User talk:8190angel

July 2011
Welcome!

Hello, 8190angel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Randolph Mantooth
I'm confused. How is Randolph Mantooth not a reliable source of information about himself? Also IMDb is one of the sources. Randolph was in The Seekers in 1979 not The Bastard in 1976. Although IMDb has his birthday wrong and his name, this fact is correct. How can you prove something is true if no one will change their facts to the correct info.
 * 8190angel, Wikipedia works by way of verifiability (WP:V), not truth. See WP:RS--there is a section on self-published sources. IMDB is generally deemed pretty reliable, but not as reliable as many other sources (much, or at least some, of the content is user-submitted). I hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look in Google Books--"Randolph Mantooth" + 1945 gave me some useful hits, including this book. Such publications may still be wrong, but at least they're published and thus have some claim to authority. I urge you, by the way, to use that publication and beef up the article, which suffers from a lack of references. It also mentions something about his high school career. Thanks for contributing--we need all the help we can get. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent response, Drmies - you said it better than I could have and I appreciate you stepping in. It's not that we don't appreciate your efforts, 8190angel, it's just that there are way of doing and not doing things in Wikipedia.  I hope that Drmies has answered your questions.  But if you have more, feel free to ask! Lhb1239 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess Wikipedia will never have the correct information because no source has the correct information. Only Randy knows what is true. He keeps trying to get IMDb to change their info, but they won't. About that book, it won't allow me to see that page of the book. The fact that Wikipedia works on verifiable sources and not truth means that it will never be a reliable source of information. (8190angel (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Ok so IMDb is not reliable. Then nothing is and you can't say that any of the information on any site is. Also if it is not reliable then it should not be listed as an external link. (8190angel (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC))

Right To Vanish
Can someone help me understand how to vanish?

8190angel (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Right to vanish.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconsider?
I hope you reconsider leaving Wikipedia. While the edits you made to the Mantooth article were reverted, that doesn't mean that you can't still contribute to the article, find appropriate references, and make a positive difference to this online encyclopedia. It's not unusual for new editors to run into difficulties and challenges as you have with your first few edits, and my hope is that you don't let those incidents dissuade you from contributing here in a helpful and productive manner. In fewer words: don't go so quickly and give Wikipedia a chance! Hope you stay. Lhb1239 (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are really no credible sources since I can't use Randy as a source. Or IMDb for that matter. How about movie cases? Do those count? That last edit I made was correct. The way that whole sentence reads is really wrong. It says "After Emergency..." If he was in "The Bastard" in 1976, that was in the middle of Emergency, not after. So how do I use a reliable source to correct that? I was told to use that Behind the Scenes Emergency book as a reference, but Google Books won't allow me to see some of it. As long as people can't change the information to the truth, wikipedia will never be a reliable source. My history teacher even says not to use wikipedia as a source for our papers. (8190angel (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Okay, but...if you look at the edit Drmies just made to the article, you will see that he did find a reliable reference and reverted my revert. As far as Wikipedia being reliable -- that's up to the editors to make it reliable.  On the other side of the coin, it is an irony conundrum that even Wikipedia doesn't think of itself as a reliable reference.  This is proven when trying to reference something in a Wikipedia artice based on content in another Wikipedia article: you can't reference Wikipedia with Wikipedia because......"it's not considered a reliable, verifiable reference".  Weird, I know.  Frustrating, yes.  Impossible to find reliable references out there?  Definitely not.  Keep trying -- don't give up!  You just might find this Wikipedia thing enjoyable addicting. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing ironic or perplexing about it. First of all, the most reliable of reliable sources don't normally use themselves as a source (except possibly about themselves), which is why the WP:V section on not citing Wikipedia as a source in Wikipedia has the shortcut, WP:CIRCULAR. More importantly, encyclopedias in general, be they Wikipedia or Britannica, are tertiary sources and thus should not be cited as an authoritative source but as a starting point for targeted research. No history paper should be using any encyclopedia as its source. But if your history professor is saying don't use Wikipedia but do use others, then he or she has failed to understand the nuance of how to recognize and teach what to look for to find reliable information at Wikipedia. Our highly vetted articles (called featured articles) are as or more reliable than any other encyclopedia, and it's no coincidence that among other things we require for them to be featured is that their content is thoroughly researched and contain inline citations to reliable primary and secondary sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "There's nothing ironic or perplexing about it" - you're free to disagree, Fuhghettaboutit. That being said, since this is a talk page (a place where personal opinions should be welcome) and not an article (a place where POV is unwelcome), I think it would be better form for you to just say you disagree, not dismiss my POV wholesale.  As far as college and university professors disallowing the use of Wikipedia as a reference, being someone who has several degrees and a good understanding of what is acceptable in the area of research, references, and the like, I agree with them 100%.  When you become a university professor yourself, feel free to allow your students to quote Wikipedia all day long.  Of course, your academic credentials will likely be called into question by your collegues and academic deans and other administration, but hey... ;-) Lhb1239 (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read my post? Please read it again. The bulk of your response is to a strawman. I said all encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, should not not be considered reliable sources and should not be used as sources in academic papers (which means I agree 100% as well), which is also why it's not ironic nor does it present a conundrum that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. What makes you think I am not a university professor;-) In any event, sometimes, communicating across the internet tone does not travel. I assure you in my mind's eye my post did not have the vitriolic tone you obviously read it with.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that my history instructor allowed the use of encyclopedias. Our source include only our textbook and the documents he supplies. However, I was just stating that he specifically said not to use wikipedia and a couple other sites as sources at all. If we do, we forfeit our points. Oh and I just want to say thank you to Drmies for finding a source. (8190angel (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC))