Content deleted Content added
Jeraphine Gryphon (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::I bet what you call “notifying” will be full of lies again, calling me a sock puppet user, calling my fanzine a fake or whatever other pseudo-argument you used in the past. And didn’t you state you were done with both of us? --[[User:H. 217.83|217]]<small>/[[User talk:H. 217.83|83]]</small> 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
:::I bet what you call “notifying” will be full of lies again, calling me a sock puppet user, calling my fanzine a fake or whatever other pseudo-argument you used in the past. And didn’t you state you were done with both of us? --[[User:H. 217.83|217]]<small>/[[User talk:H. 217.83|83]]</small> 01:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
::: Admins aren't an authority in content disputes, they just help keep things in line. There's no one we have to wait for, you were the one who removed sourced content and your edit is questioned by two other users. The current consensus is clear. Please tell me what you have against using all of the available sources? It really, really isn't a problem that they contradict each other. If we phrase things right (which is my aim right now, someone who understands the whole thing should rewrite the section so everyone else can understand as well), then the readers will be able to tell which source they should trust. — [[User:Jeraphine Gryphon|Jeraphine Gryphon]] <sup>([[User talk:Jeraphine Gryphon|talk]])</sup> 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:35, 24 April 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Controversy
Instead of removing these lines because they seem contradictory or whatever the problem was, can the section be rewritten more neutrally? The sources used are all valid, if they seem to contradict each other then we simply report what each source says -- as Wikipedians we can't pass judgement or make our own conclusions about what is right or wrong. Any ideas on how to rewrite it? (I'm not fully informed about this topic myself.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you explain how a self published fanzine which barely has a website (it has not been updated since 2002) that one needs to literally comb the web for is a valid reference source? The fact that it isn't verifiable and that it's self published tells me it does not meet reliability guidelines. Even if it did, there is no record whatsoever, anywhere of the interview that he keeps referencing. No evidence that it happened. Now, contract that with three separate articles from a respected, well known (it has a well developed entry on wikipedia) and generally trusted Heavy Metal Web Magazine, one of which cites a third party source for the original comments. Lastly, the content this user keeps trying to add (which is apparently dated 2010) looks a lot like a fake statement that the band demanded be retracted while reiterating the comments they'd made earlier.
- Please also contrast the way I'm communicating my point and the way he's communicating his. I have a logical argument back up by verifiable fact, and he has personal views laced with profanity and personal insults. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- You accuse me of having made up that interview? That’s not civil either, nor is your ignorance of my information on that fanzine’s notability (referring to the fanzine itself, not only to the book); your “logical argument back up by verifiable fact” is a bad joke. And as you claim that this site is a “generally trusted Heavy Metal Web Magazine”, read Talk:Black metal#Melodic black metal. --217/83 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Insults don't make anyone's points any less valid, any serious civility issues can be taken to WP:WQA.
- If the interview was reprinted in a published book, as H.217 said, then it's a valid source. Whether the 'zine has a website or not is not really relevant. Now if the different sources say contradicting things, then we state which source says what and and write these things in a chronological order. You don't have the authority to state that someone fabricated an interview or whatever. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- :::Please also see this edit from September 6 where the editor replaces the original content with Weasel Words like "were said to have said". The fact is he doens't like the source (which, interestingly, isn't even where the original comments came from, they came from a magazine called Sweden Rock. I guess that's bullshit too? I guess little known self published fanzines are the only reliable sources for this stuff, huh? It's funny that no matter how much evidence I offer you ignore it and focus on defending your buddy here (who hasn't even bothered to join the discussion). When I'm 'uncivil' you're quick to reprimand, but when he does you immediately go on the defensive for him. It's not a question of authority, it's a question of verifiability, and there is not a single shred of evidence that this interview happened or what was said. As I've said (you haven't bothered to acknowledge) the content used in the interview bears a striking similarity to a fake statement from 2008.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you numerous times that Slayer is not a “little known self published” fanzine, but it has become obvious that you ignore whatever I write except the parts that might be uncivil. --217/83 01:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- What edit are you referring to? All of the sources mentioned are valid, and it's okay if they contradict each other. Nothing is 'bullshit' here. The interview is, according to H, in a published book. You have to take into consideration that the band itself isn't exactly popular so yeah, it's going to be difficult to find sufficient reliable sources. We have to make due with what we have. I 'bothered to acknowledge' what you said, with my last sentence above: you don't have the authority to state that the interview never happened. You don't know this. Given that Nifelheim isn't exactly a mainstream band, you're not going to have secondary evidence of every single interview. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- And as the user won’t believe me anyway, they can ask Sheep18 who owns the book thanks to me (see de:Benutzer Diskussion:H. 217.83#Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries). --217/83 01:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- :::Please also see this edit from September 6 where the editor replaces the original content with Weasel Words like "were said to have said". The fact is he doens't like the source (which, interestingly, isn't even where the original comments came from, they came from a magazine called Sweden Rock. I guess that's bullshit too? I guess little known self published fanzines are the only reliable sources for this stuff, huh? It's funny that no matter how much evidence I offer you ignore it and focus on defending your buddy here (who hasn't even bothered to join the discussion). When I'm 'uncivil' you're quick to reprimand, but when he does you immediately go on the defensive for him. It's not a question of authority, it's a question of verifiability, and there is not a single shred of evidence that this interview happened or what was said. As I've said (you haven't bothered to acknowledge) the content used in the interview bears a striking similarity to a fake statement from 2008.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I'm done with both of you. I'll wait to see what the administrators say.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so: how do we rewrite the section? Because honestly, by reading the section as it was, I still have no idea what happened or who claimed what and when. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- We wait until a decision is made by Admins on the noticeboard and a consensus is reached here. I'll also be notifying others that have been involved in this article in the past and the overall Metal project.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Admins aren't an authority in content disputes, they just help keep things in line. There's no one we have to wait for, you were the one who removed sourced content and your edit is questioned by two other users. The current consensus is clear. Please tell me what you have against using all of the available sources? It really, really isn't a problem that they contradict each other. If we phrase things right (which is my aim right now, someone who understands the whole thing should rewrite the section so everyone else can understand as well), then the readers will be able to tell which source they should trust. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)