User talk:Qwerty7412369

Welcome

'Welcome!' (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Qwerty7412369, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Ursasapien (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ursasapien (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan v. Louisiana

The articles on law cases looked to be simple cut-and-paste copyright violations from findlaw.com. Please format all such entries like Duncan v. Louisiana, but have a look at something like Roe v. Wade for how to wikify an article correctly. Thanks. Harr o5 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic motifs of Lost

Could you please work with me to find sources for the "Apocalyptic" motif? I am certain they are out there. Thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading or willfully ignoring No Original Research. It clearly says that use of "primary sources" in articles is rare and gives as an example legal cases. It further says, "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." You are not providing descriptive claims, but creating a novel interpretation, and you admit to being the originator of the "Apocalypse" analysis. Verifiability states, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." As there is no source for your unique analysis/interpretation, stop re-adding it.--70.189.74.49 08:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, that was one ridiculously pointless long reply. Just stop wasting everyone's time if you can't understand why making up a new "apocalypse" interpretation of Lost IS Original Research. The whole point of "No Original Research" is to prevent the use of Wikipedia to promote your own idea about what something is or isn't. It has to be PUBLISHED somewhere else first. The short and sweet is that no matter how much you may tap dance, you still can't get past that you have found not a single source for your unique theory. Zero. Zilch. Zippo. It may be entirely TRUE, but no one but you has apparently seen the Truth. Go write an article for a magazine, or better yet a book, which can then be sourced. EOM/NRN 70.189.74.49 10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Qwerty. I've been reading all this research discussion going back and forth, and I've personally found it kind of hard to follow. Please note I'm not trying to start any heated argument here, I'm just hoping to clear some stuff up. I'm the one that kept putting that Canada article in, and now I see it's freshly gone again. So, before I try reinserting it, I'm trying to see if I should just give it up. No, I haven't found any prestigious journal out there discussing the links between Canada and lying in Lost. And I agree that saying "unclear, etc." makes it sound uncredible so I'll take that out. All I know is that they've mentioned Canada 5 times on the show, and consistently linked each one to a lie of some kind. I don't really understand whether "Primary Sources" or "Original Research" applies to just presenting what's on the episodes. Could you possibly explain - concisely - how the things you've been discussing apply to what I'm trying to say? Or should I just go straight to an administrator? I don't know. Thanks. -- Burnside65 15:11, 19 July 2007

July 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thematic motifs of Lost. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 21:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note about sources

You should be extremely careful when using your own website as a source, especially when it comes to edit warring. As the "no original research" policy states:

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. ¹

Unless you are directly involved with the writing of Lost, your analysis constitutes a secondary source. The policy page gives the example that, "A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either." In the case of Lost, the primary source is a writer of the show, who knows for a fact what the themes are intended to be (because he's the one making them up). A secondary source is a person who observes what the primary source has created and makes his own analysis. This appears to be the case with you.

But either way, the most important question is whether your opinion has been published by a reliable source. If so, you should cite that source rather than your own page, because self-published works aren't vetted for quality or accuracy. You shouldn't expect something you write yourself to hold the same weight as something published by a reliable source. Anyone can start a website and write whatever they want, but that doesn't mean they get to then use that site as a source for a Wikipedia article.

I certainly don't agree with the way the anon editor has handled the situation, which is why I protected the article, but in terms of sources you really don't have a leg to stand on. I don't care enough about that article to do much more than give you this friendly warning but I can tell you with some confidence that, if the situation escalates, you will not win any arguments that are only supported by a self-published primary or secondary source. Kafziel ^Talk 03:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off I want to thank you for addressing and dealing with the 3RR violations. I greatly appreciate it.

I have read your above post "A note on sources" carefully and have tried to take its advice to heart, but I'm afraid I have five questions. I will admit (and my edit history will show) that I am by no means an experienced wikipedian, and I'm quite sure my ignorance will shine right though with some of these question, but please humor me - I'm learning this as I go, and I've found that I learn best through asking questions...

1) You state multiple times that I "use your own website as a source'.' Indeed, this seems to be the entire thrust of your note on sources as it is repeated in both your opening and closing sentences. To my knowledge I have only put up citations to valid sources, such as ABC.com. Furthermore, I have personally took down citations to invalid sources that other editors put up, such as a citation to lostpedia.com, because I recognized that this source may not be reliable. Could you please show me where I referenced my own website as a source?

I guess I misunderstood some of the comments on the article's talk page; you authored the "Apocalyptic references" section itself, not a different site. My mistake. Still, the point is the same: it remains your original interpretation, without any sources to back it up. There are sources, to be sure - one supports "The Lost Experience" as canon, one supports that the show was based on The Stand, and one supports the statement that Damon Lindelof likes Watchmen. There are no sources to support that Claire raising her child has anything to do with the apocalypse. There are no sources to support that not pushing the button or proposing marriage will literally end the world. In the scope of the series, why would the people who said those things know what will or won't end the world? It's all pretty flimsy. And if a Wikipedia reader wants something sourced, there's no room for discussion; it absolutely has to be. If it can't, it can be deleted.

2) Other users have accused me of making a "novel analysis or interpretation" with my entry, even though I have actively tried to leave out any such analysis/interpretation. Your frequent use of the word "analysis" in your post to me indicates that you see some novel analysis or interpretation as well. If there is such an analysis/interpretation, I will do all I can to correct the issue, but I seem to be blind to it. Could you please show me where I have made such an analysis/interpretation?

I don't have any opinion on the content of the article or your interpretation (if there even is one). I don't watch Lost. I'm just saying that since other people are saying your content is inappropriate, you'll need to come up with better sources than your own work.

3) I understand that, as you point out, "articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." However, "should" is not the same as "must", and as I understand it wikipedia policy has set exceptions to this rule. The one that I find most interesting is located in WP:No Original Research - "Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)." Thus it would seem that an articles based solely on primary sources are acceptable, albeit only in "rare occasions." If I am misreading or misunderstanding this passage, could you please explain to me what the proper understanding of this passage is?

This is a TV show, not a current event. The use of primary sources is extremely rare even with current events, because Wikipedia is not a news outlet. That goes double (or triple) for TV shows, because Wikipedia is neither an episode guide nor a fansite. It's not a priority for us to have in-depth plot analyses of every show; if someone wants that, there are hundreds of other sites available with a google search. There is a strong move on Wikipedia toward getting rid of entertainment-related content, so there is certainly no leeway given as far as sourcing information. Everything on Wikipedia needs to have been published previously elsewhere, by a reliable source. Granted, there's a lot of unsourced TV show info out there. It will all be dealt with in turn.

4) The policy presented in WP: No Original Research also lays out the following criteria for when and how an entry may rely soley on primary sourcs - "... there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions." Now I have tried my best to abide by these criteria. I have argue that a currently running television series should be considered one of the "rare occasions" when an entry may rely upon primary source material as there are only a handful of secondary-sources currently in existence (unlike the gold-mine of valid secondary sources that an entry on "World War II' would have at its disposal), and as the show is, again, currently running. I plainly cite the primary sources I use. I do so in such a way that I believe complies with the two conditions listed in the above quote - 1) I believe my entry is descriptive, in that it only lists the specific and overt instances of apocalyptic references in the narrative which any reasonably educated individual with a TV, specialist knowledge or not, could easily see. 2) I do not believe that I analyze these apocalyptic references, nor do I attempt to draw some grand synthesis linking them with other aspects of the show, nor do I offer an interpretation of their meaning in the larger context of the show, nor do I attempt to explain their occurrence, nor do I evaluate them in any way. I simply point out their explicit occurrence in the narrative. If I have violated the criteria as stated in WP:No Original Research, could you please explain how and where I have done so?

Without analysis, the section is meaningless. I know that's kind of a catch-22, but if all you're doing is listing the times the end of the world is mentioned in the series, there's no point. That's like saying airplanes are a thematic motif, because they mention them now and then. The section is implying, simply by its presence, that the apocalypse is definitely a theme. That may or may not be true - as I said above, I don't watch the show - but if you talk about certain scenes mentioning certain things, your analysis will be inferred by others even if you don't come right out and say what you mean.

5) I don't fully understand your definition of primary source as it seems to be different from what I have been taught and what wikipedia itself states in Primary Source and in WP:No Original Research: from Primary Source - "a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source." From WP:No Original Research - "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about... Examples of primary sources include... artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" In your post, you state that the primary source is the writer of the show, and seem to suggest that if I am not that writer, then I have no access or claim to the true primary source material. Yet this position seems at odds with the above quotes, which state that the television program is a primary source in-itself. This would imply that if I have access to the television program, then I have access to the primary sources, yet this does not seem to fit with your statements, and is causing me a bit of confusion. If I have misunderstood either your statements or wikipedia policy on primary sources, could you please show me the proper understanding?

The television show is a primary source for you; any observations you make from that and then pass on to others is secondary. If the show itself actually came out and said, "The underlying theme of this episode is the apocalypse," that would be a primary source. But if a character on the show says, "If you don't push the button the world will end," and you gather from that statement that the show is about the end of the world, your conclusion is secondary.

I seem to have gotten a bit long-winded here, and for that I apologize, but these are crucial points of wikipedia policy that I should properly understand if I am going to successfully continue as an editor. As someone who has been contributing for just over two years and is an Administrator, I hope you will be able to clarify these issues for me. Thank you for your time and patience. --Qwerty7412369 16:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies interleaved, above. Hope it helps. Kafziel ^Talk 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kafziel, though I'm not sure I agree with all you have said, I will say that you have prompted me to reconsider a few of my points - and I found the discussion to be much more engaging and pleasant than others I have had concerning this matter. Ultimately I've decided to take a break from this article for the time being and move on to another project. Thanks again. --Qwerty7412369 02:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. I've found many times over the years that if you take some time away from an article and focus on something else, when you check back a few weeks later you'll wonder what all the fuss was about. A little time off always puts it in perspective. Good luck, and feel free to ask me any other questions you may have in the future. Kafziel ^Talk 04:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Lost

I don't know about you, but I'm taking a break from Thematic motifs of Lost. I wanted to stop by first and thank you for your assistance during the debate. If there's anything I can do to help you out in the future, feel free to contact me. --Qwerty7412369 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your persistence and your dogged pursuit of reasoned debate. I am sure you have seen what has happened to the article today. I am considering removing the "Evil" category and reshuffling that info into either "The end of the world" or "Black and white". However, I understand your desire to take a break and I, too, have turned my attention primarily to other projects. Thanks again. You are an editor that is a credit to Wikipedia. Ursasapien (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coredesat has put the article Thematic motifs of Lost and it's history here. I have asked that he move the discussion and its history here. I think the next step is to open a discussion regarding how and if we can bring this article to the point of recreation. I am considering whether it would be good to open a RfC about this article. You're invited to help improve this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links & Cloverfield

Please familiarise yourself with the guidelines on external links. In addition to that, if you read the Cloverfield discussion page closely, you'll find there's no consensus in favour of including the Slusho site. If you put it in again, someone else will be along to remove it.

I bid you good night. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cloverfield. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Closedmouth 00:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I usually stay out of this stuff

I'm terrible with disputes. My point was not that you need the express permission off everybody to edit a page, just that, if there isn't consensus on a particular edit, you don't keep adding back in the contentious material, you leave the page as it was, and argue your case on the talk page. Have a read of WP:CONS. Anyway, this is a silly argument, and I'm staying out of it now, as I should have originally. --Closedmouth 02:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not too frustrated with the situation at Cloverfield. The article has already encountered a situation with puzzle websites (like Ethan Haas Was Right) where some editors vigorously believed that the sites were related to the film. (I've restored mention of Ethan Haas Was Right, because for some reason before, editors were adding redundant information about this being disproved when that was already covered.) Slusho.jp obviously has a stronger case going for it than EHWR and similar sites, but its role remains to be seen. No reliable source, including The Courier-Mail recently, have said that Slusho.jp is definitely official. Anyway, in regard to the article's title, feel free to initiate discussion about changing it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]