Nightscream (talk | contribs) |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
::'''"links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink?"''' (I forgot to respond to this one yesterday). If someone is going to include a link in an article--and someone did (I have no idea what a "courtesy link" is)--then it stands to reason that it should be a viable one. If it's not, then it's reasonable to add a deadlink tag on it, so that someone can be alerted to fix or update it, much as User:Anthonyhcole did. (Thanks, Anthony.) Arguing that a dead link found in an article should not be noted as such makes no sense to me, but if you can explain why one should be, please do so. |
::'''"links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink?"''' (I forgot to respond to this one yesterday). If someone is going to include a link in an article--and someone did (I have no idea what a "courtesy link" is)--then it stands to reason that it should be a viable one. If it's not, then it's reasonable to add a deadlink tag on it, so that someone can be alerted to fix or update it, much as User:Anthonyhcole did. (Thanks, Anthony.) Arguing that a dead link found in an article should not be noted as such makes no sense to me, but if you can explain why one should be, please do so. |
||
::: You appear to be on a hobby horse, and you don't even appear to read what is written to you. The link was *not* included in the article; it was an HTML comment. If you don't know what an HTML comment is, and if you don't know what a courtesy link is, please read Wiki policy and guideline pages before reverting other editors. While it was kind of Anthony to add a link to the abstract, it isn't needed or useful for most readers, since it's only an abstract and a fee is required (that actually should be noted in the source, but I'll get to that as I can). Nightscream, when you begin reverting other editors and edit warring, please be certain you understand Wiki policy and guidelines. I'm curious about why these minor issues are taking so much time and space on this talk page, when simple cn tags would have been the way to address your concerns. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::'''"first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a [[WP:BLP]], there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited.''' Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you did not state this "several" times, all information in Wikipedia must be cited. The only material that does not need to be cited is that very narrow range of material that is so universally self-evident that it does not need to be (ie.: "Christmas is on December 25"--This is [[Jimmy Wales]]' example, not mine). This applies to '''all''' articles, and not just BLP's. The idea that this applies only to BLPs is false. If you want to source it at a later date, then do so. But until then, it stays out of the article. The rest of Wikipedia is not required wait until you decide that it's convenient for you to add sources. |
::'''"first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a [[WP:BLP]], there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited.''' Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you did not state this "several" times, all information in Wikipedia must be cited. The only material that does not need to be cited is that very narrow range of material that is so universally self-evident that it does not need to be (ie.: "Christmas is on December 25"--This is [[Jimmy Wales]]' example, not mine). This applies to '''all''' articles, and not just BLP's. The idea that this applies only to BLPs is false. If you want to source it at a later date, then do so. But until then, it stays out of the article. The rest of Wikipedia is not required wait until you decide that it's convenient for you to add sources. |
||
::: Do you not read edit summaries? Please do. I have stated it several times. And it is curious that you are stating that all info must be cited, while you added uncited, incorrect info about the Quincy episode. You have added incorrect info to the article, and I have tagged it as "citation needed"-- common editing practice. If you aren't going to remove the inaccurate info you added, then please either locate a cite for it, or stop edit warring. Is there a reason you are not responding to my direct concerns? When info requires better citation in a non-BLP, and is non-contentious, you can most certainly add a cn tag and wait for a citation to be added. The info you are questioning is by no means contentious, and is in fact common knowledge to those who know TS. DO you have any knowledge of the history of TS? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::'''"Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it."''' And since I did not add that material, but merely moved it, this has nothing to do with me. Moving material does not constitute "adding" it, except in your mind. By continuing to accuse me of adding false information, when you have already acknowledged that I merely moved it, you are making a deliberately false accusation. If you continue with this uncivil behavior, you risk losing your editing privileges. Again, please calm down, and learn to resolve an editorial dispute without resorting to this sort of behavior, okay? |
::'''"Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it."''' And since I did not add that material, but merely moved it, this has nothing to do with me. Moving material does not constitute "adding" it, except in your mind. By continuing to accuse me of adding false information, when you have already acknowledged that I merely moved it, you are making a deliberately false accusation. If you continue with this uncivil behavior, you risk losing your editing privileges. Again, please calm down, and learn to resolve an editorial dispute without resorting to this sort of behavior, okay? |
||
::: Already explained: you appended it to a sentence that is not accurate about the Quincy episode. You changed content by moving content: not that hard to understand. Please cite the Quincy statement you added-- I can cite the previous passage when I'm home, but I can't cite the inaccurate info you added. I am quite calm, thank you; please focus on the content and refrain from personalizing arguments. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::'''"You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about"''' Personal knowledge is not the basis of editing Wikipedia. Good writing and reliable sources are. Criticizing another editor for lacking knowledge of an article's subject, in fact, is considered by Wikipedia to be '''behavior to be avoided'''. Please see [[WP:IKNOW]]. |
::'''"You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about"''' Personal knowledge is not the basis of editing Wikipedia. Good writing and reliable sources are. Criticizing another editor for lacking knowledge of an article's subject, in fact, is considered by Wikipedia to be '''behavior to be avoided'''. Please see [[WP:IKNOW]]. |
||
::: When you add inaccurate info that can't be cited, it needs to be corrected quickly when a cn tag is added-- ''since it is inaccurate''. Knowlege of the sources equates to knowledge of the subject-- you don't seem to have either. Again, are you familiar with the Quincy episode and the history of TS? Are you aware that you have removed citable material (from a definitive book on the history of TS), and added incorrect material, apparently a reflection of you not knowing either the field or the sources? Again, please focus on the content; your diversion to claims of behavioral issues, after you've added incorrect info to the article, won't solve the issues in the article. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::'''"...the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited."''' Material does not need to be contentious to require sources, especially since what's "contentious" is subjective. The content of a TV show episode from decades ago is not "common knowledge", nor is common knowledge a substitute for proper sourcing under [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:CS]], [[WP:RS]], et al. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
::'''"...the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited."''' Material does not need to be contentious to require sources, especially since what's "contentious" is subjective. The content of a TV show episode from decades ago is not "common knowledge", nor is common knowledge a substitute for proper sourcing under [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:CS]], [[WP:RS]], et al. [[User:Nightscream|Nightscream]] ([[User talk:Nightscream|talk]]) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: Please stop ignoring the issue; leave the cn tag, and I will add it once I'm home. It is not contentious, and is not harming the article, which is not a BLP. However, the inaccurate info you have added about Quincy is harming the article. Please refrain from lecturing and resorting to personalization of issues: if you can't source your change to the Quincy material, then please stop edit warring and relax until I return home and can access the book, but in the meantime, do not continue to make false claims that the Quincy episode used TS as a plot device, when it was in fact a seminal moment in the history of TS, resulting in increased diagnoses from accurate info. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:18, 28 May 2010
Medicine B‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
GA Review
I have reviewed the 29 October, 2006 nomination for Good Article and have the following feedback before I would recommend this for a good article:
There are a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs in the article. These short paragraphs disrupt the flow of the article and make it jumpy.The very first sentence of the article is confusing. I don't understand what it is trying to say.There is some bits of jargon in the early part of the article that the average reader wouldn't understand. Examples:Tourette syndrome occurs along a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient tics and chronic tics....relative to their parents, than predicted by the usual model of regression to the mean.
What are all the vague references to Laura Schlessinger about? Her picture is in the article and there's one vague sentence about her, but nothing is mentioned about the controversy. Please explain what was said or done.In the legal section, statistics are used without a frame of reference. TS was implicated in 150 cases, 21 of which were criminal. 150 cases out of how many? Is the article saying that 150 cases is a lot, or a little?The introduction, latent advantages section, and legal section are difficult to read. The prose doesn't flow very well, especially part of the latent advantages section that reads like it was cut and pasted out of an academic journal. Too technical, the reader has to do too much deciphering to figure out what is being said. Many of the paragraphs frequently switch from active to passive voice. Try to eliminate the use of passive voice to improve readability.The "legal" section needs a more descriptive title.
I'll keep an eye on the article and put a hold on the nomination to give some time to work out the revisions. Good luck and feel free to ask for clarifications. Neil916 (Talk) 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Repeat message (most unfortunate that another author put up four articles for GA at once, all written by me, without inquiring if these articles were ready or if I had time to finish them.) Thanks for the input, Neil916, but there's no need to give it time. As I've explained elsewhere, I did not nominate the article for GA, someone put all the TS daughter articles up for review just as I was traveling and did not have time to finish them, I am the only author, and I don't have time for this polishing/finishing right now. My preference would be to remove them all from GA, and strike all GA templates from the page: I'm not a fan of the entire GA process anyway, and would not have submitted these articles:-) When I have time to polish and finish the article, I will ask for review from the medical project and other copyeditors I know, and not from GA. I'm sorry you had to go to the trouble; thanks again for the input. I will finish these articles when I have time, and then submit them for peer review at the Medicine Project. Sandy (Talk) 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Basshunter
In recent fanmail, the European dance-techno star Basshunter appears to also suffer from Tourette's syndrome. This fact also appears on the Wikipedia article for Basshunter. 128.101.201.182 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- To add it here, we need a WP:RS, preferably English - I haven't located one. Sandy (Talk) 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- [1], [2] and [3] should be enough.--MartinUK (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Matchstick Men.jpg
Image:Matchstick Men.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Doctor Samuel Johnson
A scholarly source for Johnson:
- Pearce JM. Doctor Samuel Johnson: 'the great convulsionary' a victim of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome (PDF). J R Soc Med. 1994 Jul;87(7):396-9. PMID 8046726.
Colin°Talk 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Very nice! Printing to read, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Tourette's Guy
What about the well known internet celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.106.21 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
i would also like to know why he does not appear in this article, it would be an interesting addition
++It is becuase some mod here has a vendetta against Tourettes Guy. I'd suggest looking at the discussion page for his article but it is gone along with his page, as is the discussion page for the discussion page.
There was a whole argument about it a while back and despite good arguments some mod basically came in and said no, erased all comments and pages, locked them all and that was that. The reason was never really made clear outside of a "We think this is offensive and so we won't allow it" which was reworded into some BS explanation based on the rules they make up at will to defend their indefensible positions. Yet another reason not to donate any money to the wiki foundation until they stop applying their rules arbitrarily. --Tuffsnake
- So, it's a case of PoV. That is, funny or not funny? 85.97.5.140 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the Tourettes Guy is a notable figure with Tourette syndrome, and it'd be POV not to include him in the article, I don't see why we should omit him from the article. I say we include him regardless of the biased opinions of others. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Neglecting of course any real indication that he actually had Tourette's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, that. I guess we just assumed he had Tourette because of his name. Never mind, then. We'll wait until we find such indication. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Neglecting of course any real indication that he actually had Tourette's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Text removed: [4] Please see WP:MEDMOS and provide a quote from a reliable source indicating he has actually been diagnosed with TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nightmare scare quote usage
The section on legal issues is employing a phrasing that is somewhat biased. In particular describing the insurance problems as a nightmare. (e.g., The insurance "nightmare" that exists for thousands of people with TS.) The cited source is a group that is specifically advocating for TS rights (specifically rights to insurance). This wording is based on a biased source. I have edited this to be slightly less problematic. 24.6.54.186 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
David Sedaris
I believe that he has confirmed that he was diagnosed with Tourettes, and therefore warrants inclusion in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- David Sedaris contained a citation that didn't verify the text cited (I own that book), and this provides additional context. If you can provide reliable sources and an accurate accounting in the Sedaris article, it can be discussed here, if it can be shown he has a legitimate diagnosis and has made a lasting impression upon perception of the condition (I haven't heard of him in TS circles or otherwise). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- And, appears promotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Unsourced POV/OR material
On March 3 SandyGeorgia you reverted my edits, stating in your edit summary "no reason for removal that I can tell". In the summary for the first of those three edits of mine, I stated clearly: Copyedit to emphasize attributive wording per WP:NPOV; Rm unsourced material/OR per WP:NOR/WP:V; TV.com/imdb are not considered WP:RS" This seams fairly straightforward. Opinions in matters of controversy should be attributed to their sources, and not stated as facts. IMDB and TV.com are not considered reliable sources under WP:RS because their content is user-generated and lacks full editorial control and oversight. A number of the passages clearly illustrate this:
- One passage read, "Many television shows have addressed the topic of Tourette's, but few have advanced understanding of Tourette's." The two sources given at the end of that passage are this onethis one. Even putting aside that IMDB and TV.com do not pass WP:RS, and are not even sources qualified in medicine, neither of those two sources contain any information about advancing understanding of Tourette's. This is clearly the POV/OR of the editor who wrote this. Similar unsourced passages read, "However, even more television and film productions are not accurate representations of persons with Tourette's, and many of them have used misconceptions about coprolalia as a plot device, or portrayed people with Tourette's as being dangerously out of control." and "Due to viewer complaints, subsequent airings omitted Bart's cursing or replaced the Tourette's mention with rabies."
- One of the passages SandyGeorgia restored reads "Other television and film productions depict persons with Tourette's inaccurately...", even though no source is offered for this statement.
- Another passage is this one: "A South Park episode, "Le Petit Tourette", also used Tourette's as fodder for comedy...The episode received a mixed reaction from the Tourette Syndrome Association, which commented that it provided useful information while at the same time perpetuating outright myths about coprolalia and Tourette syndrome." In the first place the use of the word "fodder" is POV. Second, the source cited at the end of that passage make no mention of any "mixed reaction" or "outright myths". In fact, the text from the source wasn't even written in reaction to the episode, as it clearly indicates that it was written before the episode aired, and was an alert to the impending broadcast of it. It was therefore, not a "reaction" to it, and was not informed by its actual content. If you can find an updated page on that site in which that organization gave a reaction to the aired episode, that would be fine, but the passage's assertion about that pre-airdate text is simply false.
The rest of the material I removed or edited have the same problems. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutrality, and proper attribution are clear. Nightscream (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nightscream, your edits are becoming disruptive and tedious. Could you please answer the questions and stop posting misinfo to my talk page? Where are you getting the claims you are making about the Quincy episode, and why did you remove the cn tag, when as far as I know, there is simply NO basis in any source for the claims you are making about that episode? Second, links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I am going to quote the last message SandyGeorgia posted to her own talk page here, and conduct the rest of our contact here on this page, beginning with my response:
Yes, you made unfounded, incorrect and uncited claims about the Quincy episode. 2) You removed material that can be cited to other sources, rather than putting a citation tag on it (I will look for those sources once I'm home, in a book I have at home). 3) You removed attribution to a source. Please stop being obnoxious and edit warring, raising inane issues on my talk page, and if you want additional citations, then add a cn tag, and I will provide them when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I have not made any claims about the Quincy episode, uncited or otherwise. All I did was move that passage, which was already in the article. Here is the last version of the article prior to my first edit of it. Do a search on that page on "Quincy". See it? Now look at my first batch of edits. All I did was edit the passage that said, "A 1981 episode of the television show, Quincy, M.E., "Seldom Silent, Never Heard",<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681828/ Quincy: "Seldom Silent, Never Heard"], ImDB.com. Retrieved on 28 May 2008.</ref> was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's." to remove the unsourced opinion, as that imdb page makes no mention of this opinion, and in any event, Wikipedia does not consider imdb a reliable source. All websites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb, TV.com, other wikis, etc, are not considered usable under WP:RS. These were the only "attributions" I removed, but if I erred, and inadvertently removed a valid one, please tell me which one.
As for the cn tag, that was an error that occurred when I edited the Quincy passage. I didn't realize that I removed a cn tag until your mention of it now, and I just restored it. Sorry about that.
These are not inane issues, they are valid aspects of policy. One of those policies Wikipedia takes seriously is WP:Civility, which you just violated by using language like "obnoxious". I suggest you calm down, and try to speak with those who disagree with you without the vitriol. We can work this out without name-calling, okay? :-)
As for material that "can be cited to other sources", if that's true, then cite it. Contentious claims like the ones that were in the article have no business being in Wikipedia if they are not sourced, and a cn tag is not a substitute for one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Trying to get you to focus on the facts once again: first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a WP:BLP, there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited (in this case, until I am home and can access the book). Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it. I am aware of NO source that claims that of the Quincy episode-- which was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's, leading to increased diagnoses (a fact that is citeable to book on the History of Tourette's and well known to anyone who knows TS). So, you continue to damage this article rather than simply waiting for me to return from travel where I can access the book for citing the accurate text that was in the article before you began damaging it. You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about, and adding false info to the article. This is NOT a BLP, and the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited. If you aren't knowledgeable about the history of TS, at least please refrain from damaging the article-- where you aren't knowledgeable, you can add a cn tag and be patient until the info can be cited. I don't know how many times I should be expected to explain that I have the book at home, and I'm not home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- "links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink?" (I forgot to respond to this one yesterday). If someone is going to include a link in an article--and someone did (I have no idea what a "courtesy link" is)--then it stands to reason that it should be a viable one. If it's not, then it's reasonable to add a deadlink tag on it, so that someone can be alerted to fix or update it, much as User:Anthonyhcole did. (Thanks, Anthony.) Arguing that a dead link found in an article should not be noted as such makes no sense to me, but if you can explain why one should be, please do so.
- You appear to be on a hobby horse, and you don't even appear to read what is written to you. The link was *not* included in the article; it was an HTML comment. If you don't know what an HTML comment is, and if you don't know what a courtesy link is, please read Wiki policy and guideline pages before reverting other editors. While it was kind of Anthony to add a link to the abstract, it isn't needed or useful for most readers, since it's only an abstract and a fee is required (that actually should be noted in the source, but I'll get to that as I can). Nightscream, when you begin reverting other editors and edit warring, please be certain you understand Wiki policy and guidelines. I'm curious about why these minor issues are taking so much time and space on this talk page, when simple cn tags would have been the way to address your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- "links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink?" (I forgot to respond to this one yesterday). If someone is going to include a link in an article--and someone did (I have no idea what a "courtesy link" is)--then it stands to reason that it should be a viable one. If it's not, then it's reasonable to add a deadlink tag on it, so that someone can be alerted to fix or update it, much as User:Anthonyhcole did. (Thanks, Anthony.) Arguing that a dead link found in an article should not be noted as such makes no sense to me, but if you can explain why one should be, please do so.
- "first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a WP:BLP, there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited. Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you did not state this "several" times, all information in Wikipedia must be cited. The only material that does not need to be cited is that very narrow range of material that is so universally self-evident that it does not need to be (ie.: "Christmas is on December 25"--This is Jimmy Wales' example, not mine). This applies to all articles, and not just BLP's. The idea that this applies only to BLPs is false. If you want to source it at a later date, then do so. But until then, it stays out of the article. The rest of Wikipedia is not required wait until you decide that it's convenient for you to add sources.
- Do you not read edit summaries? Please do. I have stated it several times. And it is curious that you are stating that all info must be cited, while you added uncited, incorrect info about the Quincy episode. You have added incorrect info to the article, and I have tagged it as "citation needed"-- common editing practice. If you aren't going to remove the inaccurate info you added, then please either locate a cite for it, or stop edit warring. Is there a reason you are not responding to my direct concerns? When info requires better citation in a non-BLP, and is non-contentious, you can most certainly add a cn tag and wait for a citation to be added. The info you are questioning is by no means contentious, and is in fact common knowledge to those who know TS. DO you have any knowledge of the history of TS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- "first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a WP:BLP, there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited. Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you did not state this "several" times, all information in Wikipedia must be cited. The only material that does not need to be cited is that very narrow range of material that is so universally self-evident that it does not need to be (ie.: "Christmas is on December 25"--This is Jimmy Wales' example, not mine). This applies to all articles, and not just BLP's. The idea that this applies only to BLPs is false. If you want to source it at a later date, then do so. But until then, it stays out of the article. The rest of Wikipedia is not required wait until you decide that it's convenient for you to add sources.
- "Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it." And since I did not add that material, but merely moved it, this has nothing to do with me. Moving material does not constitute "adding" it, except in your mind. By continuing to accuse me of adding false information, when you have already acknowledged that I merely moved it, you are making a deliberately false accusation. If you continue with this uncivil behavior, you risk losing your editing privileges. Again, please calm down, and learn to resolve an editorial dispute without resorting to this sort of behavior, okay?
- Already explained: you appended it to a sentence that is not accurate about the Quincy episode. You changed content by moving content: not that hard to understand. Please cite the Quincy statement you added-- I can cite the previous passage when I'm home, but I can't cite the inaccurate info you added. I am quite calm, thank you; please focus on the content and refrain from personalizing arguments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it." And since I did not add that material, but merely moved it, this has nothing to do with me. Moving material does not constitute "adding" it, except in your mind. By continuing to accuse me of adding false information, when you have already acknowledged that I merely moved it, you are making a deliberately false accusation. If you continue with this uncivil behavior, you risk losing your editing privileges. Again, please calm down, and learn to resolve an editorial dispute without resorting to this sort of behavior, okay?
- "You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about" Personal knowledge is not the basis of editing Wikipedia. Good writing and reliable sources are. Criticizing another editor for lacking knowledge of an article's subject, in fact, is considered by Wikipedia to be behavior to be avoided. Please see WP:IKNOW.
- When you add inaccurate info that can't be cited, it needs to be corrected quickly when a cn tag is added-- since it is inaccurate. Knowlege of the sources equates to knowledge of the subject-- you don't seem to have either. Again, are you familiar with the Quincy episode and the history of TS? Are you aware that you have removed citable material (from a definitive book on the history of TS), and added incorrect material, apparently a reflection of you not knowing either the field or the sources? Again, please focus on the content; your diversion to claims of behavioral issues, after you've added incorrect info to the article, won't solve the issues in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- "You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about" Personal knowledge is not the basis of editing Wikipedia. Good writing and reliable sources are. Criticizing another editor for lacking knowledge of an article's subject, in fact, is considered by Wikipedia to be behavior to be avoided. Please see WP:IKNOW.
- "...the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited." Material does not need to be contentious to require sources, especially since what's "contentious" is subjective. The content of a TV show episode from decades ago is not "common knowledge", nor is common knowledge a substitute for proper sourcing under WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:RS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please stop ignoring the issue; leave the cn tag, and I will add it once I'm home. It is not contentious, and is not harming the article, which is not a BLP. However, the inaccurate info you have added about Quincy is harming the article. Please refrain from lecturing and resorting to personalization of issues: if you can't source your change to the Quincy material, then please stop edit warring and relax until I return home and can access the book, but in the meantime, do not continue to make false claims that the Quincy episode used TS as a plot device, when it was in fact a seminal moment in the history of TS, resulting in increased diagnoses from accurate info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- "...the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited." Material does not need to be contentious to require sources, especially since what's "contentious" is subjective. The content of a TV show episode from decades ago is not "common knowledge", nor is common knowledge a substitute for proper sourcing under WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:RS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)