On 31 May 2006, at 00:44, Anittas Hatti wrote:
The recent days have been very confusing to me.
I'll keep it short.
User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That
part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to
it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two
souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources
had been included in the article.
Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file
could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe
agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that
the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed.
All was fine.
Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users
and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for
being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to
discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I went to ANI to
ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about
the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the
decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an
article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I
then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as
a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of
the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write
about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe
blocked me for disruption and trolling.
I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even
tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately
blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple
of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in
the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and
everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being
disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to
know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and
if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a
source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such
articles? And where can this info be found?
I havent looked at all your links, but I do think User:Zoe was being
rather odd. I would footnote if people
get that peculiar. I think you were perhaps less polite than you
could have been perhaps, but not sure that
blocking was the right answer.
However when your block expires, just bear in mind that lots of
wikipedia is unsourced at present. Its
usually best to just request sources on the talk page if you cant
find them, and give people plenty of
time. If you have reason to believe something is false or misleading
or POV say, remove it and add the
removed text and a note to the talk page. And show how to do things
by example, by always giving good
references by example. [Note these are not meant to be criticisms of
you, just suggestions].
In terms of what is original research, plot summaries etc and
generally not OR - summarising anything is
what encyclopaedias do, whether it is a primary or secondary source
("Napoleon was a pig"). If you start
to give opinions or interpretations ("Animal Farm is a satire of the
Soviet Union") then you should be
citing secondary sources.
Justinc