Talk:Good Crazy

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

The continuity section

IMHO, the whole continuity section does not comply with wikipedia's policies and should be deleted in its entirety. I have already tagged it as original reasearch twice, but the tag has been removed twice without change. The first revertion included the edit summary: "All claims are sourced by the primary sources: the episodes mentioned." To which I replied that the rellevance of the facts still had to be proven. The second revertion included the edit summary: "There is no question of OR, as the tag claims. If there is a worry about trivia, that's a different story".

I don't agree with this assertion. I think it's trivia, but I'm also convinced that it's original reasearch. Let's take, for instance, the first fact from the list:

Barney makes use of his fake statistics again, as he mentions his online dating success rate to be as high as 83 percent.

Here, the the editor of wikipedia is saying that the statistic is "fake" (which the show implies, but doesn't confirm), and uses the loaded word "again". This is original reasearch, as we are analysing the content of the episode without referring to a source.

Not only that, but it is assumed that this is something relevant that ought to be highlighted. Why not add that Barney wears a suit in the episode? Or that he keeps saying that something he has just invented "it's a thing"? You could continue ad infinitum.

So, as I see it, the whole section should be removed, since it's mostly a collection of unreferenced facts put together by some editor (Original Research) with no relevance, since it has not been covered by any reliable source (notability). --RR (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RR, The concern that items in the tagged section might be original research and the concern that the items might be trivia are two separate concerns, so I will respond to your worries separately. First, the question of whether they are original research:

There are (currently) six items in the "continuity" section. Five of them name the specific episode that is being used to source the continuity claim. The sixth does not cite any episode as a source. It also is the only one of the six items you discussed in your comment above. That, to me, is quite telling. The other five items are unquestionably not original research, as in each case they name the specific episode that provides the source for the claim, which those episodes, as primary source material, do substantiate. So at worst, there is only one of six items that is possibly original research. If you wan to tag that one item as "citation needed" that would not be out of line, but to tag the whole section for one item is improper.

I should also add that even though no episodes have been named to source that item, there is no question that the item is legitimate. You say that the word "again" is "loaded", but that makes no sense. To say "again" just means he has done it before (and in this case many times before). If you (or someone else) goes through the past episodes of the show you will easily find many different ones where he uses 83% when giving statistics. There is nothing "loaded" about being accurate. You also worry that we don't really know that the statistic is fabricated. If that is your worry, then just take out the word "fake" and the item is fine. So your worry about original research as a general worry has no basis.

Now the issue of trivia.

If you are correct and the entire section is trivia and thus should be eliminated, you are not just right about the section on this one page. You are also not just right about the dozen or so most recent episodes of the show, whose pages you have similarly tagged over the last few months. You would be right about the more than 150 pages for the more than 150 episodes of the entires series. So if you do have a concern about all of these pages containing trivia, it is an issue that is not best addressed by tagging the sections one by one, especially if you are using the unrelated "original research" tag. A concern like this should have a more general discussion in order to reach a consensus about whether or not these sections in general constitute trivia. I would recommend that you should start a discussion explaining your concern about trivia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. That way a discussion can be had and a general decision made that could be implemented for all 150+ episode pages (and for similar episode pages for other TV show episode pages). But just leaving an "original research" tag and walking away from the pages will not settle anything. 99.192.57.166 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair, and although I see the two issues (OR and Trivia) as being related, I can see how we could benefit from treating them sepparatedly. Thnaks for the advice.

Btw, my hope when trying to tag individual pages was encouraging its contributors to source their assertions. It doesn't seem it's working, though. --RR (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last Cigarette Ever

Note: The following has been lifted from my talk page as the threadstarter complained to me about the deletion of his edit and continued with the editwarring later. Feel free to discuss below the locked area. PS. Nice try seeking the help of an admin who doesn't even watch the show. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please don't revert content without providing any valid reasons. "shorter doesnt matter" does not mean anything. The continuity reference is completely valid, taking it out to make a section one line smaller is not a valid reason to remove it. Looking through the page history, you've reverted similarly phrased comments over and over again. Please refrain from reverting, or I will have to call in an admin over the issue. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the edit history for the page, you will see that a persistent vandal with a myriad of IP addresses (and a few one-time-only-use registered names) has been re-adding this bit of info for the last two weeks. But the claim is original research. It cannot be added without a valid source to back it up. 99.192.75.44 (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just referenced it, see my new edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everything in the continuity section is technically OR then, since nothing there is referenced. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying away from the page for awhile, but I am going to inform an admin about your behavior. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what counts as a source. All of the other items are sourced by the episodes. All we know from this episode is that Marshal is smoking and that his child (of indeterminate gender) is about to be born. It is an assumption that (1) this is his son and (2) that he won't have another cigarette before the child is born, even if it is a son. That we see him smoking does not tell us that it is the last. The episode does not source the claim. 99.192.75.44 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you watched today's season finale, you would know it is a boy, Marvin Wait-for-it Erickson. Nonetheless, I am still referring you to an admin. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now all you need to do is explain how you know he did not have another cigarette between the one he had in ""Good Crazy" and when the boy was born. It is only an assumption that he didn't. 99.192.75.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Greyanomalywhatever, you don't understand the thrust of those revisions...and sourcing some blog doesn't help. It's even bizarre why you had to bring it to my talk page when you could have brought it up at the article's discussion page. Now that I think of it, I will post everything there.--Eaglestorm (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have had the night to better think over my position. The edits of Eaglestorm and the IP beginning with 99 (hence forth whom I will refer to as 99 for simplicity) violate common sense, both in the traditional sense and WP:COMMONSENSE. HIMYM is a TV series heavily built around continuity, which has tons of continuity jokes mixed in all over the place. Future Ted established that the night in question that Marshall would have his last cigarette ever. Seriously, why would the producers put in a single moment of Marshall. Also, if we are calling the cigarette comment OR, many other continuity comments can also be called OR. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP in question has violated 3RR. I have posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#99.192.75.90.2C_99.192.61.78.2C_99.192.75.44_reported_by_User:Thegreyanomaly_.28Result:_.29 Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a violation of 3RR to revert vandalism. This article has been under attack from a vandal for more than two weeks. The vandal has registered several new accounts for one-time-only edits and used a stiring of IP addresses, but follows a similar editing pattern and always refuses to discuss the edit. reverting that vandalism is to restricted by 3RR. There is no violation. 99.192.75.90 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. I've got blocked once for reverting edits by a sock of User:Nangparbat since I broke the 3RR. Also, this is not vandalism, this is a policy dispute. Nonetheless, just because someone is an IP does not mean they are a vandal. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak as to why you were blocked before, but it you read 3RR it clearly says that reverting vandalism is an exception. Also, I would think it is obvious that I know that not all IP editors are vandals. The vandal in question, as I just said, has even registered new accounts to use just one time for edits to persist in vandalizing the article. As for whether there is a policy dispute, I agree that there is an issue that can be discussed, but with a vandal who just shows up for weeks on end to revert withno explanation, not addressing points raised, registering multiple accounts, then that person is not raising a policy issue. 99.192.75.90 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“

Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#3RR_exemptions

”

I am a well-intentioned user, Cybie is one too (unless you can prove otherwise), we don't consider the addition vandalism. Anyways I've got work to do, goodbye for now

Sure you are who you say you are...and so are the IP vandals who've poked around here for weeks. Me violating commonsense? [Buzzer] Try again. --Eaglestorm (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglestorm, please read up on WP:Civility and WP:Assume good faith. Accusing everyone who makes a specific edit of being vandals or socks is inappropriate. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Note: I was asked by Thegreyanomaly on my talk page to mediate in this matter but since I watch the show myself, I'm not impartial enough to do so) Personally, I have to agree with removing the section. While it makes sense, to assume that this was indeed the last cigarette Future Ted refers to in Last Cigarette Ever, it's not actually proven. It's equally possible to assume that Marshall has his last cigarette after the birth (since Ted only says "day his son was born"). I'd leave it out and wait for some reliable source to confirm or deny it - common sense can't replace WP:V when material is challenged. Regards So Why 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, SoWhy. That assessment pretty much agrees with what Eaglestorm and I have been saying in the edit summaries. The one review Thegreyanomaly linked to as a source for the claim that it was the last cigarette hedged on whether it actually was for the same reason. Even comments Thegreyanomaly has made show that there is an assumption involved in concluding that this was the last. For all we know there will be an episode next season with a flashback to the day Marvin was born showing Marshall smoking after he leaves Atlantic City. 99.192.75.90 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have better things to do that the deal with this quibble. I withdraw myself from this discussion and this article. The closing admin on the edit warring notice put a full protect on the page. 99, the next time you are dealing with what you think is vandalism, please consult Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism before getting into edit wars. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, withdrawing when the opinion is 3-1 against you and you can't find an admin to do your bidding is probably wise. Also, you should note that the explanation given for protecting the page was because of the sock puppetry problem, which is what I and Eaglestorm both noted was the problem, not because of any violations of 3RR or edit warring. Perhaps you can learn something from that. As for the advice about running to the admins about vandalism, Eaglestorm and I were taking care of it just fine on our own before you came along. Not everyone runs to mommy at the first sign of difficulty. 99.192.49.180 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.75.90)[reply]

06:49, 16 May 2012‎ Slakr (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (5,292 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Good Crazy: Edit warring / Content dispute (‎[edit=sysop] (expires 06:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)) ‎[move=sysop] (expires 06:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC))))

The edit summary speaks for it self

Please read, WP:Civility. That is all I will say. Good bye. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! The original protection edit summary said: "Protected Good Crazy: Persistent sock puppetry". Which is exactly what I said. That level of protection was sufficient to prevent me from making further edits, but not you. So if the level of protection was increased, it was not aimed at me. It looks like the admin wanted to keep you from edit warring. You wrote: "That is all I will say. Good bye". Are you sure? Because you added further comments 3 1/2 hours after writing that, so I have to wonder. Before that you wrote: "I have better things to do that the deal with this quibble. I withdraw myself from this discussion and this article." But you keep coming back, so again I have to wonder. 99.192.81.239 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda odd too. You "sign out" here then you come running to Slakr and SoWhy within 20 minutes of the above anon's response. You got real nerve to call me an ally of the above anon, not to mention spout various policies off the bat. You and your revisionism about deleting the item eventually triggering the protection - not to mention that thing over ANI where you claim it's a policy dispute according to you and others (like yourself and yourself, maybe?). You just refuse to consider the argument about the article being vandalized. That's my last say on the matter since the article's being full-protected for the next few days. Please don't let your - for lack of a more civil word - hypocrisy kick in again. You're already guilty of forum-shopping by talking to four admins. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]