User talk:Kitten8675309

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

August 2009

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Siebel
This type of edit is not appropriate; editors are not required to remove content from Wikipedia just because a source is no longer available online. We are allowed to cite books, after all. See WP:DEADREF. Whatever404 (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia, "If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link." This section, especially the part about Siebel's introduction of Palin relies solely on the dead link. Putting "search in San Jose Mercury News Archive" does not give any results, and I believe that it should be removed. Kitten8675309 02:40, 19 August 2009


 * Print materials such as books and newspapers are appropriate for citation. See WP:REF: it is acceptable to cite print materials for which there is no free online version.  The content in question is supported by citation of a newspaper article.  Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do not compel us to remove this material.
 * Less importantly, WP:DEADREF (the page you attempted to link) suggests:
 * "Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. (This may happen, for example, when an online copy of material that originally appeared in print is no longer online.)"
 * The print copy still exists and is appropriate for citation.—Whatever404 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Going back to the deadlinks WP:DEADREF page, Wikipedia also states, "It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."


 * Also, I must reiterate this statement: "If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitten8675309 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 August 2009


 * Let's say that at a website called Annie's Book Reviews (ABR), Annie reviews—and cites a paragraph from—a book titled The Life Of Steve (LOS). And let's say that you want to cite the paragraph from LOS in a Wikipedia article, using that review from ABR as a source.  What WP:DEADREF means is that if you haven't read LOS yourself, you can't claim that you are citing LOS, you have to cite ABR.


 * I actually just replaced a different, improper citation at Thomas Siebel, due to this issue. The prior (improper) citation claimed to be citing the AP article, but it actually cited a page that had reposted the material. It is preferable to cite the original source when available, therefore, rather than update the title of the ref to reflect that the material had come from another page, I opted to search for the original source of the article, which I found and cited.


 * Anyway, as far as Thomas Siebel is concerned, the newspaper article does not cite any materials that this WP article then cites. The newspaper article is, itself, the source. Therefore, I do not see how your concern applies: if I have missed something, please explain.


 * WP:REF states: "If your source is not findable online, it should be findable in reputable libraries, archives, or collections." This source is certainly findable, as there is an article ID number provided with the reference.  This section does not state "if your source is not findable online, it must be removed".  As I have said, citing print materials which do not have an online source available is permitted.


 * Regardless, I have bolstered the section with several sources; hopefully this will resolve your concerns. Whatever404 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please signe your comments with four tildes
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)