Talk:Bill Verna

Magazine citation
The magazine cited is not notable and should not be used as it's veracity is impossible to gauge. As it does not appear online anywhere in any other citations anywhere, it can not be deciphered as to whether or not it is anything other than a locla newsletter. Hardly a reliable source if so, so it should not be used. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional note. A proper citation of a published work must include the author. This has not been done. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not always. If no author is listed, none can be given. Stating that the veracity of the reference needs to be verified is essentially accusing me of fabricating the source. I urge you not to continue down that path, as it is incredibly offensive. The information is cited. The only reason I can think of for removing it would be that you don't like the article and are on a crusade to have it deleted. I'll assume good faith and trust that you have some higher purpose in mind, however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the source from if you didn't get it online? Or if you did please link it. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could have just asked. Unfortunately, it is difficult to access. If you type one of the phrases (for example, "appreciated and admired as a player throughout the world") into a google search, you will come up with the source. Because of some shuffling on the page, however, you will have to access the cached version. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter now anyway. Someone else has brought up another good point and removed the note. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and we could have done this first you know - instead of you firing warnings at me arbitrarily. Sort of like shooting first and asking questions second. TaintedZebra (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of like deleting sourced content without bothering to make a polite inquiry? I wonder if you would be so kind as to clarify what this "good point" was, as it seems to be exactly what you were already saying. If it is the neutrality, please note that I was not saying that Verna was any of those things, but rather that he was described in those words. That is most certainly not a violation of NPOV. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find the user was saying the source violates WP:NPOV, not you. I was doing the right thing. I was removing content that did not comply with WP rules. You were the one who assumed bad faith and over reacted. Instead of a warning you should have just asked me what I was doing informally. Then we could have discussed it. And I never used NPOV before. It was JBSupreme who brought it up, along with a few other terms in his edit summary which I also never used, but do agree with. At the end of the day, offline sources of published work (as opposed to online) must include an author. Otherwise they fail WP:V. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about that at WP:V. Could you please point me to the relevant section. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I should have mentioned WP:RS as well. But it boils down to WP:BURDEN. It says (just to save you going over there); The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Now obviously this isn't a book, it's a magazine you're citing. But the key words are "as much publication information as possible". That - by interpretation (and I think there's a consensus for it but I don't know where and I think it was some time ago as well) - includes the author of the article. Now with a book that would be easy (usually) but with a magazine (especially one over 50 years old and not notable as well) that's impossible. That's why I said what I said in the edit summary that it's impossible to verify. I probably shouldn't have pinned it to just WP:V but it's a contributor. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you seem to have overlooked the words "as possible". An unsigned article (and they exist all over the place, including in many major contemporary newspapers), by definition, doesn't have an author listed. This doesn't make the article unreliable. It just means that as much information as possible should go into the citation, which would mean everything except the author. At any rate, it's getting late, and there's some stuff I really wanted to get finished tonight, so I'm going to have to put this distraction on hold. Take care, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But if you don't include the author, library indexes won't pick it up. Archives rely on that sort of thing, particularly with magazines. It applies for newspapers as well. That's why the author is crucial to the citiation. But anyway, because the copy of the article you gave me is in itself suspect under WP:RS we may have an additional issue on top of everything else. Especially as it is cached. TaintedZebra (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bill Verna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903064447/http://geocities.com/worlddwebb/bholu_brothers/ to http://www.geocities.com/worlddwebb/bholu_brothers/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)