User talk:Adam75081

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. NrDg 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Actually READ the cite you use, don't ignore the parts you don't like. NrDg 20:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Then would is a reliable sourece? Please explain it in YOU OWN WORDS. I have look at Wikipedia's, now I would like to know yours.
 * A published source that has an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking is what I expect to see. This basically means personal sites and the equivalent (a anonymously created YouTube video for example), talk pages on IMDB and Wikipedia articles are NOT reliable sources. Basically anything that allows any anonymous person to input, edit or fake the data is not reliable. Reliable is press releases, news articles in major newspapers or magazines, TV Guide. For movies and stuff an article in Variety would be great. Others on a case by case basis and it is sometimes a judgment call that I might get wrong but I think it is better to not have the information then to have wrong information. burden is on the person entering the information to show the source is reliable if the source is not well known. --NrDg 04:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, but just repeating what you said "I expect to see. This basically means personal sites and the equivalent (a anonymously created YouTube video for example), talk pages on IMDB and Wikipedia articles are NOT reliable sources" But dosn't that mean if Wikipedia is not a source, people do not need to site there sources. Right? Because basicly you said Wikipedia is not a source. A Negative + A Negitive = A Positive.


 * No, you still need to cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is a source but it is not a reliable source for the same reason some other sources are not reliable, lots of anonymous editors and unreliable fact checking. Also Wikipedia is all second hand knowledge (at least is is supposed to be) and depends on the original information source for the fact checking. In the parlance of WP:RS and WP:V wikipedia is a tertiary source and we should be using secondary (eg. Newspapers) and primary (eg. press releases) sources. What you are supposed to do if the information is in another wiki article is find the reference that article used and use it as the reference, not use the other wiki article itself as the reference. That way we don't have the problem of circular references that don't depend on anything outside wikipedia. Of course wikilinking is encouraged but that does not count as a reference.


 * Also, somewhat related, and my view of what is happening. Nobody editing wikipedia is expected to do real fact checking, we all depend on some other published sources to that for us. If we have wrong information in wikipedia we want to be able point to the source of the wrong information and say "not our fault, this newspaper reported it that way and this newspaper has a good reputation". It is more important in wikipedia to be right about the reference than the absolute correctness of the information. --NrDg 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. . Constant reverts are disruptive. since you have been repeatedly warned, you are bordering on vandalism. Please stop at once.Smatprt (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

please tell me how I am vandilizing?

Please stop behaving this way. I told you how and will say it again. Constant reverts, like you keep making by re-inserting a "stars confirmed" section, are disruptive. Since you have been repeatedly warned, you are bordering on vandalism. Is that clear enough for you? Quoting fan magazines, rumors and speculations is not proper and will be deleted. Until there is a "Disney said" attached to one of these reports than it is not confirmed. (Ortega himself has recently said that all the agreements are verbal, not written contracts.) So wait for official announcements please. Smatprt (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same person as NrDg? I have been watching what I type to make sure I do not add unprov'n things. I have tried to be fair. and if soming is on three(3) web sites, then i would think that it is real. Right?

No I am not NrDg. That would be sockpuppetry and is not allowed. And no, as a matter of fact, most websites are not reliable sources. They simply quote each other and spread rumors that are not confirmed by the appropriate sources. In this instance, unless the reference says something along the lines of "according to Disney representatives", or "a Disney spokesperson said that", then it's probably unconfirmed and not ready for inclusion.Smatprt (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

On yahoo.com it said Vanessa Anne Hudgens and Ashley Tisdale have agreed to do HSM3 after a few months of negotiating. They have said so themselves that they are on board.

Are they contracted? Does Yahoo quote the actual producer (Disney), who is, after all, the only one who can actually confirm this. I think the problem here is that you are treating this as a fan site. It is not. I believe I have explained enough. I'm done now. Smatprt (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add Stars returning later becuse Ashley Tisdale has saide she WILL return.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Metros (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

spoiler note
Wikipedia no longer uses spoiler warnings. There is a general warning in the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, but we don't use notes within the text if individual articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)