Escape Orbit

An article that you have been involved in editing, Powersurge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powersurge. Thank you. Welt^anschaunng 08:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I've spent a few minutes reviewing the articles, my knowledge of Polio, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness (a very poorly sourced article). There is no way that a fall into the Bay of Fundy led to polio, if that is in fact what the man had. Polio is a virus transmitted from person-to-person, not a fall into chilly water. The sources in the article do not indicate that fall was causal, because it couldn't be (unless the Bay is filled with polio virus, which is improbable). So, I stand by my reversion, and now will have to clean up the FDR article, which I guess is a good thing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Escape Orbit:

I saw your talk page note. Anyone that busy dating, marrying, advising the wealthy, and so on, is too busy and probably too exhausted to edit Wikipedia.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems you were editing over the top of me whilst I was further reverting the anon users edit. Nearly gave me Palpitations when my save page did not work, I will adjust my edit and try again. :o) Richard Harvey (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Were you montioring my user page for vandalism?  :-) I saw that someone posted the threat, but hadn't had time to look into it. Thanks for removing! Wallstreethotrod (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure that User talk:KesslerRonald is THE Ronald Kessler, and not just someone registered as such? I'd take it to UAA, but I figgered since you've edited his article several times, you might know...

(And for that matter, where's his freakin' {{wikipedian-bio}}?) Two One Six Five Five ^τ _ʃ 20:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I removed the fact tags, because in the REFERENCES list is a source for all the statements!!!Reidlos (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I cited the sources like you wanted it, but the fact tags for the sentences about the top five position of I Know What You Want and the chart position for U Make Me Wanna are senseless, because in the reference list are thousand sites, where you can easily look them up.Reidlos (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

LukeTheSpook (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

How can this page have been edited so much, yet not have a single cite?

Answer: Most of the edits are vandalism and reversion of vandalism. Such usually tends to preserve inferior versions of articles as everyone is in defence rather than development mode. Good work on the changes btw :) Orderinchaos 20:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I googled this stuff and I came up with a couple possible verifications: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/united-artists/rocky-iii-790755.html?r=RSS - This one is from a newspaper & http://www.jimpeterik.com/btseot2006.htm - This one is from Jim Peterik's website (he is the songwriter of eye of the tiger) Here are the blurbs from each website respectively if you don't want to skim through all the articles.

  1. Before settling on the film's signature song of "Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor, Sylvester Stallone wanted to use the already hit song "Another One Bites the Dust" by Queen.#
  2. We were immediately knocked out by the power of the quick-cut visuals. We were also struck with how well the action worked with the temp music they had supplied - "Another One Bites The Dust" by Queen. I remember shaking my head and saying, "How are we ever going to beat that one?"#

If you think this is enough information please cite these as references and add them to the articles. Alas, I don't know how to cite facts myself. By the way, thanks for checking on this regularly. 78.69.235.75 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Jerry Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Another_One_Bites_the_Dust" Categories: Start-Class Queen articles | High-importance Queen articles | WikiProject Songs articles | Start-

I've already posted this on the Another One Bites the Dust Discussion page but you haven't checked it out. What do you think about this? This is from Jerry (I can't find those wavy things on this computer).

I THINK YOU'VE GENUINE PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ENGLISH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.118.72 (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please read Wikipedia policy on verifiable cites here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

WP:BLP

You asked for help on this. One of the first lines of WP:BLP states;

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.

Note the emphasis on any. I don't know the content of the removed material, but if it fails WP:BLP, it shouldn't be on a talk page the same as it shouldn't be on an article page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank You. The content doesnt fail. The contest was various things: [redacted] info on her risque oral sex inuendo music vid ( she did ). So why is sensoring this true info allowed? 70.108.103.64 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You have no idea what that word even means. None of the redacted content was sourced. Find verifiable references from reliable sources and you can replace it, no problem. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your changes of the picture. Gerriet42 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't be so strict about finding references in that issue about freckles in culture. The attitude towards freckles really has changed in the last 30-40 years. (I would refer you to german music about freckles (sommersprossen) but I guess that wouldn't help. - I don't have any english examples for it, though.)

Why is it bad to refer to Luci Lu - I thought it was a nice example (not mine originally, though)Gerriet42 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's bad because it is uncited and your (or some-one's) personal opinion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had not finished submitting the detailed page, which is perhaps why you removed the entry.

It may seem a little arrogant to add oneself, but a quick google for "kate craig-wood" will show that I fit the criteria for a listing on that page. I am listed on Lynn Conway's TS successes page as well if that is any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khcw77 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your interest in Celtic F.C., although we have our disagreements about the level of citations needed. While scanning the tags you added, I noticed that you added a fact tag to something that was a patent falsehood - a reference to Kilmarnock beating Celtic 6-0, which just did not happen, so that's at least one good thing that came out of your work!

However, I stand by my comment on your overzealousness regarding "POV" and citations. Re-reading WP:CITE and WP:When to cite:

"When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged",

When a source may not be needed

"Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true."

- I would say that knowing when not to cite is as important as when to cite, otherwise we get into a rather silly situation where ever single statement has to be cited.

For example, although it is undoubtedly a "POV" that the rivalry between Celtic and Rangers is one of the fiercest in world football, this "POV" is unlikely ever to be challenged - and never has been until now. Do a simple Google and you'll find page after page about this rivalry - the article even linked to Major football rivalries where you can find out more. It's like someone asking for a fact tag for the POV that Pele was one of the best footballers in the world.

You don't appear to have made any attempt to do any verification of your own before adding the fact tags. I would suggest that if you find something that looks debateable, you first do a simple Google, and if you either find a citation which contradicts a statement, or on the other hand, find nothing to back the statement up, then make a remark on the talk page, then add a fact tag if the issue is not resolved.

Some of your other "fact" tags were really quite strange - for example, a fact tag on whether Celtic won every competition they entered in 1967 - this is extremely easy to verify by reading 1966-67 in Scottish football, and has never until now been challenged.

A fact tag on "Celtic has traditionally been linked with its founding roots which originate from the Irish immigrant community in Glasgow.". Like asking for a fact tag on "The earth is the third planet from the sun".

A fact tag on whether Celtic have their own channel, Channel67 - what is in contention here? Like asking for a citation that Celtic play in green and white hoops...

A fact tag on whether Martin O'Neill left Celtic to care for his wife who had cancer - I went ahead and found a BBC news citation for that, but when was it ever in question?

A fact tag that Celtic beat Rangers seven times in a row a couple of seasons ago - so easy to prove by reading the relevant seasons report, with links to BBC reports of the games in question, and never, until now, been at all questioned...

etc.

In summary, please add fact tags if, after some attempt at verification, there is any doubt, otherwise we get into the ridiculous situation where every statement, even when it's "Subject-specific common knowledge" is required to have a citation.

Camillus (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note to say thank you for tidying up my page and inserting the citations properly. I should have read the docs first... bit of a newbie. ;) Thank you.