User talk:Ajacomics248

Jim McManus (actor)
You have twice added a date and place of death on the article about Jim McManus (actor), but you did not give a source. Where did you come across this information? signed, Willondon (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My source is IMBd and I don't understand why Wikipedia has not put in that date for Jim Mcmanus's death. Ajacomics248 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And why does it matter if I don't give a source as long as the date of death is correct and confirmed? Ajacomics248 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * IMDb is not considered a reliable source at Wikipedia, mostly as there is no editorial control, and any registered user can add anything. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is outlined in WP:VERIFIABILITY. A reader can't know to what extent something is correct and confirmed unless a source is given.  signed, Willondon (talk)  15:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is it has to be known as just an unreliable source as IMBd with the same lack of editorial control and any registered user can add anything. If anything Wikipedia is no different from IMBd so maybe Wikipedia should be happy to have sources unreliable or not. Ajacomics248 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia itself recognizes that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, for the very reasons we've talked about. Wikipedia's value comes from reporting on what other reliable sources have said, and providing those sources such that a reader can follow a path and be convinced that the knowledge is correct and confirmed. This is an important difference between Wikipedia and IMDb: I'm not registered there, so I don't have access to all the features, but as a reader, I have no way of knowing who added the information, when, or where they got it from. This information is available to any reader of Wikipedia.
 * Anyone who cites Wikipedia as a reliable source should be more careful, and their audience should not rely on Wikipedia, but rather consult the sources that Wikipedia has provided. And there lies the importance of Wikipedia providing a reliable source for all statements expressed. You will, of course, allow that this is only an ideal, often not achieved, but one that is very important to at least strive for.  signed, Willondon (talk)  16:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that but other people see IMBd as a reliable source as you do Wikipedia I understand you're not registered at IMBd but that shouldn't matter is what I'm saying if anything you not being registered is not a good enough reason IMBd is an unreliable source sorry but it's not. Ajacomics248 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (An aside: I don't know if you are registered at IMDb, but I've always been curious: if I had that access, could I find out who added things and when? I know IMDb doesn't have any requirements about sourcing.)
 * Well, that's the consensus of the editing community here. At Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there is an entry for IMDb, indicating that it is considered unreliable, and with links to the many discussions which led to that consensus.  signed, Willondon (talk)  17:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure those same discussions have been made about Wikipedia as well and do you know how many people have abused the editing community Wikipedia has a lot and who's to say there's no entry for Wikipedia indicating that it's also considered unreliable you see my point here and it's not like people aren't still going to IMBd or are regsistered over there and it can't be unreliable all the time. Sorry but as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is no different from IMBd when it comes to being unreliable. Ajacomics248 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion now of Wikipedia, IMBd and the value of reliability of facts and accuracy.  signed, Willondon (talk)  22:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you understand why I think they're right about McManus dying on April 11 2023 I was just trying to correct something and help improve it that's all. Ajacomics248 (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope. Not what I was getting at. At this point in our lengthy conversation, you have dismissed the community practice I've outlined, which helps to maintain accuracy, and you have been blind to my reference to "IMDb" in polite, silent correction to your use of "IMBd", persistent even unto your last salvo. It is this ignorance that led me to conclude that you have no interest in accuracy, or any respect for the conventions that help to maintain it. So "IMBd" is not a reliable source. Come up with a reliable one if you respect verifiability, reliable sources, and the importance of accurate information.  signed, Willondon (talk)  22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blind how have I been blind or ignorant because I don't agree that IMBd is a reliable source that I called it IMBd by mistake because I thought that's what it was called there's a difference between blind and forgetting something you don't want to appreciate and I think I know what you are a perfectionist who makes up his mind on someone who does just one typo even if it's not their intention so please don't tell me have no interests in accuracy I thought IMDb was IMBd I really did but I'm not gonna get obsessive about it. I've checked and my words every time I type on YouTube and I do my best to fix my errors and get accuracy so don't insult me please and that's what you're doing. If I have to go to IMDb for reliable sources then I will but please don't tell me that cause I forgot or actually thought that's what it was called that I'm blind and ignorant that's not gonna make me do it your way. Next you insult me like that and accuse me of not doing it the community way I won't. Ajacomics248 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And for the record not once did you correct me on using IMDb instead of IMBd I really thought it was called that that wasn't ignorance just forgetting what it was called. Please do not tell me I have no interest in accuracy ever again you don't get to judge based off one typo. Ajacomics248 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Language exists mostly as a communication between two or more people. No speaker has an "accent" unless compared with another speaker. Nobody's spelling is wrong, unless compared with some standard (which I tried to assert with my spelling), that sometimes changes through time. I criticized your spelling of "IMBd" as a failure to understand the name's origin as a batadase, and as an aberrant expression. I apologize for that.
 * In the same spirit, you have to realise that Wikipedia is a community, and that it has declared the importance of reliable sourcing as fundamental to its success. Your contributions would be welcome with that kept in mind. signed, Willondon (talk)  23:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do as I did for Avatar wiki or Fandom wiki and the only reason I used IMDb as the source cause I'm certain they're the only ones who know the date of Jim McManus's death and despite your claims to contrary and my typos I think IMDb is capable of reliable sourcing when it wants to I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on this and I'm certain other people won't either. IMDb is still used by people and is as much a community as Wikipedia. Ajacomics248 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So yes I understand Wikipedia is a community but so is IMDb it's the only site that has the official death date for Jim McManus which is why I used it as my source and despite what you believe IMDb is more reliable than you think sorry but I found no other site that had an official death date IMDb did hence why I used it. Ajacomics248 (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)