the iTunes ref and taking out the Twitter references altogether. We certainly don't want to encourage people to use Twitter as their primary source, as I don't think we can rely on everyone to be as exacting as you were. You also, in the above, demonstrate exactly why using Twitter is such a bad idea--one has to go into research mode oneself in order to figure out who the person is, what their affiliation is, who is standing by what they say, etc., and that's a lot of research to do just to find out if one fact is, indeed, a fact. I did go to the SyFy and Warehouse pages to see if they listed the song (since some show pages give that info for each episode, which is very handy when you're trying to find out who that great band was), but they didn't have anything. What I would like to see is the band credited, with one reliable source, so that no one comes back to insist it was Placebo (I know the reviewer corrected themselves, but from what I saw, the correction isn't immediately visible). What do you think of that as a solution to all the problems attendant to this bit of info?--TEHodson 19:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

It's plain simple: They do not meet Wikipedia standards. Poorly sourced, unsourced or in universe are the issues. That is why i'm redirecting them, or as you and Moni call it, "blanking the articles". Moni's current actions are taking the shape of a desperate fan trying to keep these articles intact, no matter what featured articles she's helped get, they are not notable enough. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:20 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You just did something that is highlighting the problem we both have with you: at the top of this page (my Talk page) I explain how and where I will reply to comments--you didn't read it, as had you done so, you'd see that this conversation should have continued on your Talk page and why. You didn't bother to check out the history re those articles you blanked, or you'd have known the conversation regarding re-directs has happened before. You aren't respectful of your fellow editors and have done no research on them, otherwise you'd know that Moni is not a mad fan who has done no work on Buffy (or other) articles. This has muddied the water considerably, as now personalities are affecting how decisions are made. Keep this conversation on the appropriate page, please. And I'm not accusing you of anything, but it does appear that the new comment on your Talk page, to which you are replying, appears to have ben made by a sock puppet come to bolster your argument. I hope that is not the case.--TEHodson 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hodson, it's impolite to pester other editors in this manner, it shows unecessary aggresiveness. She posted her clarifiance at 23:57. Whilst repling to her, you demanded my reply, two minutes later at 23:59, causing an edit conflict. You parade about Wikipedia like this, it shows you are impatient. Thanks. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:07 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked you for a list days ago, more than once: you provided it today. She and I have both asked you direct questions, you don't answer them. Several of us have had to show extreme patience with you these last few days. You are not following any WP protocol, and have made a huge mess for others to resolve, apparently content to let others do work that only you find critical and urgent. You have been admonished by an adminstrator. It is not "pestering" to demand an answer from someone who ignores the question multiple times. Now that you've rocked the Buffyverse, please go back to whatever you were doing before you decided that it needed your attention. Thank you. (By the way, an "edit conflict" simply means two people are posting at once--it isn't an actual "conflict." And "clarifiance" is not a word. Perhaps you meant "clarification"?)--TEHodson 00:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure of what your goal here was: to prevent these redirects or make me look incompetent. You can't expect me to respond immediately to fit your schedule as i was doing the "other stuff" you mentioned. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:03 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the other stuff.--TEHodson 00:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Parting words

I guess my age doesn't help me. Yea, i still attend school, i still get homework, do chores and work at at crappy part time job. When i first started on Wikipedia, it was to be a humourous joke, but delving into the site intrigued me and ushered in new work to explore and learn, at the same time contributing my own information. I'm new, but i have time to gain the experience Moni has. Sure, my work on the Buffyverse has ticked many people off, so i won't go there no more, but i know my fields and have given the same amount of respect and courtesy people deserve. So my final apologies to you and Moni if i came off as an ass, but know this, these contributions [1] may be full of fuck ups, but i learned from them and i have created article that benefit Wikipedia and the millions of knowledge seekers who look it up. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:23 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to tell you that I am never aggravated like I have been with you today, and I stayed patient for a long, long time--days. You definitely got everyone going, and really didn't seem to understand what was happening. And it was not a good introduction to the Buffy pages, where everyone should tread lightly, as feelings often run high for a variety of reasons. Dismissing passionate editors as mere fans is also a bad idea. The point Moni has been trying to make is that there is a huge amount of work that has to be done if all those articles get re-directed--the re-direction is only one, very small, step. Your failure to grasp that has driven us all crazy, especially as you in no way indicated that you were willing, or even capable, of doing that work. My point has been following protocol so that such chaos doesn't erupt in the first place. I hope you learnt that after this episode. And learnt to adopt a more humble tone.

Now, you shouldn't quit editing or let this stop you, but continue to offer what you can, while avoiding the sort of sweeping moves you made this time. I wouldn't have even attempted something like that myself, and I'm much more experienced than you are. That sort of thing is complicated and advanced and a huge, huge decision that has to be made by committee. And usually, if we all agreed to do it, we'd split up the work and check in with one another over an extended period of time. It's kind of weird to have someone show up and say, DO THAT! OR ELSE I'M GETTING RID OF THESE! Anyway, I accept your apology, and hope you make things right with Moni. She's a good one to have on your side, though she is a scrapper and can really enjoy a good fight.

Good luck with your continued work on WP.--TEHodson 03:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope so too. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:48 27 October 2011 (UTC)