User talk:CinemaScholar

Secondary sourcing

Most claims on Wikipedia, particularly those that claim invention, coinage, etc, require secondary sources (see WP:SECONDARY). Primary sources can only establish that they used a term, not that they were _first_ to use a term. If you would like to follow up or suggest a secondary source, please do that at Talk:Docufiction. Making the same edit over and over without responding to objections is not going to be productive. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make the same edit over and over again without responding to objections. Instead, I took the exact wording suggested from a Wikipedia admin and incorporated it at his suggestion. Why be rude to people trying to volunteer? CinemaScholar (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have been rude, I am simply making you aware that Wikipedia has sourcing standards which we all need to follow. MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Making the same edit over and over without responding to objections is not going to be productive." This is incorrect. I asked for help after the first objection and then made a change using the exact wording given me. I didn't make the same edit over and over again, and I did seek help. Such language in this sentence is not only incorrect, but it is rude. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact make the same (incorrect) changes three times. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I absolutely did not. I changed the wording in accord with what another Wikipedia employee told me to do. This is what I mean when I say rudeness. How helpful is it to Wikipedia or its readers or scholarship in general to keep badgering a volunteer for no reason. I asked for help and did exactly what I was told when I reached out. You are being extremely rude and petty, when all I've done is follow help given me directly by Wikipedia. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Turnbull is not a Wikipedia Employee (he is a volunteer like you or me), and has no special control or over the content of our articles. I'm sorry you got bad advice. MrOllie (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie As you say, I am a volunteer and not an admin as CinemaScholar may have thought. However, I did not give "bad advice". I was asked for help to cite something and correctly guessed which book reference was asked for. I checked that page 5 of the book says we are proposing a new term, docufictions, as a way of naming..... The authors of that passage may have been mistaken in their belief that their coinage was new but if a Wikipedia editor wishes to cite this, my advice about how to do so is good. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made the same change again. I have added a secondary source as per the request. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor variations in wording do not matter - you are edit warring to add a blatantly incorrect claim. See Talk:Docufiction. This term was introduced well before 2005. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a secondary source. I provided one. I've done exactly what you asked and you are now targeting me because I mentioned that you were being rude, lying to say that I'm repeating the same change when I followed advice I received. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My secondary source is peer reviewed. You are edit warring against me, and I will appeal to Wikipedia. I've done exactly what you asked. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I am 'targeting' you, it is because you are edit warring to include obviously incorrect information. You should definately 'appeal to Wikipedia'. The place for that is WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My source is peer reviewed. There are dozens of citations for this book. This section is in need of help and you are targeting me. You asked for a secondary source, but that is obviously not what you were interested in. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously wrong, this term was in use well before 2005. Why are you insisting on including something that is obviously incorrect? Are you associated with Rhodes or Springer somehow? MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English in Film, it wasn't. That's why this book has been cited by scholars in peer-reviewed works repeatedly. You've changed your complaint to target me. You ignore my peer-reviewed source. You are warring. I will expose it. CinemaScholar (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am Scottish and your use of the term "scotsman" in the context of logical fallacies is offensive. I make and write documentaries and have read a great deal in this subject area, which is why I wanted to help, with primary and secondary sources. I believe this entry could be improved a great deal with various sources, inc. Cynthia Miller's edited collection. And of course the best sources and evidence should be used. I read something in a peer-reviewed source and posted it. It seems you wish to block me from participating on this subject. And again, in the 21st century, to those of us in Scotland, your term is ethnocentric. CinemaScholar (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CinemaScholar: Check your own house before accusing others. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lemonaka. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Lemonaka. I saw your question on Teahouse, however, after carefully checking this case, I believe this is some kind of wp:POV, please be careful with WP:OR or Wikipedia:POV-PUSH. In this case, you are the party who are not in the line of policies, so I strongly discourage you from taking this to WP:ANI, which likely got yourself banned or blocked. Lemonaka (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]