Talk:Moby Dick (1930 film)

Uncited content
In regards to this edit by Beyond My Ken, for which the reason given was "aleady [sic] marked with citation needed", I will note that the fact that something is marked with "citation needed" does not mean that it should not be removed, or if removed, then restored. Rather, content followed by "citation needed" is supposed to be removed, unless a reliable source supporting it is added. Beyond My Ken should find such a source if he wishes to restore that content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, once again you misunderstand Wikipedia policy and procedures. Let me ask: when you deleted that material, did you do any due diligence and attempt to find a source, or did you just jerk your knee and delete it? BMK (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which policy did I misunderstand? Be specific: cite the relevant part of the relevant policy and explain yourself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, FreeKnowledgeCreator, hard experience has shown me that you are not worth the time and effort it takes to attempt to educate you. I suggest that you closely read WP:V, paying particular attention to what must be done and what can be done. That's the extent of my interest in interacting with you. BMK (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an offensive comment. See WP:CIVIL, especially the part reading, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Your rudeness is quite unnecessary, and any reasonable person could see that it is unnecessary. You could disagree with me without being so rude. The pointless rudeness and aggression of your behavior suggests an inability on your part to actually support your position with policy. WP:V states that, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Does that support your position, Beyond My Ken? It doesn't look like it to me. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Offensive or not, it's a dead-on accurate description. Civility should be reserved for editors who actually improve the encyclopedia, not for editors who create as many problems as possible without actually crossing the line into disruption. Some editors excel at quoting rules, and some at improving the encyclopedia - it's a certainty which kind you are. BMK (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hardly accurate. You called me uneducated, but you've just been told by a third opinion that you're the one in the wrong. What would it take to convince you? A fourth opinion, also disagreeing with you? A fifth? Instead of devoting so much energy to pursuing a pointless conflict with me, why don't you go and improve the encyclopedia, by finding citations for the material you restored? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's your pattern right there. Someone disagrees with you, and you immediately go to 3O.  If the 3O agrees with you, you do a little happy dance, but if the 3O disagrees with you, you start an RfC.  If the RfC goes against you, you ignore it.  That's why it's not worth it to engage with you, because you suck up time and energy that could be put to use elsewhere.  You're overall a net negative to the project, and you always will be as long as you keep up that pattern of behavior, along with your exceedingly poor judgment. BMK (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should try to talk about how to improve the article, rather than engaging in babble about me? Have you nothing better to do? Note that per WP:TALK, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Repeated violations of the guideline can lead to blocks. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Responding due to a request at WP:3O. WP:BURDEN would seem to apply here. The material has been challenged, and at least one editor feels it should be removed unless a citation can be provided. At that point "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If you disagree with my reading of this and a consensus cannot otherwise be reached here, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DonIago, however I am not sure specifically what form of dispute resolution would be appropriate here. Any suggestions? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material myself. In my estimation this is a clear scenario where WP:BURDEN applies, especially as the material had already been tagged for over a year. Editors who wish for the material to be included should provide citations to support it. If editors add the material again, without providing a policy-based rationale for it, I would interpret that as a user conduct matter. If it is felt that a stronger consensus in either direction is really needed, I would recommend consulting either the relevant Projects pages for this article or possibly asking for assistance at WT:V, as BURDEN falls under that set of policies. Given that I came here through a 3O request, I'm reluctant to partake in further direct involvement. DonIago (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is understandable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also worth noting that per WP:FILMDIFF creating "a section that merely lists the differences is especially discouraged". Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true too, and a reading of that link, to my mind, bolsters the case that sources should be provided. DonIago (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a few minutes and added a sourced "Comparison to novel" section. It was fairly easy to find them via Google Books with the right keyword searches. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)