User talk:Rgwilliams
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] G.I. Joe
Hey there. Latino Review broke the story about Fraser and Johnson cameoing in the picture: however, sites of their ilk are only considered reliable for interviews, script reviews, set visits eg. straight from the horses' mouth. No offense intended, I believe they are in the film, just it doesn't meet WP:RS. Happy editing. Alientraveller (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- This has been confirmed by FIRSTSHOWING.NET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)
- And where do you think FirstShowing.net got the info from? Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- And again, those sources are merely passing along what Latino Review said. And a blog is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDB is also carrying them as castRgwilliams (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDb is also not a reliable source: it can be edited by anyone. It is a wiki that doesn't cite sources. A reliable source is the New York Times, the BBC, Sky News, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or Paramount. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDB is often cited as a credible source. One's personal distaste for the information or source does not deter its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)
- No it is not. See Wikipedia: Featured article review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. We cannot cite a source written by common people. Again, this is not my personal dissatisfaction but rules are rules. Alientraveller (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you are getting your rules from. However, Wikipedia has no rules governing the use of IMDB, either specifically or generally. Additionally, the link you posted is unrelated to the discussion of a source reliability. IMDB is not written by common people but is a legitimate business whose goal is to provide reliable information to drive internet traffic for the purpose of selling internet advertisement. Also, you fail to mention the additional websites that corroborate the information in your argument. Where are these rules you speak of?Rgwilliams (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- No it is not. See Wikipedia: Featured article review/Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. We cannot cite a source written by common people. Again, this is not my personal dissatisfaction but rules are rules. Alientraveller (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDB is often cited as a credible source. One's personal distaste for the information or source does not deter its credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgwilliams (talk • contribs)
- IMDb is also not a reliable source: it can be edited by anyone. It is a wiki that doesn't cite sources. A reliable source is the New York Times, the BBC, Sky News, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or Paramount. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- IMDB is also carrying them as castRgwilliams (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- And again, those sources are merely passing along what Latino Review said. And a blog is not a reliable source. Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- And where do you think FirstShowing.net got the info from? Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I appreciate your contribution to G.I. Joe, but the sources mentioning the two new cast members are not reliable. IMDb is not a reliable source for future films because it is based on user-submitted information. It would be like citing Wikipedia (in a more limited way). My suggestion is to keep an eye out for new headlines that come from reliable sources, then we can work it into the article. Wikipedia doesn't need to be updated by the minute, especially for a film that has not yet been advertised to audiences. Would it be alright if we wait and see for a source we can all agree on? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since you are joinng us late, there are at least three sites corroborating the information.
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/04/03/gi-joe-updates-brendan-fraser-and-dwayne-johnson-cameos/
http://gmanmovieblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/dwayne-johnson-and-brendan-fraser-go.html
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/120725266337645.htm.
Thank you for your concern and I appreciate your diligence. I will re-add the entry until there is confirmed evidence disputing these confirmed sources.Rgwilliams (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but these sources only repeat what Latino Review reports, and that website is not considered reliable. Therefore, these cast members are not genuinely verifiable. I ask you to have some patience and find a reliable source that will inevitably come up with these two being major actors. There really is no rush. In addition, please read the notice below regarding too many reverts in a 24-hour period.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on G.I. Joe (film). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- So is this a threat? There is no question as to the validity of the arguments, nor the sources. The only issue that someone does not like the source coming from this issue. Wikipedia has no rules governing the alacrity in which something may be reported. At this time I am suggesting that we request arbitration on this issue as obviously you feel the need to make threats concerning the subject.Rgwilliams (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a personal threat. It's a suggestion to cease and desist edit warring because it's not beneficial for collaboration. There is no personal distaste about the source. It is not a reliable source, which is characterized by reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Latino Review does not qualify as a reliable source, especially considering the nature of the "scoop", and because other websites report Latino Review does not give Latino Review authority. That's why I was suggesting to wait for a reliable source, such as a newspaper, to include the cast members. I don't want to have a dispute, which is why I was asking for some patience in finding a reliable source that mentions this news. Take a look at these headlines -- most of them have question marks and mention Latino Review as the origin, so this does not equate actual confirmation. Surely with this buzz, true confirmation will come through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- You may be interested in asking for a check of the sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a personal threat. It's a suggestion to cease and desist edit warring because it's not beneficial for collaboration. There is no personal distaste about the source. It is not a reliable source, which is characterized by reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Latino Review does not qualify as a reliable source, especially considering the nature of the "scoop", and because other websites report Latino Review does not give Latino Review authority. That's why I was suggesting to wait for a reliable source, such as a newspaper, to include the cast members. I don't want to have a dispute, which is why I was asking for some patience in finding a reliable source that mentions this news. Take a look at these headlines -- most of them have question marks and mention Latino Review as the origin, so this does not equate actual confirmation. Surely with this buzz, true confirmation will come through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
