User talk:Thepenguin9/Archives/2020/May

Dispute over The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon
(Note, all unsigned statements are by at varying times. Please consult the page history for timestamps if required)

My edits are constructive, and are not finished. Please give me a little time and lattitude before considering reverting. My contributions to The Call of the Wild: Dog of the Yukon are constructive because they alert those who purchase the DVD that its "liner notes" are not very reliable. Also, I was beginning to fill in the (accurate) narrative when you twice reverted. Show a little courtesy to fellow editors and give their contributions the benefit of the doubt. It's better to first have a debate on the article's talk page before starting an edit war. I've edited several articles over the year (and even created one)—I'm sure you have too. So let's be civilized and not so quick to judge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs)


 * @ you are using a live article as an active draft. Please utilise your sandbox if you're doing this.
 * I am perfectly sure that you think your contributions are accurate and useful, however since you have mentioned; the benefit of the doubt; having a debate on a talk page; your edits over the years, that suggests to me you are being headstrong about this and ignoring some useful advice on the behalf of other editors.  Thepenguin9 (talk''') 11:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disrup; I'm simply being accurate. The package that I purchased does contain the errors that I previously mentioned. Maybe your version doesn't, maybe you're wary of offending the people who produced the DVD and its liner notes. But it's true. I know the rule "verifibility, not truth", and it's not easy to "prove" that 1 set of liner notes is flawed, but leaving out important facts can be misleading. What if a customer has a package with the same liner notes and takes them at face value before watching the "real narrative" of the film itself? This is important, given the uncanny faithfulness of the film to the book, and many people would want such a film. They might not see it if they mistakenly believed it wasn't that "accurate". Besides, the "3 big rules" of article narrative are said in Wiki's how-to instructions to be "guidelines", not absolutes. It's reasonable to make exceptions in exceptional cases. Anyway, I prefer that you debate this with me before doing a reflexive revert. Also, simply reverting an edit instead of manually editing the edit takes out the good with the bad. Even if flawed liner notes aren't worth mentioning, the disclaimer that no animals were actually harmed IS! (Maybe it should be in a different section, but once again, that's a reason to edit, not revert; you can move the disclaimer to another place.)

If you feel compelled to argue the point, PLEASE RESPOND on the article's talk page.RobertGustafson (talk)

PS. I take Wiki's rules very seriously. I wouldn't do something that others would find questionable unless I disagreed and thought it mattered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertGustafson (talk • contribs)


 * @ if you understand that it cannot be verified, and there is no reliable source for it, then unfortunately it does not pass muster to be included in the article. The mere chance of a defect occuring isn't notable enough to be included unfortunately so please accept that what you wish to contribute does not belong in the article. I'm not the only one reverting, and it's not a "reflexive revert" if you aren't even taking the edit notes into account.  Thepenguin9 (talk''') 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My assertions about the DVD and the liner notes are BOTH now sourced. Isn't a enough? Must I get other sources to agree? I have added the proper references to my statements about the DVD and the liner notes. Any person can now view the film and read the notes to "verify" my assertion. I'm a little rusty on documenting sources, but I've now included my sources--which you'd see if only you look. BTW, it's not OR to say something that is blatantly and inescapably deducible from one's sources. There's a difference between deductive inference and speculation. If source X says A and source Y says B, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the sources disagree.

I have referenced my sources; please stop reverting and complaining. I have explicitly referenced my assertions about the DVD and its liner notes by referring directly to them. BTW, it's not OR to make a blatantly obvious deduction; inference isn't speculation. If source A says "Yes" and source B says "No", you shouldn't need a third source to mention that they disagree. I admit that I'm a little rusty on major edits, so I dumbly forget to include 's to document my sources. But my assertions are sourced. Anyone can now watch to film and read the liner notes to "verify" it. Satisfied?

I now spell out the difference between the liner notes and the film--both of which are sourced--and let the readers make the inference. Satisfied?!