User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2009/August

August 2009
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

List of common misconceptions
Let me try to appeal to you personally. Why do you think I want them restored to the article with appropriate tags? (I'm adding your talk page to my watch list so no need to answer to my talkpage.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why. Can you explain why restoring them without sources is preferable to leaving them on the talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, right now, the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources is me. The deleted items have 123 sources.  For me to take the time to read all 123 sources is going to take time.  If it turns out that any of these aren't sourced, I have to find new sources which will take even more time.  Further, we have to make sure the content matches the sources.  By putting them back in the article, we might attract some goods editors who can fix any potential issues, that's all.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate that you are serious about finding sources and improving the article. However, while fact tags might attract some other editors to look for sources, this hasn't happened in the past. Some of the material was tagged, and not improved. Still more was removed, discussed, and put back in. In the months since then, editors with the article on their watchlist, and editors who were active on the article when it was being discussed, have not improved things. To me, the evidence is pretty clear that putting the contested material back into the article will make it worse and will not generate the improvement we want. Interested editors will have noticed the recent deletions and discussion, and can get involved in trying to find sources if they want. Another thing which I think we disagree on is the likelihood that we will find sources. I get the impression that you think many of these are misconceptions, so want to find supporting sources and keep them in the article. On the other hand, I don't think they are misconceptions, so don't think they should be in the article at all, unless they are supported by sources first.
 * So I don't doubt that you want to improve the article, we just disagree on how to do it. I realise I might be wrong on some of these, so if sources are found, I won't object to them going back in, but I can't support putting them back before we find sources. --hippo43 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's assume for the sake of argument that temporarily adding {fact} tags to contested items doesn't work. In the long-term, what harm results?  If we can attract new editors who can fix these potential issues, that's a good thing.  If not, no big deal.  They'll be deleted at the end of the month.  In the long run, it still works out.  You get what you want in the end.  I just don't want to have to do all the work by myself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
Let me try to appeal to you personally. Why do you think I want them restored to the article with appropriate tags? (I'm adding your talk page to my watch list so no need to answer to my talkpage.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why. Can you explain why restoring them without sources is preferable to leaving them on the talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, right now, the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources is me. The deleted items have 123 sources.  For me to take the time to read all 123 sources is going to take time.  If it turns out that any of these aren't sourced, I have to find new sources which will take even more time.  Further, we have to make sure the content matches the sources.  By putting them back in the article, we might attract some goods editors who can fix any potential issues, that's all.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate that you are serious about finding sources and improving the article. However, while fact tags might attract some other editors to look for sources, this hasn't happened in the past. Some of the material was tagged, and not improved. Still more was removed, discussed, and put back in. In the months since then, editors with the article on their watchlist, and editors who were active on the article when it was being discussed, have not improved things. To me, the evidence is pretty clear that putting the contested material back into the article will make it worse and will not generate the improvement we want. Interested editors will have noticed the recent deletions and discussion, and can get involved in trying to find sources if they want. Another thing which I think we disagree on is the likelihood that we will find sources. I get the impression that you think many of these are misconceptions, so want to find supporting sources and keep them in the article. On the other hand, I don't think they are misconceptions, so don't think they should be in the article at all, unless they are supported by sources first.
 * So I don't doubt that you want to improve the article, we just disagree on how to do it. I realise I might be wrong on some of these, so if sources are found, I won't object to them going back in, but I can't support putting them back before we find sources. --hippo43 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's assume for the sake of argument that temporarily adding {fact} tags to contested items doesn't work. In the long-term, what harm results?  If we can attract new editors who can fix these potential issues, that's a good thing.  If not, no big deal.  They'll be deleted at the end of the month.  In the long run, it still works out.  You get what you want in the end.  I just don't want to have to do all the work by myself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
Let me try to appeal to you personally. Why do you think I want them restored to the article with appropriate tags? (I'm adding your talk page to my watch list so no need to answer to my talkpage.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why. Can you explain why restoring them without sources is preferable to leaving them on the talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, right now, the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources is me. The deleted items have 123 sources.  For me to take the time to read all 123 sources is going to take time.  If it turns out that any of these aren't sourced, I have to find new sources which will take even more time.  Further, we have to make sure the content matches the sources.  By putting them back in the article, we might attract some goods editors who can fix any potential issues, that's all.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate that you are serious about finding sources and improving the article. However, while fact tags might attract some other editors to look for sources, this hasn't happened in the past. Some of the material was tagged, and not improved. Still more was removed, discussed, and put back in. In the months since then, editors with the article on their watchlist, and editors who were active on the article when it was being discussed, have not improved things. To me, the evidence is pretty clear that putting the contested material back into the article will make it worse and will not generate the improvement we want. Interested editors will have noticed the recent deletions and discussion, and can get involved in trying to find sources if they want. Another thing which I think we disagree on is the likelihood that we will find sources. I get the impression that you think many of these are misconceptions, so want to find supporting sources and keep them in the article. On the other hand, I don't think they are misconceptions, so don't think they should be in the article at all, unless they are supported by sources first.
 * So I don't doubt that you want to improve the article, we just disagree on how to do it. I realise I might be wrong on some of these, so if sources are found, I won't object to them going back in, but I can't support putting them back before we find sources. --hippo43 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's assume for the sake of argument that temporarily adding {fact} tags to contested items doesn't work. In the long-term, what harm results?  If we can attract new editors who can fix these potential issues, that's a good thing.  If not, no big deal.  They'll be deleted at the end of the month.  In the long run, it still works out.  You get what you want in the end.  I just don't want to have to do all the work by myself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions
Let me try to appeal to you personally. Why do you think I want them restored to the article with appropriate tags? (I'm adding your talk page to my watch list so no need to answer to my talkpage.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why. Can you explain why restoring them without sources is preferable to leaving them on the talk page? --hippo43 (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because, right now, the only editor who is actively working to find reliable sources is me. The deleted items have 123 sources.  For me to take the time to read all 123 sources is going to take time.  If it turns out that any of these aren't sourced, I have to find new sources which will take even more time.  Further, we have to make sure the content matches the sources.  By putting them back in the article, we might attract some goods editors who can fix any potential issues, that's all.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate that you are serious about finding sources and improving the article. However, while fact tags might attract some other editors to look for sources, this hasn't happened in the past. Some of the material was tagged, and not improved. Still more was removed, discussed, and put back in. In the months since then, editors with the article on their watchlist, and editors who were active on the article when it was being discussed, have not improved things. To me, the evidence is pretty clear that putting the contested material back into the article will make it worse and will not generate the improvement we want. Interested editors will have noticed the recent deletions and discussion, and can get involved in trying to find sources if they want. Another thing which I think we disagree on is the likelihood that we will find sources. I get the impression that you think many of these are misconceptions, so want to find supporting sources and keep them in the article. On the other hand, I don't think they are misconceptions, so don't think they should be in the article at all, unless they are supported by sources first.
 * So I don't doubt that you want to improve the article, we just disagree on how to do it. I realise I might be wrong on some of these, so if sources are found, I won't object to them going back in, but I can't support putting them back before we find sources. --hippo43 (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's assume for the sake of argument that temporarily adding {fact} tags to contested items doesn't work. In the long-term, what harm results?  If we can attract new editors who can fix these potential issues, that's a good thing.  If not, no big deal.  They'll be deleted at the end of the month.  In the long run, it still works out.  You get what you want in the end.  I just don't want to have to do all the work by myself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!
You were right about the tag at Rugby football - I'd mistaken it for another. Sorry! --Technopat (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Teachable moment
The rationale for your edits can be explained in greater detail in a talk page thread. --Tenmei (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the one I started yesterday? Should have put it in my edit summary. --hippo43 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Asian Fetish
would appreciate your continued involvement in the discussion. Thanks--Work permit (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Polite notice
Another editor opened a section at AN/I here. He should have let you know, maybe he's getting round to it still. --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --hippo43 (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape redirect
Hi, I can understand your reasons for redirecting Factual accuracy of The Great Escape back to the main article and also starting to merge the two, but Factual accuracy of The Great Escape was originally created because the amount became too overwhelming for the main page in the first place. Factual accuracy of The Great Escape also contains many more details, most importantly the fact that 50 POWs were murdered by the Germans as a result of their defiance. Since the film is dedicated to the 50 (as noted in the Plot section) I think that it is important to tell how such blatant acts of murder were dealt with after the war. If people want to find out more about how the facts varied from reality then they have a separate article to go to, and if not then they don't. I therefore suggest we provide a link and remove the redirect in Factual accuracy of The Great Escape. Thank you.--Marktreut (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)