| Revision as of 20:21, 13 June 2009 editHippo43 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,306 edits cl← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 14 June 2009 edit undoWrestlinglover (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,060 edits →UndidNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| ::Your argument that "TNA said Christopher Daniels was a world champion, therefore they view the X division championship as a world championship" is a clear example of original synthesis. I don't think you understand my objections. I suggest you read ], ], ] and ] and then see if you can provide detailed references from appropriate sources. You are wasting your time trying to persuade me by continually repeating yourself. --] (]) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ::Your argument that "TNA said Christopher Daniels was a world champion, therefore they view the X division championship as a world championship" is a clear example of original synthesis. I don't think you understand my objections. I suggest you read ], ], ] and ] and then see if you can provide detailed references from appropriate sources. You are wasting your time trying to persuade me by continually repeating yourself. --] (]) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Check the X Title talk page before reverting my edit. No need for an edit war and I will report you for disruptive editing and edit warrs if you do revert.--]] 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == June 2009 == | == June 2009 == | ||
Revision as of 02:26, 14 June 2009
Undid
I undid a few of your edits to the X title. You removed information that was accurate as well. The championship is a world championship and world heavyweight championship is the only link I have to represent that.--WillC 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have restored the word "world" to the lead, but removed the link, which isn't directly relevant.
- As for belt designs, I tried to clean up a section that was badly written, but on further thought have decided to remove it as it is original research, and is based on observations of primary sources which have not been published in reliable sources. Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, please don't add material to it unless you can give specific reliable sources for the info you add. thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not remove information until this situation is discussed further. You observe that a photo is of someone, should it not be placed in the article of the person because it is your observation that, that photo is of that person because it is your own research?--WillC 14:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for me to wait until the discussion is resolved - the material is not referenced. Per Misplaced Pages:V#Burden_of_evidence, there is a requirement for you to provide references before you reinsert it.
- As for your last comment above, I don't understand what you have written. Can you clarify your point about photos? --hippo43 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- If you had a photo of Obama, that you found on here. It did not say it was Obama, but you knew it was Obama. You placed it in Obama's article. That is your observation that, that photo is of Obama. That is your own original research that, that photo was of Obama. No site telling you it was. Think! I added sources as well. I'm looking for more. Would you give me a bit. You are supposed to discuss first instead of acting, which you aren't. You aren't trying to come to a consensus. You are becoming disruptive during a GA review.--WillC 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also a personnel site. It is his business site. Would you say a primary site is a personnel site like TNA's because it is used to advertise and sell their merchandise. It is a reliable site. Simple as that. It would have to be discussed if it was not a reliable one.--WillC 14:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have to discuss before acting - from Misplaced Pages:Editing policy#Talking and editing "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles." If you have proper sources, add them to the article. --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- About "a personnel site" I don't understand what you're talking about. Have you read the policy on what is a reliable source? There is no statement on Millican's site about editorial control or fact-checking, and it is not a well-known or respected source. If you want to discuss it somewhere, go ahead, but the burden of evidence lies with you, not me. --hippo43 (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"minor changes and fixing problems." Your edits were not these. They were disruptive. You removed information and sources I may add from an article that was under debate and a GA review. If you were rewriting a few small problems, I would understand. But removing an entire section against what seemed to be two editors agreeing against one nearing a consensus on whether or not that section was OR. In the MoS it states not all statements must have a ref. None of my claims were unbelievable. They were common sense because you could see, that is why the image is in the article. Which would remove the OR from the subject. Since Millcan owns that site and he is a creator of championships which includes the X Title, I was using it to help source something he created. It is not a news site so fact checking doesn't come into play. He does not publish information either. Not all sites must be well known nor do they have to be respected. I don't respect tons of sites, so I guess little oh me makes the New York Times unreliable. I'll go off and remove them from all articles now like you. I've established he is reliable. Being the creator and backed by TNA Wrestling as the creator, he is reliable.--WillC 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't make minor changes, I fixed problems. Per WP:UNDUE, that stuff should not be in the article because it is not covered in a single reliable source. I don't care if you think your material was common sense - as far as I can see it's pointless trivia which is based on your own unpublished research. If you can find actual discussions of the belt design in reliable sources, then it might be worth including.
- As for Millican's site, please read WP:SPS. You haven't established anything.
- The MoS is a guideline, WP:V is a policy, and reads "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." I have challenged all of the material in the section and removed it because it is not verifiable. If you want to re-insert it, please find proper sources.
- As for the article being under debate - that debate can continue. My changes don't need to stop the debate. The discussion at NORN seems to me to be 2 editors on each side, including the original poster. --hippo43 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- The poster was asking, he/she is unsure. Was not asking for it to be removed. Was asking if it is OR, and you believe it is OR. But users all read polocies different. What you are pointing too I do not believe justifies (covers) removing it, but you do. And polocies change all the time. It would be best to ask on that polocies talk page if the belt description violates that policy or on a noticeboard. I'm not into the policy work on the politics, I just edit. You believe the belt description is trivial but I don't. That would be an important note: Belt design. But I'm almost done anyway. I want the article to pass that is all, with all the correct information, and the belt being changed is an important note which was sourced twice. But you removed it when that info could have been kept and the rest removed. But you didn't. That is disruptive editing.--WillC 15:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:SPS does not cover Millcan. It talks about a writer. Millcan is not a writer. He has been talked about by third party reliable wrestling web sites. He has even been talked about my TNA wrestling. So even if he was, he passes that and is allowed according to that. Since this is not a bio, he is allowed just to cover that as well.--WillC 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't feel the need to post on a policy talk page or notice-board in this case - I'm confident in my understanding of the policies here. It's not just that I see the design as trivial, it's that it is not discussed in a single reliable source, so has no place in the article, according to WP:UNDUE. The belt being changed was not sourced - you implied it from the video. As for the other info I removed, it was OR. If you disagree, please supply references for the material. I don't know much about the GA process, but I'd guess removing this crap makes it more likely the article will pass. I have no idea why you think removing unsourced trivia is disruptive. --hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- As for Millican's site, WP:SPS does not just talk about writers. So what if he has been talked about on other sites? WP:V states "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." That is currently not the case here. --hippo43 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." This implies a writer. We are talking about pictures from the man who created the belt. If I took a picture of my dog and said this is a picture of my dog, would you question if it really was my dog? I'm sourcing Millcan for creation and for the pictures. Though I do not say he created it in the article. Because the man who had the freaking belt should know who created it. TNA even said Millcan did it in May of 07, but TNA are too retarded to remember how to have archives so I can't get that article anymore and all the time machine has is saved main pages. There are four to six reliable wrestling sites and they probably talk about the design but I'm not searching through 600 TV, weekly PPVs, monthly PPVs, and DVD reports per site to find out at this time. The belt being changed is implied in the video? What? They fucking state it was changed in the damn video. Watch the damn video!! I'll go to wrestleview right now and bring a source from that reliable third party site that tells you they plan to introduce three new championship designs for their belts. You saying it isn't in any site isn't true. You haven't looked like I haven't. You still believe it is trivia but that doesn't mean it is. It is your opinion. Trivia can be rewritten and placed correctly in an article and no longer be trivia. Thanks for calling my writting crap, that means alot. At least I wrote something though.--WillC 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I said the subject material is crap, not your writing. I have looked and haven't found a single reliable source discussing these belt designs. There may be some, I just haven't found them. If I'm wrong, and someone can supply proper references, I'd support putting this stuff back in.
- If you took a picture of your dog, it wouldn't be admissible, per WP:V. If a primary source like a photo isn't published by a reliable secondary source, it isn't acceptable. If you think they state that the belt was changed in the video, supply a fucking quote and reference it properly. --hippo43 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I ask of you please, before you do anything to the article ask me. You do not know what the refs cover or what is important and what isn't. The promotion makes a title world. There is no governing body in pro wrestling to give world status. The 2002 ref covers two of the sources for names. I added a ref for the third because I forgot to earlier. I add two or three new sources to show the belt is new and re-added the designs section. Here is a link to show that Millcan is covered by third party reliable sources: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1179437910.shtml. Yes you don't have to ask me, but when you don't know shit about what you are working on you should.--WillC 16:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you can guess what my answer will be. --hippo43 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, but this would go alot better if you would just ask. You can be bold but within all the polocies you've given, there is another section that says to work with ones who have disagreements. Instead of removing refs which you shouldn't do to begin with unless they aren't reliable, you could ask what they cover. I understand we got off on the wrong foot and I'm sorry I'm an asshole. But once you removed the section I got pissed very quickly since I rewrote it two days ago. And spent a good amount of time on thinking what to write about. Hopefully we can put this behind us. I just want what is best for the article. We see differently. But that is the way of life.--WillC 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See professional wrestling is not a legit sport and has a different frame of mind. When a championship is announced as being of the world, it means the company considers it a world championship. There is no higher body in professional wrestling to give a championship world status, besides the company. So it is not unsourced commentary and with the ref it is already sourced. The only reason those notes are there, is because of that. Plus Borash was special guest ring announcer because Borash is not the regular announcer. David Penzer is. Borash quit being it in 2004.--WillC 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry Will, your statement about what it signified is original research. If you add commentary to a factual statement, you need a source. Your own belief about what it signified is not relevant. If it signified anything significant, then a reliable source will have covered it. If not, just stick to the facts.
- As for Borash, I just changed 'special guest' to 'guest' as it's less hyperbolic. --hippo43 (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- No that isn't original research. The belt descrption is OR, but this isn't. You got to be apart of wrestling to understand it a bit more. someone outside would believe it was OR. But if you understood promotions in wrestling you would get it. These same promotions rewrite their own history saying for a period of four years this man didn't lose the championship though he did. Promotions which have people lose championships before they even had the match in which they won them. In this situation it is factual. Borash was stating it was a world championship because it is the only X Title in the world which has been defened in other countries. This is also used for heavyweight championships. For the "TNA Heavyweight Championship of the World" is also used. So exactly what I said is what he meant. Would you please add it back in since the article is under a FAC at the moment and I would like to end this debate. Also an athority figure is an onscreen guy who makes matches. He is the onscreen boss. A description needed within the article.--WillC 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please go and patronise someone else. If it means what you say it means, it will be in a source somewhere. Readers don't come here to read your analysis of what happens on TV, they come to read what is reported in reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You are the one editing the article and removing stuff you know nothing about. You remove sources, you removed sourced information, you remove stuff which is needed but you don't understand so you don't think to ask first like it said in your links. Before removing something which you do not understand, go to the talk page and discuss it first, which you did not do. We've both violated the 3RR and you continue to revert. I came to you to start a discussion which when asked it says when involved in an edit war you should stop editing immediately and discuss. You didn't do that. Because I didn't agree with you, you continued to remove it until you got your way. No you didn't think to ask someone who is knowledgeable in this subject, the guy who has written around 34 articles which passes all the criteria for the nomination fields which they are involved in. The guy who has watched and studied up on TNA's History and owns the TNA's 50 Greatest moments DVD which lists the Unbreakable main event as number 4 because of it being for the belt and it being called a world championship. Websites don't give a crap about any other belt besides the top belt. They don't discuss the history of the belt. So sources are hard to come by. So I sourced the statement with a offline ref, and you are supposed to assume good faith, which you did not. I assumed it with you, but you think everything you don't know is OR. I ask of you to unwatch the X Title page so we can end this now, because it will not end since I have work to do on the article thanks to its current FAC nomination and one of my edits you are bound to not agree with. Though you don't have to do my request. You also don't have any obligation to edit the article either.--WillC 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- You have no idea how knowledgeable I am or not. If sources 'don't give a crap' about minor belts (and I tend to agree), the material isn't notable enough to be included, per WP:UNDUE. If your edits are well-referenced and are consistent with both policy and what the sources actually say, I will have no problem with them. --hippo43 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Though with you not understanding what an authority figure is, that means you don't know much about TNA. The reason they don't give a crap is because they focus on the main promotion. The promotion builds their PPVs and shows around the top belt so the website focuses on it, though they don't focus on it alot. It is in passing with its list of champions, not the actually history of said belt. Then the statement passes the reliable source criteria. I have placed in four extra references all including notes on the X Division and its Championship. The X Division Vol 1 is about the entire feud between Joe, AJ, and Daniels. Includes major comments on the unbreakable match. Though I don't own the DVD I can't use it to quote. But I do know it talks about the match and exactly what I said. So if you would, readd the sentence since it is covered by numerous sources, all being reliable. Also the authority figure statement.--WillC 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's simple. If you have proper references for your claims, great. If not, they don't belong in the article. I won't be re-adding anything. --hippo43 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can't, that would be a revert. You would have too. You removed them, you should readd the sourced statements you removed. I'm just saying, help me out here during this review.--WillC 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't agree with your view. As far as I know, removing unreferenced commentary (ie OR) like this is likely to increase an article's chances of passing this sort of review, so I don't see why you are so set on having this put back in. Wrestling is not a special case, NOR is a really important policy which applies to all subjects. --hippo43 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is sourced so it is not original research. You just thought that I was making my own assumtions which is not the case. I'm going by direct information from dvds and the event. It isn't OR and never was. If it passes the review it is because of an agreement it passes the criteria. No major facts should be avoided is apart of the criteria, and this is a major fact. If it was asked to be removed during the review by numerous people as not being correct, notable, etc then I would remove it. But by it being believed to be OR with a ref covering it and a general ref also covering it, then it isn't and shouldn't be removed.--WillC 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the material you want to put back in is not properly referenced, so shouldn't go back in. If you can supply proper references for your claims, maybe add them to the article talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is sourced by two primary sources. There is no better way to source it. It is properly sourced.--WillC 22:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- We need independent secondary sources - the current sources are neither. The statement that you added about a 'world championship' ("signifying ...") was not referenced at all. --hippo43 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- No you are just making excuses. A secondary source isn't need to note the promotion thinks its own title is a world championship. Plus I said two sources. Have you checked the Best of X Division vol 2? Probably not since it is hard to find anymore. So how can you claim that it wasn't sourced? Also recently and I can get the video, TNA claimed that Christopher Daniels is a former World Champion in TNA. He has held only the world tag and X Title and they were going by his X reigns.--WillC 22:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't understand some of your writing. If there are statements which you think should be added, why not add them to the article talk page and provide accurate references from credible, third-party, secondary sources? Because there aren't any such sources on this subject, maybe? If a secondary source doesn't make the observation, then it obviously isn't notable.
- Your argument that "TNA said Christopher Daniels was a world champion, therefore they view the X division championship as a world championship" is a clear example of original synthesis. I don't think you understand my objections. I suggest you read WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS and then see if you can provide detailed references from appropriate sources. You are wasting your time trying to persuade me by continually repeating yourself. --hippo43 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Check the X Title talk page before reverting my edit. No need for an edit war and I will report you for disruptive editing and edit warrs if you do revert.--WillC 02:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
June 2009
Oor Wullie - your removal of 'Changing times'
Just wanted to clarify how you correlate opinion and unreferenced to the removed article? Wullie smoking is available in print so anyone with access to them can see the changes over the years - Oor Wullie is the reference. I don't feel the section was a point of 'opinion' - more fact. Unless someone has copies of every late 20th and 21st century strip, it's not possible to cite that Wullie did not steal his Pa's pipe last week - but it is possible to reference strips where he did. I'm happy to add those if you feel the need.Forthbridge (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Forthbridge, thanks for your message. The reason I removed the section was that it was original research - it was not referenced, and in particular was not based on secondary sources - it was basically an editor's (or editors') observations on the primary sources, and their opinion that the subject matter has changed. If this is true/notable, it should have been commented on by reliable sources. Moreover, it went into a lot of detail about one story which was pretty trivial. This sentence - "smoking - something which would probably not be printed as a new item in modern times" reads like obvious original research to me. If someone can supply good quality secondary sources which note the changing tone of the strips, I'd definitely support including a similar section. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)