User talk:Beckje01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Beckje01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --evrik 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stones

Please see my comments here Talk:United States National Cemetery. --evrik 20:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summer Glau

I don't mean to be elitist, but I just wanna say that the fact that you broke a 2-year gap in editing by doing something so controversial as adding back a section on a page that was semi-protected to delete doesn't do wonders for your credibility. Makes you look like a meat puppet. Sorry. That's just the way of things. Maratanos (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and wrong again. While it's true that notability guidelines don't determine the content of articles, it is also true that there are POLICIES (which override guidelines) which do. Namely, WP:OR and WP:V. According to the verifiability policy, which classifies xkcd as a self-published source, it could only be used under one of two circumstances: 1. Randall Munroe, who publishes xkcd, were to be established by secondary sources as an expert on the subject of Summer Glau. Which won't ever happen. or 2. It were in an article about itself (like the main xkcd page). Which it's not. Then we have WP:OR which classifies xkcd as a primary source on the topic of Summer Glau, which means that "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". So if we had a reliable source that republished the xkcd strip, then we might have a case. But we don't. So we're back where we started, which is that the xkcd ref is not appropriate to an article about Summer Glau. Maratanos (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Also. I know it's not vandalism if it's in good faith. But the sad fact is that it's not gonna look that way. All the outsider sees when they view the page history is that someone who hadn't made an edit in 2 years suddenly shows up and reverses the deletion of content the article was semi-protected to safeguard against. That's all I was saying in my original post to your talk page. Maratanos (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And wrong again. Filmography needs and has a secondary source. Check out the IMDB if you didn't notice that. Xkcd has no secondary source. It does not pass verifiability. The point of verifiability, in case you're still too hung up on intuition, is not that I can easily verify that something happened. It's that I can easily verify that there was coverage of that something in a reliable source. Sure, nobody denies that xkcd is talking about Summer Glau. We're just denying that this fact has been covered in reliable secondary sources. Read the first sentence of the policy on verifiability if you're unclear. Maratanos (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)