User talk:Murmuration

"The Vampire Diaries"

Hey Ryvenn, I've left you some responses on the Talk:List of The Vampire Diaries characters Jayy008 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for always helping out with the Grey's Anatomy pages! You should become a member of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy and help out with some tasks we have for the pages! TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the barnstar! I'm definitely going to check out that page before I work more on Karev's article ;) Murmuration (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Dobrev

How do you know her full name is not Nina Constantinova Dobreva? Answer me, please.Keivan.f (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of not knowing: I reverted your edits because you failed to provide a reliable source for the information. Murmuration (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lana del rey correction

Hi you reverted an edit I made as you stated it had been poorly written but was in fact correct and was confirmed by source I added. The text you reverted back to was incorrect, it would have be better to re-write the factual sentence rather than revert back to the incorrect one.

I will go and re write this correct statement in a 'better' way. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was "confirmed" by a questionable source. The previous sentence is not incorrect, as is confirmed by it's source. Whether there is information that can be expanded remains to be seen, as no credible source has so far been provided. Murmuration (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from that you are claiming Lizzie Grants own words are questionable as it is an interview with the artist herself, how would you know if one source was more questionable that the other, the words are the artists own during an interview perhaps she changes her story to suit her, so please explain how one source is more questionable that the other or I will change the edit again. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would just like to add that in the original guardian article it was indeed just an article and the journalist referred to her as a gangster Nancy Sinatra not the artist herself, surly she has the right in her own words to say she does not like the term given to her. In the source I added they were her own words as it was an interview with the artist not an article on her. How is an article of a guardian journalist a better source than the artist themselves. Did you read the article and the interview or just see guardian and assume it was a more reliable source? Can you please return to artists own words as opposed to a journalists words. I believe this would be correct. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article you linked: the entire website appears to be a personal website that is similar to a blog, which is not a reliable source, as is mentioned in the Wikipedia page that I linked you, which you do not seem to have read. I do not dispute Grant's own words, only the source that they come from. The Guardian is an extremely well-known newspaper with a great reputation, so information from it is more credible than the site that you referenced. Please do not revert the edits again or you will be blocked from editing, as you have been notified on your talk page by another editor. Murmuration (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So wiki is not about freedom of speech but as everything controlled. The interview is quite clearly a full length INTERVIEW with the artist it would be strange to believe that it has been fabricated to this extent but the Guardian ARTICLE is most likely produced from other information sourced from the web but you still credit the journalist as a more reliable source than an in depth INTERVIEW with the artist. Or is it that what Lizzie Grant has said is trying to be controlled? I still find it unacceptable that you would take the words of a journalist over the words of the actual person that spoke them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add with the recent information on the phone hacking how can anyone really know that a media source is reliable. Take the BBC recently found using footage from a video game and trying to portray it as real war footage and polar bears portrayed as real footage for frozen planet when actually filmed in a German zoo. I'm more inclined to not believe people who are reporting to make money that the main focus is to make money not to report accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.60.118 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phone hacking is completely irrelevant, but thanks for that tangent! No, Wikipedia isn't about "freedom of speech," it's about providing readers with factual, reliable information. There are rules and policies that all editors must follow, that you somehow seem to think you are free ignore. Reverting your edits is not a personal attack on you, it is an effort to provide the truest, most credible information in the article so that the article is as good as it can be. If it is such an issue to you that you feel the need to criticize my knowledge of Wikipedia's policies on sources, please consider discussing the issue on the article's own talk page, rather than criticizing me on mine. I would also like to add that you need to sign your messages with four '~'s. Murmuration (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't used this much. It was not a personal attack I just can not accept that the media are always correct and in this particular case still feel strongly that the actual artists words are more correct than a journalist who works for the Guardian. I still stand by what I have said as you do but you win, the article will stay as you wish as you think it is more correct what you have done but I don't.... stalemate 78.105.60.118 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forget to mention that Tim Noakes who wrote and conducted the interview is a writer for Dazed & Confused magazine would you consider the magazine/him to be a reliable source as you seem to not be aware of the magazine or the writer? 78.105.60.118 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe 1992 19:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede for List of MLP: FiM characters

Look at the lede for other "List of" character pages for other animated shows. They tend to be very basic, and to simply explain the nature of the list. If they wish to learn more about the series, they can click the main article. Examples:

For this reason, I think the short lead in the current List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters is fine. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Meredith Grey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kate Burton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]