User talk:JimmyNutmeg1

Grant Kirkhope
Hi there. Thanks for your edits to this page! I just wanted to explain my reasoning. Wikipedia doesn't tend to allow primary sources in articles, as we are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. If there are secondary sources (like magazines, newspapers) which contain this information, you can by all means use this to back up your additions. Thanks! — fox 22:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So if the tweets were used as part of a newspaper article - as they so often are these days - THAT would be acceptable, but until then it's disqualified? Making it not an issue of the information itself but where it's been repeated?
 * Generally the information itself would need to be published somewhere independent, with editorial oversight. Have a look at identifying reliable sources for more info on this. — fox 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Yes because if a tweet has been mentioned in a respectable newspaper agency's article, then they must have some basis for doing so - perhaps a comment on an important topic or a comment by an important person on a topic. Primary sources can sometimes be used (refer to the link provided above for when it is right to do so). No because in this particular case, it isnt just about using a primary source, but there is an issue of information. The information seems too trivial for addition (and also has an addition problem which is mentioned below). Take it from a reader's point of view - would a person who knows nothing of Grant Kirkhope care about what he thinks of people's edits on Wikipedia if they were to read the article? (Pardon me if this statement comes off as a bit rude, I didnt mean it to).


 * Now about the additional problem regarding the statement "". One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is neutral point of view. Being an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia must be written fairly, without any editorial bias, so that information provided to the readers is not skewed. Naturally, if a person was editing his/her own page, they'd have a bias towards showing "the good side" of themselves. That is why there's a behavioral guideline called conflict of interest which states that a person should keep away from editing articles that are of or relating to them (perhaps an article on someone they know or a company they work for). This does not mean that the person who is the subject of the article cannot have a say in how the article looks like. The best way to work things out would be to request an edit at Talk:Grant Kirkhope so that a third-person who is unrelated to the subject can review and perform/decline the edits.


 * Also, just on an additional note: if there is a disagreement about something, the best thing is to talk about it. Edit warring over adding/removing information usually has nasty consequences.  Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's very easy to say, because removing it according it to your standards of provenance or triviality is an edit war in itself. Surely the fair thing is to undo your original edit, leave it as is, THEN talk about it; otherwise you essentially get the first serve that can't be returned. - JimmyNutmeg1

"The information seems too trivial for addition" - that's waayyyy too vague and objective. Is there a codified formula for determining triviality? Otherwise the removal of what you consider trivial simply comes across as bias, which you're also trying to avoid. Additionally, I noticed a citation to IMDB removed. Why is this an issue? - JimmyNutmeg1


 * Quoting the line "The information seems too trivial for addition" by itself can appear to be subjective but you fail to see the context in which it was written. This isnt "my standard" of triviality. I've already mentioned this before, but Twitter is usually not used as a source of information unless it has been published in a reliable and independent newspaper agency's article (there are, of course, exceptions here that are out of scope of the discussion). That is when it becomes notable. Think about it, how many tweets has this person tweeted? If we started using it as a reliable source, we'd have a huge pile of trivial information that does very little to improve the quality of the article for the readers. Also, the line "" was placed under the section titled "Personal Life". Usually, information regarding marriage and family is posted under that section. Does this piece of information hold that much value in this person's life?
 * The line added to the article was initially this: ". Don't you not see how this is wrong? You've completely skipped over my second point. The reason his edits were reverted was because he simply isnt supposed to be editing in the first place. Granted, if the edit was something minor such as fixing the title of a section or correcting grammar/punctuation, it won't matter at all. But what the person did was to edit the article to highlight his own accomplishments. That is wrong and against the spirit of this encyclopaedia.
 * Regarding using IMDb as a source, this essay says it better than I could: WP:CITINGIMDB. Usually, its best to avoid citing IMDb since the site enables registered users to submit new material and edits to existing entries. Its kind of like Wikipedia itself in the sense that Wikipedia doesnt consider itself to be a reliable source. Hope this helped. Jiten Dhandha  •  talk  •  contributions  • 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)