User talk:Rostz

The Nation and "left wing"

Thank you for providing a solid reference when reverting my removal of the descriptive phrase "left wing" when applied to The Nation in Cloward-Piven strategy. However, the New York Times didn't use "left wing" to characterize The Nation. Instead, they used a variety of characterizations using the word "left" but not "left wing". Perhaps you may think this a minor point, but I believe that the phrase "left wing" carries a negative connotation of extremism that is unecessary in this context. Any reader unfamiliar with The Nation can click on the wikilink to learn more about the magazine, and we don't need to add a possibly perjorative characterization. That would be like adding "establishment newspaper" to every citation of The New York Times. Your thoughts, please? Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're right to guess that I don't regard the difference between left, leftist, left-wing, etc. to be significant. Your edit comment was "remove unsourced POV characterization of magazine", so I reflexively sourced it as a fairly clear fact. I'm actually not particularly excited about descriptors and descriptor battles (see Talk:Media Matters for America for a "liberal" vs "progressive" eye-roller), so you have my blessing to edit or remove "left-wing" as you see fit - but please state your actual intent for the edit comment. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the first sentence of Left-wing politics. Rostz (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trailblazer Project

thank you for improving this article!!!! Decora (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged

I'm glad the comments were helpful. If you're looking for better examples of developed film articles, I'd recommend visiting WP:FILM's spotlight articles. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmthreat

I can understand some of your reverts. I was being lazy and did not explain the edits. So this time I compromised (respecting most of your changes by leaving them alone) and I also added explanations where necessary for the changes that I am required to make in accordance with wikipedia standards. Some of the content I removed was necessary since it was grossly unsourced and violated both WIKI:CITATION and WIKI:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If you want to re-insert the deleted content then simply find a citation backing up the content. Saying that Filmthreat "aided" Tarantino and Kevin Smith is very bold and misleading. If you can find a citation backing this up (one that clearly says this) then I am okay with leaving it in. However, I doubt you will find such a thing since it is simply not true. Both Tarantino and Smith got where they were based on a lot of talent and a lot hard work plus some luck. They seemed to be doing just fine on their own with or without Filmthreat.lol. But I'm openminded here. So just find a source to back up this wild claim and I will be fine. Please discuss on talk page if you still feel the need to counter my newer, fairer edits. Happy editing!75.174.130.129 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gasland

Hi, you undid my adding a paragraph on Phelim McAleer's short film. I thought I made it clear that the sentences I wrote that need verification are the views of McAleer. So McAleer's blog is not a source on Gas Drilling, or Gasland, or whatever, it is a source on McAleer, which is totally accecptable. So I don't use the "self-published source" to verify what McAleer said, I'm only using it to verify that he said it. --93.223.42.67 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, see also WP:SECONDARY (and WP:RS in general). If this work is significant, why is isn't it covered in reliable secondary sources? Likewise, to turn it around, someone's self-published work critical of McAleer or his output wouldn't be added to WP without further indication of notability. Rostz (talk) 12:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you undid my edit, you only indicated that you saw problems regarding self-published sources. Now you are also saying that my additions aren't notable enough for the reader of the article. Self-published sources, as said, are a problem when they are used to verify statements made in an article. Rereading my additions, I see that for example " implying that one shouldn't be so sure that gas drilling is definitely the cause for contamination" could be problematical. So I think we could trim my edit by removing all such interpretations done by me and add the rest of my additions to the article, basically saying in the article "There's Phelim McAleer, he made a video, he himself says about the video "quotes from McAleer". There is no doubt that the website used as a source is McAleer's, so it should surely qualify as a reliable source in this case, as we would only quote McAleer, and not interpret the video or anything else by ourselves, and don't reiterate McAleer's claims as facts. Regarding notability: Good point by you by saying that the amount, or lack, of coverage is an indicator of notability. There was some coverage though: Among other things, McAleer was on Fox Business Network talking about Gasland.[1] --194.95.108.244 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like A Rolling Stone

Thanks for cleaning up the Bob Dylan article. In fact, there are two interviews where Dylan seems to say that LARS has a unique place among his songs. One is Gleason in 1966, the other is Hilburn in 2004. Both are quoted with citations in the Legacy section of the LARS article. best Mick gold (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NP... it's a never-ending battle. Rostz (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Salk

Hello. With regards to your revert here, did you see the clip I mentioned? There, to my ears (I obviously could have misheard, though), Salk clearly says "would". Is that not from the Murrow interview? Do such excerpts of archive footage not qualify as a source? (Moore's dubious credentials as a "documentary" filmmaker notwithstanding) What if you have a good source (NYT), but the source is wrong? – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no; is the clip available online for viewing? In any case, Google reports ~12K hits for "could" vs. ~50 for "would", so if it's an error, it's a widely reported one, and WP prefers WP:SECONDARY sources over WP:PRIMARY ones such as recordings. See also WP:V ("verifiability, not truth"), and WP:Conflicting sources for possible handling. Rostz (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I got it wrong (you can listen to the clip here at 0:11 and here at 1:02:24, it's both from the same interview, and Murrow appears, too). And you're obviously right with Wikipedia being about verifiability and not truth. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who have Adopted a Mispelling

I actually abandoned that category, deciding instead to name the category:wikipedians who have adopted a typo as part of the wp:adopt-a-typo program. There is a redirect on the page now. Thank you for your vigilance. :) Majestic Pyre^{My Speech Bubble} 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moore

There's no such animal as a "lifetime member" of the NRA. That text belongs in quotes. The fact remains that moore joined as a publicity stunt and he has categorized the organization as racist. Ready to take it to ARBCOM?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following policies apply: WP:V ("verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true") and WP:BLP ("contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately"). Btw, note NRA's Life Membership. Rostz (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Gene, it's called "Life Membership" not "lifetime membership"; since no source states "Life Member" and uses the incorrect term that moore uses, which is nonexistent, it belongs in quotes. Not the first time that he speaks incorrectly just like his famous use of the word "fictitional" and "fictitionous", although it appears he uses "lifetime" to decieve his minions that he's been a member all his life. It's not contentious that he did it for an ulterior motive, he said it to Tim Russert and anyone else who would listen; it is wrong to hide that fact.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point and have specified that he has hasn't been a lifetime member. (WP:RS needed for the rest.) Rostz (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good edit on your part, by the way.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we could readily come to agreement, and thanks for explaining - I didn't initially see the significant difference between the "lifetime member" (suggesting "lifelong") and "life membership" wording. Rostz (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. As for the lifetime vs lifelong, Leonard Maltin cites him as a "lifelong member" in one of his film books. Whether it was an editorial oversight or intentional, i don't know. I'll go with confusion on his part to assume good faith, as moore clearly states he joined for whatever reason "after Columbine".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I appreciate and agree with you. However, unless there is an easy way to do - and if there is, let know - I have a problem with what WP requires for better sourcing. So far any template I have used have been a bother and just another bar to greater participation on WP, and probably a good reason for the downward trend of participants. I also think Jimmy Wales has acknowledged this, but what is being done or suggested, I don't know. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right... Rostz (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since the link I fixed was, I assume, done the way you like, how could I have more easily fixed the link than by a cut and paste? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing easier than cut&paste. What the full citation helps with is finding the replacement citation. Rostz (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, but if WP expects more people to edit they need better interfaces to do this, not "all you gotta do is..." Jimmy Wales has admitted this. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Political activities of the Koch family article.

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Political activities of the Koch family article. 141.218.36.44 (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Prius

Hi, please don't edit the template as it is uniform with all others in other car articles and they match. If it must be changed or you notice something amiss then please bring it to my attention so i can change/update all of them and take on board your suggestions. I'm not asking you not to edit, i'm just asking that you let me know before changing the table as i'm spending more time rechecking work this way than actually adding more templates. Thanks Jenova20 09:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your grievences (i think that's how you spell it) to the auto project talk page as i will have to revert the template changes otherwise as discussion is currently ongoing on the accepted format. Thanks Jenova20 08:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring, both of you, or I'll block you both for edit warring. Discussion has started, let's see what happens there. You should both know better than to keep reverting each other. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admonishment accepted; withdrawing from (trivial) issue. Rostz (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Goodman

My bad - I left the unsourced "never married", when I removed the unsourced claim of her relationship. Ta for cleaning that up! --The glass isn't half full, nor is it half empty. It's twice as big as it needs to be. (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NP - even if there were a citation it would be trivial/non-notable... Rostz (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DR

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Dan Savage". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.128.157 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]