User talk:Lverqlv

Joyce Hatto
Citations from internet chatrooms are NOT valid and respectable sources. Printed published articles ARE such sources. The chatter on online forums can be referred to generally, but as posts can be fraudulently made, altered, and submitted under fake IDs or anonymous IDs, they are extremely suspicious and quite unreliable. Moreover, many relevant posts have been deleted or not archived. Therefore, although you may have added the citations, they do not qualify as sources, particularly as the names mentioned are living persons as far as I know. If you resist this position, we can always use the resolution process, of course. One would hope this is not necessary.

==Joyce hato++ I have again deleted unsubstantiated materials. Internet chatter is NOT a source. Too much fraud on internet forums, many posts have been deleted or were not archived. Please stick to PUBLISHED materials.
 * I added the citations, they were soooo hard to find. Themfromspace (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Citations from websites such as online magazines are considered valid by Wikipedia standards. Print sources are not required.  You may not like it, but that's the way it is.  Instead of being obstinate and disruptive, why not air the substance of your concerns on Hatto's discussion page so we can try to arrive at a consensus?THD3 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Online magazines which do NOT supply the sources for their statements are NOT a "Reliable, third-party, published source". They are simply unsubstantiated comments with little or no weight. When referring to living persons, much more care needs to be taken with such commentary. Moreover, the passage removed in no way adds to the substance of the article nor does its removal destroy it.

If this section is not removed, the matter will have to go to dispute resolution, I suppose. This might, indeed, aid editors in their further use of internet chatter and third party statements about internet chatter, whether in print or online "publications".


 * If you wish to bring this up for dispute resolution, feel free. At this point, two editors, both of whom have extensive Wikipedia editing experience, are in agreement that the cited article meets Wikipedia guidelines.  You are the one editor who is not, and it appears that the Joyce Hatto article is the only article you've ever attempted to edit here.  I am placing a section on Hatto's discussion page where we can continue this in a more public forum.THD3 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Herewith the standard for sources on Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;"

As I said, above, internet chatter is NOT a reliable source. As indicated above, "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publicahtion process". Such is definitely NOT the case with internet chatrooms. I see no suitable area on the discussion page for discussion of this matter, so, I am making this statement here instead.


 * The site in question, (http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/story/joyce-hatto-the-great-piano-swindle) is not considered Internet chatter. It is from a reliable online magazine.


 * Now, a few Wikipedia pointers: Please sign all posts using four tildes as described at the top of the edit box. It helps prevent confusion in the conversation so third parties can determine who is saying what.


 * Before making wholesale edits and engaging in edit wars, bring your issue to the article's Discussion page. Click the Discussion tab and, once taken to the page, click the Edit this page tab.  If you need to create a new section, surround your issue title with two equal signs, like this: "==sources==".  Make your complaint as clear and specific as possible, and a good faith effort will be made to resolve the problem.  By continuing to revert properly cited material, you put the Hatto page at risk of being locked, and yourself at risk of being blocked.THD3 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted the following comments on the discussion page, but was required to log out in order to do so, as someone decided to block my comments.

In any event, if you have missed them there, I provide them here.

The problem is that the online source only referred to the online chatrooms but did not provide the source for such statements. Therefore, it is entirely based on heresay, and therefore not reliable according to the terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. That something appears online does not guarantee its verifiability.

Moreover, since the online chatrooms are themselves peopled by anonymous posters, posters who ask that their posts be not archived, posters who have removed their posts, as well as outright fakes no better than the subject of this entry in Wikipedia, they, themselves, the chatrooms cannot be considered "reliable source from a respected publication" regardless of who refers to them.

If an online blog states that someone, anyone, said in a chatroom that the sky is green and not blue, the use of that online statement in a Wikipedia entry is not a "reliable source" simply because they refer to the statement made in the chatroom. Stating something is so is not sufficient to make it so, nor is stating that someone else said it was so.

Please excuse me for being punctilious on this matter, but as the persons mentioned in this particular section are still alive, as far as I am aware, special care and attention needs to be taken to ensure that the statements are not only accurate, but that proof exists that they are accurate. I see no indication of that here, but rather statements claimed to have been made in online chatrooms. As such they are simply not reliable source material for an encyclopedia, if, that is, Wikipedia is to be regarded with respect by the average person and not with derision. Standards in this particular area should be just as high as they are in matters of science. If chatrooms had existed during Einstein's lifetime, I would think his ramblings on such forums would not constitute reliable indications of his thoughts and theories and quotable in Wikipedia, let alone a scientific journal

Moreover, since the paragraph already quotes the Boston Globe it would seem redundant to amplify on the notion that the subject's recordings received widespread praise. Mind you, at the same time, one might amplify the number of positive reviews in actual and available printed publications considerably, if support for the statement was thought to be needed, rather than making oblique references to online chatter and gossip. I am sure such formal reviews exist and could be cited usefully in order to buttress the point made at the outset of the paragraph and supported by the Boston Globe citation.

Please read over WP:RS. These citations are reliable sources. Many of the less-notable articles on Wikipedia would kill to be talked about in Intelligent Life magazine. Wikipedia primarily uses third-party sources for referencing. Remember, the criteria for inclusion is verifiablity, not truth. If anybody wants to dispute the validity of these sources, they are welcome to take them over to the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm guaranteeing that their reliablity will be upheld there. Also, Lverqlv, you have been blocked from editing for the time being. Logging off and using an IP address is considered abusive sock puppetry and it will get you a longer block. Themfromspace (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I am really not concerned with where less-notable articles on Wikepedia would kill to be talked about or not. Please read my comments above carefully. I think you will find them convincing. Frankly, I am surprised that you seem convinced that these few sentences are so crucial to this article. Also that you seem determined to use statements about statements rather than the statements themselves. As for the blocking of my comments, these come as a surprise immediately after I was invited to use the Discussions page and tried to do so. Are you interested in resolving this dispute? Or striking a compromise, perhaps? Otherwise I will have to request a conflict resolution.

Joyce Hatto
Your edit has once again been reverted. Let's try to avoid an edit war. Please take your issues to the article's discussion page before making any further edits.THD3 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Hatto
I've found citations for the claims. Please stop edit warring for a few minutes so I can put them in. Themfromspace (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Themfromspace (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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.


 * Extended to 24 hours because of evasion. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

{unblock-ip|1=74.127.242.203|2= Block evasion: reset, change settings and extend block because of evasion |3=Deacon of Pndapetzim}


 * Wrong again. You were asked four times to take your complaint the the Hatto talk page.  Only after your continued edit warring was the block requested.  Good luck tomorrow.THD3 (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think that you might be a trifle more indulgent of someone for not knowing where, exactly, you wished me to go. There was no place on the discussion page to which you requested I go. By the time you added a space for this discussion you had already blocked me, an extremely impolite gesture, i think, particularly if you wish to resolve this dispute amicably. it doesn't augur well for progress, I fear. I have, however, requested this be unblocked. Let us see what the person enacting the blocking has to say.


 * I did not request the block.THD3 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then someone did. Perhaps you can tell me who did that at the same time that you invited me to the Discussion page.