User talk:208.107.12.237

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Edits to O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Perceptions of similarity by you or any other WP editor are very much WP:OR. The policy is very clear on this matter. It is not enough to notice similarities between two texts. This type of comparison requires the citation of a verifiable and reliable third party who has written about the differences. Otherwise any perceived similarities are the opinion of the WP editor and constitute original research which is not allowed on the wikipedia. --Rtrev 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add the list of similarities again. You can discuss it on the talk page if you would like. As it stands it is WP:OR if you would like to find citations where other verifiable sources state these similarities they can be added. Otherwise it is simply your opinion as an editor about perceived similarities. --Rtrev 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the talk page. Seems there were some great ideas on how to preserve this valuable material, but these ideas were clearly ignored without comment except the brainless WP:OR mantra. There were workable solutions offered. How sad that Wikipedia is becoming a place where such useful info is removed wholesale without intelligent consideration of the individual details because it gives someone the thrill of a mall security guard. Mediate if you like. It's clear to me that others have wished for a compromise rather than your knee-jerk enforcement of policy. I'm happy to resurrect the material until a compromise can be reached. I refuse to let all those contributions pass into the ether because of unthinking adherence to policy.

Please refrain from making personal attacks on me. I have copied the content to the talk page for discussion. It is against WP policy to insert original research even if it is good original research. What you can do if you want these added is to find citations for the comparisons. Then they can be added. --Rtrev 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe instead of half whining / half documenting your offense using the specific language of the prohibited use policies, you could address any of the solutions offered by people who care to preserve this material. Instead, you unthinkingly removed it. The case here is one of function, which the material in question offers in spades, and it's especially necessary that it be allowed without the normal OR ban applying because of the derivative nature of the film/text relationship. That is, anyone who has read the text and watched the film should be able to make many/most of the observations of relationships in the text. People will not add attributions if the material is gone, which ought to be abundantly clear. True offense ought not stem from your delicate feelings, but from the insights and contributions of dozens of users whose contributions have been wiped from the usable space of WP. Suggestions are hardly research, and should not fall under OR in this case, no matter how many times you repeat your case without response or insight as to why they should. 18.31, 18 Sept. 2007.