Talk:Riley Martin/Archives/2016

Date of Death not confirmed
So far, there's only one place that lists the date of death as December 22 - the NY Daily News. Two problems with this: the article says "died December 22 in Bethlehem, Pa., Stern announced in a statement on Tuesday." - when Stern did not, in fact, announce an exact date; there's no date on the Stern page that the NYDN article links to, either. Second, that date may well have been pulled from this wikipedia page - it was added, unsourced, by an anon IP at 01:20, 6 January 2016‎ (GMT) - the NY Daily News article is time-stamped as 5:40pm local time on the 6th, about 21 hours later. I don't think that date is reliable, and it shouldn't be added. Rockypedia (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rusted AutoParts 17:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Legacy.com appears to be just an aggregator that pulls dates of death from other news articles. It's not independent and likely pulled their info from the NY Daily News article, and the date in that article is suspect, as discussed above. Rockypedia (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your own original research and just plain guesswork. Legacy is a site that takes in numerous obituaries and prides itself in providing accurate information. Is it not possible this IP that worries you added it upon seeing the Legacy or New York Daily News obit and simply didn't link the source? All that is at this point is assuming and guesswork. Unless you have any valid, sourced reasons to counter, I'm going to link the Legacy article to the page and correctly move Martin's back to the Deaths in December 2015 page. Rusted AutoParts 15:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Legacy is a site that takes in numerous obituaries and prides itself in providing accurate information." - that sounds like your own original research and just plain guesswork. The anon IP that added the date to this page added it 21 hours before the Daily News article appeared, so no, it's not possible. The Legacy entry is not dated or time-stamped, but the first comments there appeared on Jan.6 as well, and since the Wikipedia edit was made on Jan. 5 (local US time), then no, that wasn't after seeing the Legacy entry either. The burden of proof is on you to provide proof that you know Dec. 22 was the date of death, not the other way around. Rockypedia (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's still on you. Your assuming that Legacy isn't reliable is YOUR own guesswork. We can keep slinging accusations of who's guessing on what, but burden of proof is on you to prove December 22 isn't correct. We can't go by "IP added it this time, followed by NYDN 21 hours later". That's assuming that paper read Wikipedia and saw the date. And thus you add onto the assumptions that Legacy read the Daily News after. So since we have a reliable source saying December 22, we can use that, with no strings of unreliability attached. Rusted AutoParts 14:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You should check out List_of_citogenesis_incidents. There's a good bit of evidence that that's exactly what happened here, because while many other news sources reported Martin's death, only one of them listed an actual date of death, and that reporting came long after the Wikipedia edit in question. I'm not saying he definitely didn't die on Dec. 22 - I'm saying that until it's confirmed, that should not be listed as the date of death. Rockypedia (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ...But it has been confirmed. By Legacy. Seriously, what proof do you have that Legacy or New York Daily News cited Wikipedia as being the place they found the December 22 date? We can't prove that in the 21 hours between addition and publication that NYDN looked here and grabbed the date from there. If you can prove thst, fine. If you can't then Martin should be moved to December 22, as we have a source for that. Rusted AutoParts 15:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can ignore the strong evidence that this is a case of circular referencing just by saying "if you can prove that, fine". Those other cases List_of_citogenesis_incidents serve as a reminder that we should be cautious about getting it right. If the December 22 date is so definitive, why didn't more media outlets publish it? TMZ is a pretty accurate source, and they didn't publish a date. Neither did any traditional news sources, such as USA Today. This NY Daily News article says "He passed away in early January", and that's the same source that you claim is so reliable. I'm just saying that in this case, when Wikipedia may be used as a source for a subject that received minimal coverage, we should be very careful about perpetuating incorrect information. That's my main concern. What is your main concern? Rockypedia (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

My concern is you assuming it's a case of Wikipedia sourcing itself. My concern is you labelling sources like Legacy, a site which it's main function is publishing obituaries, unreliable. I'm asking you to give me a reason to believe it's a case like previous ones, you keep basically stating " it's happened before". Those we were able to prove, here we have not, except the assumption that they took their information from us. If they put "per Wikipedia, he died December 22", Id be in agreement, but since no cite to Wikipedia was made, we can't confirm or deny. NYDN is gossipy, so it's why I don't value it as much as I do Legacy. I again implore you to provide evidence to prove your point for this exact circumstance, rather than bring up prior cases, cases that do not offer any evidence towards this one. Rusted AutoParts 17:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an assumption; there's evidence to believe it may have happened, and in this particular case, I believe we should be cautious, as we run the risk of the circular reporting reinforcing itself, if that's what did happen. Legacy gets its info from newspapers, and the newspaper to originate that date of death was the NYDN. So if you don't trust the NYDN (I don't, especially given their other page that said Martin died in January) then you can't trust Legacy in this case. Rockypedia (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "there's evidence to believe it may have happened - Rockypedia
 * That's an assumption right there. So I ask again, please provide evidence that they read Wikipedia and got the date from there. Rusted AutoParts 18:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on now. Did you just switch from saying "NYDN is gossipy, so it's why I don't value it" to "NYDN is my reliable source because I just realized Legacy got their info from them"? It's okay to admit you may have been slightly mistaken about Legacy.com, you know. No one is going to admonish you for that. Rockypedia (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you're going to use NYDN as your reliable source, which article are you going to use? The one that says he died on Dec 22, or the one that says he died in "early january"? Rockypedia (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where's your evidence that I made that statement?
 * Where's your evidence Legacy took it's information from NYDN?
 * And finally, again, where's your evidence both those sites visited Wikipedia and got the date here? Answer a fucking question. Please. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't get abusive. Despite the profanity, I will answer your questions with information that I've already provided above.
 * You said "please provide evidence that they read Wikipedia and got the date from there." - you didn't specify who "they" was, Legacy or NYDN. I took it to mean NYDN. Please be specific.
 * Legacy takes its info from newspapers, as is evidenced in the link I provided. The only newspaper to publish a date of death was the NYDN.
 * I'm not saying Legacy visited Wikipedia. I'm saying they got their info from NYDN. Their own website says they take info from newspapers, and NYDN is the only newspaper to publish a date of death. So please advise, are you now saying NYDN is a reliable source? Rockypedia (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, i'm not, and once again, you're assuming. So now you must provide evidence Legacy got their info from the NYDN. What if they weren't the only ones to publish a date? You can't skate by assuming everything. I'm feeling like you're just wasting my time now. Rusted AutoParts 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find another newspaper that published a date of death for Riley Martin (I've looked, I haven't found one yet), that would be a great start. If you feel you can't do that, perhaps it's time to ask for an admin's attention. I've tried to assume good faith on your part, but at this point it's starting to feel like you are not that interested in getting the information correct, and more interested in winning what you see as a battle. I don't see it that way; I just want the correct info on the page. Rockypedia (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What is it with you and assuming things? Are you an jerk or something? I doubt you try to find the good faith in people because you're constantly throwing out assumptions. It's not my responsibility to prove you are correct, it is your responsibility. I have sources pointing to December 22. You're claiming they are incorrect. So prove that. Prove it without unreferenced, uncited original research. Prove it without pointing to "it's happened before". Prove it without making an unilateral assumption. Just prove your case.


 * Prove Legacy/NYDN read Wikipedia and got the date from there


 * Prove Legacy recycled it's information from NYDN

Throw out all your guesswork and provide a source that points to your suspicions. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you would not call me a jerk, and be civil, and then we can actually have a conversation about getting this info right. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Typical. You can't prove your point, so you're hiding behind my "jerk" comment (wasn't insulting you, was a sarcastic question) and refusing to continue. That's fine. I'll get onto adding the sourced DOD here in a bit. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you do that, you can expect it to be reverted, until you find a reliable source. Rockypedia (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is a joke, and thus a waste of my time. You made these claims and are utterly unwilling to back them up. It's editors like you that make me hate editing. It's bad for me to not provide proof, yet it's ok for others. Double standards left, right and center. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved via the Dispute resolution noticeboard - date of death remains as December 2015.
 * Despite the being a sourced date. But no, let's go by one editors flimsy doubts. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 01:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that you accepted the resolution on the noticeboard, but felt the need to come back here and petulantly complain about the result a month later. Rockypedia (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as odd as someone coming back two moths later to remark about it. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What's next, "I'm rubber you're glue"? The case went to arbitration. A resolution was reached. Whether or not you "accepted the resolution" or "give a shit" as you so gracefully put it in your edit summary, is rather immaterial. You checked back in on this talk page 4 days after I left my response. What is it you're looking for, exactly? Perhaps I can help. Rockypedia (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for anything, I gave my final remakes on the situation and that was it. There was no resolution, you never proved if the sources you disputed got the date from us. Flimsy guesswork was valued more. But I have zero interest in rehashing this. Theres a sourced date and you refuse to let it be used, again based on flimsy suspicions. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 13:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard:


 * "Both parties have agreed that the current state is acceptable. Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)"

Also from the same thread. I didn't agree, just stopped caring enough to continue forward. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 15:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you stop caring enough to take the page off your watchlist? How about editing it via anon IPs? Rockypedia (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It was never on my watchlist, and what? Are you accusing me of something? I've made no contributions to anything Riley Martin related until July 15, when I noticed your response whilst looking through old contributions I made to Wikipedia. Or is it not possible other people may find the NYDN and, not knowing about the "resolution", add it in as they might've thought they were adding useful info? Regardless, I don't hide behind IPs to make edits I want to make. I'd remain logged in, so you're fishing in the wrong lake there, pal. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 17:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I can just feel we're going to go in circles here again, and we're not even debating the content anymore. I've gone along with the result and will continue to do so, just won't be exactly pleased with it. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. Rockypedia (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just rejecting for the sake of rejecting. There is no reason to keep removing him from December 22. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have provided another source stating the date. What's your problem? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 19:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain yourself . <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Chop chop, you've wasted enough of my time this year. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Four messages in 6 minutes? "chop chop"? Is this considered civil behavior to you?
 * I am researching to see if we can accurately put 12/22 as the DOD. I will respond shortly. Please be patient. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Researching what? Is your argument still resting on if the 22nd was Wikipedia sourced? You failed to prove that to be true months ago. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And you lost the privilege of my civility with your refusal to back down from an incorrect stance. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please calm down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_136#Talk:Riley_Martin - "Both parties have agreed that the current state is acceptable. Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk)"  Please be patient and do not edit war.  Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no argeement to block new sourcing until you scrutinize it. This is ridiculous. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 20:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My patience is running thin. There's nothing to question. Will every source provided be scrutinized because you had a weak assumption in a different source? <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem? Do we need moderated discussion?  I thought that had been taken care of.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less confused and frustrated. They aren't fully detailing why he has a problem with the new source. To me right now it just comes off as them scrutinizing the source to see if it meets their standards. This whole problem arose from a flimsy assumption about the date. And now it just seems they distrust any new source based off that assumption. Nothing's getting done and I'm mad. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's getting readded tomorrow if you do not respond. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can re-add it without consensus. It's important to remember that just because someone searches for the specific words "Riley Martin December 22" in a Google Books and gets one result, that doesn't mean that result is automatically considered a reliable source. The book is not what I'd consider a reliable source, as it appears the Martin entry is just drawn from the same place that originated with that first anon IP edit. We already went through this; as noted above, the moderated discussion ended with both parties agreeing that the current status was acceptable, and it was closed. That was five months ago, you declared you didn't care, and yet you circled back to a very obscure edit on a year-old page five months later.
 * Equally of concern: I don't understand the very aggressive and rude comments directed at me. I'm looking to ensure that inaccurate info isn't posted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what your motivation is, but your attitude towards me certainly isn't helping your case; there's a litany of hateful comments directed at me I'd appreciate an apology and hope that we can have a civilized discussion. I'm hoping that the numerous blocks in the past for edit warring are a thing of the past, because you obviously work hard here, but the personal attacks and threats you've written in the last few hours are really baffling, and I hope they stop. Rockypedia (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't need consensus when the dispute we initially had concluded already. You were opposed to the Legacy source. This is not the legacy source. Your whole stance rests on if this source used the anon edit as a reference, which is an assumption and not a strong argument against the source. This book is a reliable source. We've used it before not just for verification of DOD but as reference to when others passed away without Wikipedia initially knowing. I'm angry because you assuming that these sources spawn from an IP edit without evidence proving so somehow prevents the source from being used, then say "I'm researching, patiently wait until I decide if we can use it". I swallowed that pill with the NYDN and Legacy sources. We can use this book as a reliable source. And your assumptions can't keep factoring in because you didn't prove the assumption to be correct. Did they credit Wikipedia as their source for the date? No. So unless you can prove that, we can't just keep blocking sources until you deem it usable. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 02:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm not the one who needs to start a discussion when you're the one questioning the source. You are just as guilty of edit warring, as you breached the 3RR rule. my block history doesn't matter. My attitude doesn't matter. I ask you: prove why you question the source, a book specifically geared to chronicalling deaths. No apology is being given to you. Earn it by bolstering your doubt without using assumptions. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 03:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, 3 things you just said are incorrect.


 * 1) According to WP:BRD, you made a bold edit (albeit one you agreed not to make five months ago and tried to sneak in), I reverted it, and the next step is Discuss. You went straight to reverting again.
 * 2) I did not violate WP:3RR.
 * 3) Your attitude does, in fact, matter. I find it's much easier to find consensus and have a discussion based on logic and reason when another editor isn't addressing me with "What's your problem?", "Explain yourself @Rockypedia", and "Chop chop @Rockypedia, you've wasted enough of my time this year." in 3 messages in the space of 5 minutes, and then follows that up with you lost the privilege of my civility with your refusal to back down from an incorrect stance. Add that to your previous comments directed at me: " Are you an jerk or something?", " Answer a fucking question.", among others, and I think I have a right to feel it will be difficult to reach consensus before such behavior is addressed. Rockypedia (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Then ignore me. I'm a prick, I have a problem with my temper. I get fed up easily and get frustrated whenever I feel like I'm going in circles. All I want is to know why you're disputing this source and I'm feeling like I'm not getting an answer. And BTW I wasn't the IP address that added the date back in on this page. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. You'll still need consensus to make the date of death change, however. Rockypedia (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But why though? Like I said the Legacy/NYDN source was the disputed source. All that was agreed was to leave as is at the time. Nothing about needing a consensus when a new source is found. This is a new source being provided, and you still haven't identified your issue with it. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'd really appreciate a response. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)