User:Peripitus/AGF Challenge 2 Exercise Answers

In Answer to the questions in User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Exercises

What Wikipedia should do is stop creating noise and get back to the business at hand. ZZ was unequivocally not attacking anybody and he made the correct response. His note of
 * 2.3 Shockingly
 * Wow that is shockingly incorrect. Do you do this on purpose?

Is questioning the opinion expressed and questioning the motivation behind it not attacking a person, while not attributing poor motives to them. The discussion on AN is confusing being frank and forthright with attacking a person. From the information provided the AN discussion has lost the plot on what Wikipedia is and how we get to where we intend it to be. Wikipedia here is heading the correct direction but AN is lost at the bottom of a cess pool. What to do depends on the level of warring and foolishness on the AN page. The best result is to archive the thread, block the user if they keep with their uncited and challenged edits and buy ZZ a coffee if possible. While we must assume good faith the actions of the user adding the cyclone etymology must be regarded in the same way as we would someone editing all articles on the Irish Troubles with an etymology that Irish comes from Ire-ish as they are always angry. There is clear evidence here they are not working to help the project and have exhaused good faith in this matter. Hopefully as little time as possible is spent on this matter as it does not deserve any.

Wikipedians should make sure that the article remains saying "75 minutes", ignore the WR thread, and get on with building the site. The DVD is (from a Wikipedia point of view) 75 minutes long while that is what the secondary sources say. This is also the only reasonable, fair and encylopedic result. Perhaps the editor is correct about the length of their DVD but, until it is independently reported on, the information is original research that fails to be verifyable from reliable sources. The The TRUTHTM is fine for ED, uncyclopedia (if funny) and someones blog but if information is not verifyable then it does not belong in an article. WP:IAR is not violated by requiring a reliable source, as this requirement cannot be seen to do the reverse of improving the encyclopedia. Editors should spend just enough time on this to point out there is no source so the time stays at the referenced one.....if he keeps on then perhaps just ignoring it is the solution.
 * 2.5 How long is yours?