User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2021/February

Removal of opposing statements from Last Week Tonight @Narendra Modi

I would like to know the need for the "rebuttal" to be "notable". If "notable" things were the only things allowed on Wikipedia, then why does this exist:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_articles Surely this isn't notable or even necessary. The only reason it exists is because someone thought it to be useful to show an OPPOSING VIEWPOINT of the world around us. That is the joy one gets from the Wikimedia movement, to get content that is not notable. Another thing, Wikipedia is a place where facts are stated, which often requires OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to be stated. The "rebuttal" is fact and an important one as well. Therefore, I would request you to discuss before taking such actions. Have a good day, Ranamode (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranamode, your addition is WP:UNDUE and not appropriate for the article. Content needs to be sourced to reliable sources that mention the article subject. None of the cited sources appear to mention Last Week Tonight, and that would make it original research to add in a rebuttal when that argument is not being made in the sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The need for the rebuttal to be notable is this: Why can't I just write my own rebuttal to something I don't like, completely make stuff up, and just put it in Wikipedia? The goal of Wikipedia editors is not to determine the truth for themselves; it is to find reliable, secondary sources that tell us the truth. Sharma's video is something anyone can make - it's not from a reliable source. I have no way to verify it. Therefore, it's not important enough to be on this particular page. It's also worth noting that this article isn't meant to make any arguments - it's meant to detail Oliver's. Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranamode, the need for notability exists for articles in the main space - you linked to an article in the Wikipedia namespace, a special class of articles on improving wikipedia. But yes, everything in what we normally think of as "wikipedia" needs to be notable. Theleekycauldron (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theleekycauldron I'll like to clear out some misconceptions. Sham Sharma has himself stated that he enjoyed John Oliver's work, and the video's only purpose was to add context to some claims John Oliver had made in his episode of Narendra Modi (you can watch the video and hear him say this at the beginning). The stuff was not made up as you would think it to be. He shows his sources on screen (though not in the description). Since you say that the article is only to detail Oliver's arguments, don't you think that we need a separate article countering Last Week Tonight to give a balanced worldview? I'll state that I agree with the goal of Wikipedia editors is not to determine truth, but to state truth without bias, without second thoughts, in its original form. I am not going to pursue trying to put the Sham Sharma's content back, but I'll like to tell you that all sides of the argument must be shared one way or the other, making sure that those statements are factual. Ranamode (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For making the first WikiProject TV assessment request of the year. Hope the feedback is helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: thank you so much! I looked at your suggestions, i'll definitely implement them when I find time. Theleekycauldron (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:That Vegan Teacher.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:That Vegan Teacher.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]