Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-10-09/NCIS

Dear Madam/Sir,

A few days ago, I updated the Filomena Ristorante article by adding a Filomena on NCIS segment, as the establishment is part of the storyline in a NCIS television series episode. I added a YouTube link showing the actual video clip. I also removed two separate references as their links appeared to have been taken down. Your Boston area based editor, Tim Pierce (Twp), is of the opinion that the new addition and changes were not acceptable and deleted them.

At first, I mistakenly thought that the problem was that I had not logged into my Wikipedia account when making the additions. I proceeded to log in and re-posted the additions. He then deleted the additions again. I contacted him and this was his response:

''Hi - there are several issues here. Probably the most important one is that your edits actually removed references from other parts of the article, which is almost always a problem. Another issue is that the "Filomena on NCIS" section doesn't include an acceptable citation (youtube.com isn't okay for most purposes; see WP:YOUTUBE). A third is that "in popular culture" sections tend to be inherently problematic: "passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."''

I explained that the removed references had become dead links (though one may now be up again) and that the YouTube link was “backing” or reference for the addition. I then proceeded to re-post the additions which included the canceled references.

Tim Pierce then deleted the additions again and placed a Smackbot on the article and, moreover, deleted one of the (three) awards which had been part of the article since it was first written. It also affected the layout which now looks disorganized in parts.

Ladies and gentlemen, I find Mr. Pierce's assessment incorrect and ask for your review. I believe Wikipedia policies are good and important elements as they are indented to make the articles more accurate and the site more reliable. But the policies have to be applied appropriately.

Clearly, references that do not serve there purpose anymore should be removed by the author. I did that. Limiting the use of YouTube references makes sense and I was going to take the link down. Labeling the Filomena on NCIS addition as “passing mention in the mass media” is a wrong assessment by your editor as Filomena was part of the actual episode script, even if minor. A major television series manuscript that is being broadcast in approximately 50 countries around the world cannot be labeled “passing mention.” Furthermore, if you apply “passing mention” to that portion of the article, then you need to be consistent and remove my entry further up under “Patrons” where I write that the President of the United States and the Chancellor of Germany discussed Filomena in the Oval Office of the White House during a photo opportunity. I know this for a fact, because I was in the Oval Office covering the media event.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please review the Filomena on NCIS addition and permit the paragraph (without the YouTube link) to be posted. I would also ask for the Smartbot to be removed. Also note, my account name was initially Wikimiami. I changed it to Ueberhund as I thought a geographical reference may be confusing and potentially interpreted as a Wikipedia subcategory by others. Additionally, I have no legal association with Filomena Ristorante. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing back from you. Regards, Ueberhund Ueberhund (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)