User talk:Kardthrow

Talk:Rick Harrison

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site by discussing current editorial matters concerning the Rick Harrison article on that article's talk page. However, messages like this and this, in which you employ all-boldface and all-caps, which is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting, and referring to other editors as "idiots" and cast other aspersions upon them are clear violations of Wikipedia's Civility Policy. If you wish to continue editing and discussing matters here, please do so in a polite manner. Disagreements happen among editors all the time on Wikipedia, but they cannot be resolved if they speak to each other this way. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts, so that other editors can discern which messages are yours. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

holmes pic

I have uploaded the picture you wanted. You might want to watch it so you can comment on whether it is helpful under the fair use doctrine in case there is an attempt to delete it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Holmes,_cropped.jpg μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section of question and answers moved from an article talkpage

Hi Kardthrow. I've moved these great questions and great answers to your talkpage, because article talkpages are really for discussion about improving that article, rather than general information and discussion. I hope you don't mind. Also, just to let you know that if you have other questions, you can always put {{helpme}} on your page with your question and somebody will be by. You also can always check out the WP:TEAHOUSE which is designed to help new editors learn the ropes and get the info they need. --Slp1 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kardthrow (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC) "Please elaborate if you can what "reliable secondary sources" exactly are." Primary, secondary and tertiary sources are explained at Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In a nutshell, Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; a column by a newspaper journalist who interviewed a witness is a secondary source. Wikipedia is ideally intended to be a tertirary source of info, particular when it properly relies upon secondary sources, which it prefers. While an article can contain some info based on primary sources, it is best to rely on secondary sources for material that could be construed as self-aggrandizing, self-serving, controversial, etc. For example, I might rely on a biographical article's subject's personal website for info on his/her date of birth or where he grew up (especially if I can't find a secondary source for it), as I have with the Peter David article, for example. However, when I did a massive overhaul of that article a few years ago, I removed the section on the awards he won entirely, because it was unsourced, and I didn't restore it until I found secondary sources for it. It's not that he hasn't won the awards that he says it has on his website; it's just that there's a clear conflict of interest in relying on the subject for their accomplishments; if they're notable, then there'll probably be secondary sources for it, which will carry a greater appearance of objectivity.[reply]

"Can someone who is more knowledgable than me please explain what EXACTLY "user-generated" means and why user-generated websites are not allowed on Wikipedia?" As mentioned above, Sites with user-generated content where adding content is not restricted to the webmasters, but subscribers/members/users/visitors/editors. This includes open wikis, blogs, open forums, imdb, etc. The reason these sites are not permitted is because anyone can contribute material to these sites, which means that it is impossible to maintain a high standard of verifiability. It's not that the material is necessarily "fabricated" or "untrue". It's just that a visitor to Wikipedia who reads an article has no way to vet the quality or reliability of the information. (It is for this same reason that Wikipedia editors are not permitted to add material based on their own personal knowledge.) This is why sources are mostly restricted to either credentialed authors, people generally known or accepted to be authoritative experts in a given area or industry, and in the case of websites, those who have a reputation as exercising strong editorial oversight over contributions. This why, readers know where the material is coming from. They can't really do this if it's coming from anonymous persons over whom editorial oversight isn't being exercised.

"I believe we've moved on from the discussion of whether ancestry.com is user-generated or not. The consensus seems to be that as a whole it is not." - What does this mean and why then is ancestry.com banned?" Based on the numerous discussion both here and at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (see my first post at the top of this discussion), it appears that while some material at Ancestry.com is user-generated, much of it is not, and comes from public records. However, this bumps into a different policy, one that prohibits using public records. It's called Misuse of Primary Sources (the shortcut/abbreviation is WP:BLPPRIMARY), which is part of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons, or BLP policy. Go to that link for more on that; I'm not as well-acquainted with the origin of that policy as with the others we've mentioned here.

"If you're right AND civil, most often you will get the results you desire" So are you saying that the Birth Index edit of the Emily Autumn article would stay if I was more civil?" No, I was saying, in response to your complaints that others here were not responding to your questions that other members of the community would be more likely to answer your questions if you ask them in a civil manner. I mean, if you're walking down the street and someone asks you for the time, wouldn't you be less likely to give it to them if they ask for by saying, "HEY YOU IDIOT, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE NO LIFE AND LOOK AT YOUR WATCH ALL DAY LONG. WHAT'S THE TIME?!" ? :-)

And if it helps to clarify another point, matters of policy are not decided by administrators, or by "wiki-masters of knowledge". (Although I admit I wouldn't mind being a Wiki Master of Knowledge. All I have is a Wiki Bachelor's Degree, and my older brother, who has a Wiki Doctorate, keeps lording it over me.) Administrators do not have any power over editorial matters that non-admins don't have. Admins are merely editors who have a little bit more power to do things like protect pages from editing, or block editors for vandalism or other policy violations. Matters of policy are decided by the community. This is why I, being unfamiliar with Ancestry, went to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard when this matter came up, to see what the community had to say about that site. I thought it was pretty clear cut, but when Smjwalsh challenged my conclusion, I asked those editors from RSN and others to join this discussion to see if we could hash it out. And remember, you're a part of the community now, so your opinion counts just too! I hope this helps. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Smjwalsh and Nightscream for your answers. I understand the way Wikipedia works a little bit better now. The only remaining question I have is in response to Nightscream writing "Administrators do not have any power over editorial matters that non-admins don't have. Admins are merely editors who have a little bit more power to do things". If this is true then why when 99% accurate/very likely accurate(not sure what else to call them) edits are removed by these "Admins" when the person you say "does not have any power over editorial matters" reverts it back as Circumfrints did with Emily Autumn's DOB they are automatically overrided by people like C.Fred, Slp1, etc.

As far as joining Wikipedia myself to edit I'd like to possibly do so but I want to ask you guys if it's OK to use another name because I'm concerned stubborn self-righteous users such as Slp1, Someguy1221, and C.Fred will track every edit that I make and revert them. Is it OK to do this and is there any way Admins can tell if I'm the same person as Kardthrow? I think on Wikipedia your not supposed to use 2 names but I would not be using the 2nd name for vandalism, only for contributing to articles. Please get back to me, Thanks Again Kardthrow (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CLEANSTART. EEng (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admins might have greater privileges but also great responsibilities and scrutiny. If you feel an admin is in error or you have been treated unfairly, then these matters can be referred. As WP is a human entity there are those who might abuse their position, but in my experience that is rather infrequent. Admins are to recuse themselves from articles where they have a direct role or can function like any other editor. It must be remembered that admins are elected by other editors and in campaigning are subject to severe scrutiny. There are ways to identify the source of edits and to identify "puppetry". If you feel that editors are persecuting you, you should document the interactions that are suspicious and report to an admin. WP takes a dim view of personal attacks and calling someone "Self-righteous" could be seen as pejorative or a personal attack. Best to comment on behaviour rather than personalities or ascribe motives. Admins usually remove edits that break WP policies. If unsure as to reason, ask politely for their rationale if not given.smjwalsh (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One last question (I promise : ) for Nightscream and Smjwalsh. I often notice references are given that are solely text references (e.g. the date of birth for the Peter David article Nightscream mentioned). How are Wikipedia readers/editors to know if this is correct data? I have always been curious about this so i hope you can answer. Thanks Again... Kardthrow (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that admins didn't have any power over editorial matters. I said that they do not have any power over editorial matters that non-admins don't have. In other words, if two editors disagree, for example, over which wording in a passage is better, and one of them is an admin, the admin cannot use his administrative status to force his point of view. Where a disagreement is over some matter of aesthetics, or over interpretation of policy, they must talk it out to come to a resolution, and if they can't, then they have to employ other avenues to find a resolution such as Third Opinion, having a consensus discussion, opening an RfC, etc.

But this does not mean that an admin has no power over editorial matters. Of course they do. All editors do. The point is that they do not have more power over editorial matters that non-administrators not have. Can an admin remove material from an article? Sure. But so can every other editor. The important thing to keep in mind is that every edit you make should be in accordance with some Wikipedia policy, guideline, community consensus and/or basic principle of good writing and article presentation. Keep in mind, however, that if an edit is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy or guideline, like say, vandalism, or unsourced defamatory content added to a biographical article, then naturally, the administrator is less likely to be forced to discuss the matter with the offending vandal, and if heaven forbid the vandal demands a discussion, obviously the other members of the community who respond will uphold the admin's removals. But it doesn't matter that the admin is an admin. If you, Kardthrow, see an edit like this, you are empowered to revert it, and if the vandal challenges it, the other members of the community who intervene will likely side with you too. Whether you're an admin or not has no bearing on it. It all comes down to the validity of the edit in question. The power that admins have is only to do some tasks that other editors can't, like protecting pages or blocking policy violators. Administrators on Wikipedia are likened to janitors, in that they have some privileges that help them clean things up, which is why the little icon in the upper righthand corner of an administrator's user page is a mop, and why, when an editor is made an admin, it is said that they are being "trusted with the mop".

I'm surprised to see you call Slp1 "stubborn" or "self-righteous", since I don't recall reading anything here that denotes that (was this in another discussion?), but in regards to your username, there are some legitimate uses of multiple accounts. Uses outside of these is considered sockpuppetry, which is a big no-no, but one of those legitimate uses is changing your username to effect a clean start. You can inquire about changing your name at Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. There are some editors with Checkuser power, who can check to see if multiple accounts are the same person, but this can only be done in cases where multiple accounts are accused of sockpuppetry, and in those instances, the accuser needs to provide evidence, and the Checkuser does the checking in private, and will not reveal any hidden information about accounts if they turn out to not be socks.

As for print sources, well, you just have to go and look up them up in the same way we all did before the Web got so popular. If that means going to the library or buying a book or back issue of a magazine, then that's what we have to do.

Don't worry about all the questions. We've all had them when we were newbies, and it's my pleasure to help out newbies, just as it says at the top of my user page. But if you have further questions that aren't really related to the Ancestry.com issue here, it might be better to ask them by leaving a message at the bottom of my talk page. Again, I hope this helps. :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kardthrow (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) One more "wiki-question" for Smjwalsh/Nightscream. I'm posting it here Nightscream because I want to open it up to other people (BTW it would be nice if there was a "Question Section" or something similar so curious Wikipedia readers like myself could make inquiries). As I browse Wikipedia i notice alot of dates of birth have NO REFERENCE posted next to them. Why is this OK with Wikipedia and if I decide to edit in the future would it be better if I don't add a reference at all for a DOB since the one I add might be reverted because of some odd "BLPPRIMARY" rule? It seems that some info on Wikipedia articles is more likely to stick with no reference attached, or would that be an incorrect statement?[reply]

A question section or at least an FAQ would be helpful. There may be one already. I don't know. I learnt by plunging in and then being gently corrected and pointed to relevant policies. As long as people are kind (my usual experience), it's a good way to learn. It is permissible to post anything non-controversial without references. However, if the edit is challenged then it is incumbent on the original editor to "put up or shut up". My advice - if you have RS always include. Most people's birth dates can be found in RS, whereas some require considerable effort. Also, some articles attract more traffic than others - therefore more scrutiny. It should ensure a more accurate article. Articles rarely visited may have incorrect or unsourced info for much longer. btw get into the habit of signing your articles, it will ensure you are notified of any response on your watch list. You can type in 4 tilde (~)s. The tilde (~) is located at the far left below the "esc" button on my keyboard.smjwalsh (talk) 06:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kardthrow (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smjwalsh I thought Wikipedia users can only sign Talk Pages, how do you properly sign an article page?

You are doing OK now. The convention is to put your signature at the end of your post rather than at the beginning.smjwalsh (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be better to add a birthdate with NO REF if you don't have an RS, or post it the ref anyway and take a chance?

I would rather do the latter. Update the info and put the best source available, but be willing to have it reverted if challenged or be able to defend it amicably.smjwalsh (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example of what I'm talking about would be the Ti-Hua Chang article. This article has been up for years with a DOB with no reference attached (just check the revision history). I did some research myself to verify the DOB and there is a Ti-Hua Chang born 9-6-50 listed on the site birthdatabase.com. Can that website be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia or does it fall under the same category as Ancestry.com?Kardthrow (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into the Ti-Hua Chang situation. If you have more questions, I am willing to help, but it would be best to ask on my talk page.smjwalsh (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at both the article and did a google search but could not easily find a reliable source for that birth date. I looked in Google Books, then Google News. What is found is a regurgitation of the same material. Sites copying from other sites. I looked at birthdarabase.com. It is similar to other sites I have used. While based on official records, there is no ability to actually look at the official record. It is less reliable than ancestry.com smjwalsh (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanna squeeze in one more question if I can regarding proper reference usage on Wikipedia. Can inmate information from a U.S. prison be used as a reliable source for dates of birth on Wikipedia? I have occasionally seen this on Wikipedia articles where the link goes directly to an inmate's prisoner information (which some states - not all - post online for some reason)Kardthrow (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would certainly violate BLP guidelines. If using state birth indexes crosses a line, then prison records would certainly do so.smjwalsh (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late response; I didn't discover the recent questions until now, and I'm rather opinionated on the issue of sourcing for things like birth dates. Yes, there are a lot of articles with unsourced birth information, and this is wrong. There are some in the community who think that only material that is "negative", "controversial" or "likely to be challenged" should be sourced. This is wrong. First of all, whether something is likely to be "challenged" is rather circular, since, well, I myself challenge the practice of including unsourced birth info. As to whether it is minor or controversial, the subjects of BLP articles have this nasty habit of forming their own opinions on this, and having covered many public events like book signings, comic book conventions, book festivals, etc at which I meet BLP subjects in order to photograph them, I can attest that quite a few of them, particularly (though not exclusively) women, are a tad particular when an article gets their date of birth wrong. One BLP subject I met didn't like that her article got her ethnic heritage wrong. I've had to apologize to these people (for something that was not my fault, mind you) and explain to them that I'd be more than happy to help them with negative or false information in their WP articles, so I don't think that birth info should be unsourced. People who work in the entertainment industry (who make up large part of the BLP articles) care quite a bit about their publicized dates of birth (as well as other aspects of their articles, like their photograph, or whether they were fired from a previous job) because it goes to their ability to get work.

In a discussion I had with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales on his talk page, he opined that things that are so widely known and obvious such as "Christmas Day is December 25th" and "France is a country in Europe" do not need to be sourced. I agree, and think that everything that falls outside that narrow range of material, including dates and places of birth, need to be sourced. Remember that just because you see articles that violate policy doesn't mean that it's right.

And yes, only talk pages are signed. Articles are not. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...My Argument...

Nightscream you stated: "People who work in the entertainment industry (who make up a large part of the BLP articles) care quite a bit about their publicized dates of birth" What about people who are not that well-known? Is it really necessary to swoop in and remove a birthdate addition to an article like the original edit that Circumfrints made? I also noticed since that dispute last week that the user Slp1 as well as C.Fred actually went through that person's other edits (which I should mention were all relatively unknown people) and removed the contributions he/she made. The reason for this is supposedly that the CA Birth Index is "user-generated" and so therefore it's BANNED from Wikipedia (even though again I'll remind you there are numerous instances across Wikipedia where it is used as a reliable source and nobody reverts the info). If anything what I don't understand is why Wikipedia admins don't just use common sense/logic. While there (I guess) could be some very minor issues (what would these even be?) with a website like CA Birth Index, 99% of the time the DOB's that can be looked up have no reason to be inaccurate, it makes no sense for someone to "fake" a DOB for a website like the CA Birth Index or similar database-type websites. And why are websites like allmusic.com, tvguide.com, etc. accepted as being correct? I still quite don't get it (maybe you can enlighten me) what the real difference is and wy these types of websites are accepted on Wikipedia and other equally (if not more) accurate ones are BANNED.

PS - Couldn't the person that the article itself is written about just use an anonymous Username to remove the DOB if they cared that much? They could type in the edit summary something like "this is the subject of the article and this is not my correct date of birth"

Kardthrow (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was using entertainers as one example. I was not arguing that only the articles of entertainers need to have sourced birth info. My point is that all information in general in all articles needs to be sourced, with the exception of "Christmas falls on December 25"-type material. Readers need to know where information is coming from. Citations not only accomplish that, but they also provide reliability and credibility to Wikipedia, which in the eyes of many critics, it does not have. Having unsourced information in articles just doesn't make for a quality encyclopedia.

As I indicated on the Harrison article's talk page, I'm not that acquainted with how or when or why it was decided that public records cannot be used as sources. I would suggest asking someone more familiar with that part of the policy. Sorry.

As for TV Guide, I don't believe that information in TV Guide is user-generated. It's created by professional writers, critics, journalists, etc., and overseen by an editorial staff that maintains oversight on that info. Is there a portion of TV Guide's website that's user-generated? If so, I was unaware of it, but if you can point me to it, I'd like to see it. If there is such a portion, then the same rule against user-generated info would apply.

A lot of people do not know how Wikipedia works, or how to edit it, don't know if they're allowed to edit it, or otherwise have some aversion to editing their own entry. I know this because of all the BLP's I photograph who ask me questions about Wikipedia when I tell them I'm a WP editor. Writer Kieron Gillen, for example, told me last October that he prefers to take a "hands off" attitude with Wikipedia. So we can't expect the article subjects to be responsible for this. It's the responsibility of those of us who understand the project's policies and guidelines, and why those guidelines are in place. In some cases, BLP article subjects have edited their own articles, but putting aside the difficulty in confirming the identity of the editor doing this, the issue here is the Verifiability Policy, and not the fact that the editor happens to be the subject of the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]