Milladrive

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Milladrive. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please see my edit to your edit in the article about The Prize. As I've tried to explain in the edit summary, it's OK to note that a character is "beautiful" in the eyes of another character, but that's not the same as Wikipedia asserting that she's beautiful, which is how it previously read. This is an important issue, especially when it comes to pseudo-objective statements that certain women are or are not "beautiful" (with men, implicitly, as the arbiters). Scare quotes can also come in handy here, e.g., putting quotation marks around a term like "gorgeous knockout" to show that it's the characters who view a female protagonist that way, it's not Wikipedia itself using such loaded language. Jcejhay (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and well put. Wikipedia itself should not be subjective. ...To be clear, though, the bigger issue here is Wikipedia's objectivity. While sexism, misogyny, et al, are extremely important social issues, Wikipedia's objectivity (and overall accuracy) is the bigger goal. In other words, while the stigma of sexism sadly exists, your point is equally as valid when describing rainbows, butterflies, or stained glass, e.g. milladrive (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, milladrive. The way I personally would put it is that sexist use of nonobjective language constitutes a problem on two different levels. Objectivity in general is, as you say, the bigger issue, and of course this is a subset of that, so it's narrower insofar as it's a more specific version of the general concern. And yet because of its ramifications, lack of objectivity with sexist implications is, to my mind, an even more serious problem than more innocuous lapses in objectivity (such as a phrase like "beautiful rainbow"). So although it's a narrower issue, I personally don't think it's a smaller issue. Jcejhay (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many of your punctuation changes do not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically MOS:PUNCT. The error you most frequently make is when you have quotation fragments where the fragment comes at the end of the sentence in the article. For example, in an article about a movie, the following sentence should be punctuated as

The reviews were "generally favorable".

not

The reviews were "generally favorable."

If the quotation is a complete sentence from the source, then the period comes before the ending quotation mark like

So-and-so said "The actor's diction was brilliant."

You've edited many articles in which you changed correct punctuation to incorrect punctuation. I've cleaned up a few, but it's tedious work. You might consider reviewing your work and the manual of style and undo some of your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was unaware that Wikipedia uses the "logical quotation" style in all articles as a matter of policy. No wonder so few people have a clue of how to use periods and commas with quotation marks when writing English. The many rules and exceptions for this style create confusion for most contributors, resulting in inconsistencies that make the information authority that is Wikipedia appear illiterate.

Until now, I had been using the American style when ordering punctuation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_marks_in_English

"In the United States, the prevailing style is called American style, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks. The American style is used by most newspapers, publishing houses, and style guides in the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada as well.

"The American style is recommended by the Modern Language Association's MLA Style Manual, the American Psychological Association's APA Publication Manual, the University of Chicago's The Chicago Manual of Style, the American Institute of Physics's AIP Style Manual, the American Medical Association's AMA Manual of Style, the American Political Science Association's APSA Style Manual, the Associated Press' The AP Guide to Punctuation, and the Canadian Public Works' The Canadian Style. This style is also used in British news and fiction."

It's a style I've been using since I learned to read and write 60 years ago, so it's easy to see how my senses are thrown by all the periods and commas my instincts tell me are erroneously placed. It's enough to make a proofreader's head spin.

I shall naturally respect Wikipedia's policy. It goes against every literate fiber of my being, and I truly wish the powers that be would rethink it. But going forward, I'll try to just wince and move on. milladrive (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

(smiling) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Milladrive,

I do appreciate and thankful for you correcting the summary of Once Upon a Wheel. I have to disagree with two additional edit you did which I undid.

1.The removal of the lede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Once_Upon_a_Wheel&diff=next&oldid=1161119604

The lede or the intro of an article usually consist of summary of each section seen the article. Many underdeveloped article do not have it. I

If you disagree with my lede/intro please check out Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media (best article) and find a suitable format, you will see that I picked the most common one. I did notice that worked on many underdeveloped articles (thank you for that), so that aspect may have slipped under your radar.

2. And re-instating a dead link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Once_Upon_a_Wheel&diff=next&oldid=1161119839

The link is either dead or I can't open it from my computer. Is there an archive of the article or could you make one if you are able to open the article? I know the information to be true, so I left it.

Anyways thank you for your participation.

Filmman3000 (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Filmman3000,

I appreciate the work you've done on this article. As a Newman fan, I've always enjoyed this TV special.

I think the problem with your lede is that it's entirely redundant. Both paragraphs are virtually repeated, the first in Summary, and the other in Production. Therefore, both paragraphs are thoroughly unnecessary.

Rather than rewrite them to something more concise, I deleted them completely.

The problem I have currently is that I don't wish to proofread the redundant unnecessary lede, since I believe it should be either more concise or removed entirely. As it stands, it is wholly superfluous.

Regarding the list of famous attendees, there are four names. Et cetera is not appropriate at the end of that list, since there are no other celebrities being alluded to, and the list begins with the word "included". While there were indeed further celebrities who attended, "etc." equates to "and so on". Yet there are no other names given. "Etc." does not belong there, so I'm removing it again.

As for the citation, I didn't try to open the link when I restored it. You're right, it is indeed dead. milladrive (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is my suggestion for the lede:

The documentary is split into four sections: "the Man", "the Machine", "the Spectator" and "the Race".  The project was produced by Winters/Rosen. While the film was released on television in the United States, Newman suggested to Winters to add some footage and release it theatrically internationally. milladrive (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Milladrive I get your point with the lede its never easy, yes it was bloated. I did trim it using some your ideas, while keeping it the most regular lede format.

Regarding this point:

Regarding the list of famous attendees, there are four names. Et cetera is not appropriate at the end of that list, since there are no other celebrities being alluded to, and the list begins with the word "included". While there were indeed further celebrities who attended, "etc." equates to "and so on". Yet there are no other names given. "Etc." does not belong there, so I'm removing it again.

They are way more celebrities, at one point I intent to unload the complete list but they are some in the footage that aren't mentioned by Newman or in the credits that I won't write down for example John Wayne who's clearly there.

I won't do anything about it for a while. Filmman3000 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point about there being more celebrities than those listed. What I'm saying is "etc." is not a way to say "and more" or "and many others". It is a way to extend a list that has already been established.

Anyway, I'm fine with the lede as it is now, although I still think explaining the four segments in the lede is overdoing it. I think just listing the segment titles is enough in the lede. But I've done some further proofreading (something I enjoy) on the article. Thanks again for your work. :) milladrive (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

thank you so much for your sweet comment! Filmman3000 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Milladrive regarding the summary paragraph this is what I suggest.

The documentary is split into four sections: "The Men", "The Machine", "The Spectator" and "The Race". Each segment represent a facet of car racing culture ranging from the people behind it, their emotions going through it and their motivations, the engine, automobile's history, the human nature of the sport, among others things.

I think to simply put "The documentary is split into four sections: "The Men", "The Machine", "The Spectator" and "The Race"." is a little bland and unclear. While my current version might be bloated. If you'd like to trim that second paragraph of the lede be my guest.

Since you mentioned liking proofreading, there is an article for which the summary was all over the placed and flagged for going overboard with details. I trimmed it and added a bunch more stuff. If you have a minute look at the summary of The Last Horror Film and go through its history to see what it looked like a week ago. Filmman3000 (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your addition of burial information about George Tobias and the accompanying citation to Find a Grave. That source is not reliable. Please see WP:USERGENERATED.

Your edit summary said, "I think it's better to at least attempt to find a source than to simply remove the info." That is a good point, but let me make two observations about that comment:

• The "Citation needed" template had been in place since June 2022, which meant that Wikipedia editors had more than a year to find a valid source. Allowing that much time for edits doesn't seem to me to qualify as simply removing the content.
• It is not sufficient to just "find a source". If content of Wikipedia articles is to be credible, the sources that support it must be credible. Find a Grave does not qualify as credible because it is user-generate.

Burial information for George Tobias will be welcome in the article -- but only if it is supported by a credible source. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your diligence is appreciated.

I was genuinely unaware Find a Grave was user-generated. I probably should've known better. Thanks much.

However, I disagree with the removal of valid information just because a "citation needed" hasn't been resolved in x amount of time. In fact, as you may observe, the information was indeed restored with a citation. Had the info been deleted for any length of time, it's quite possible it would never be restored.

Anyone can put a "citation needed" flag on a passage. There are "citation needed"s that have been in place for several years. It doesn't render the info invalid. Not to mention, there is a vast amount of information at Wikipedia with no source at all. Is it all to be deleted? Or should we pay attention only to that which has been flagged?

I realize Wikipedia encourages editors to resolve longstanding citation requests, but in my opinion, removing valid information is counterproductive. milladrive (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned "valid information" that has no citation. My question is, "Without a citation, how does a reader or editor know that information is valid?" Because anyone who has a computer and Internet access can type anything into a Wikipedia article, I question the accuracy of any uncited content.

You wrote, "Anyone can put a "citation needed" flag on a passage. There are "citation needed"s that have been in place for several years. It doesn't render the info invalid."

• Neither does having been in place for years make content valid. Isn't it better for a reader to know that content came from a reliable source than for the reader to wonder about it?

You wrote, "Not to mention, there is a vast amount of information at Wikipedia with no source at all. Is it all to be deleted? Or should we pay attention only to that which has been flagged?"

• I prefer tagging before deleting. That draws attention to the need for providing a valid source.

I ask you to consider this: As I have looked at edits of Wikipedia articles, I have seen changes in birth names, dates of birth, places of birth, places of death, places of burial, and other items. When neither the original or the revised version has a citation, which would you classify as valid?

In closing, I feel that editors owe readers of Wikipedia our best effort to provide information that is credibly sourced. We cannot guarantee that what is in the cited source is accurate, but we can at least provide the source of what we put in an article so that the reader knows where we found it. Unsourced content undermines the value of Wikipedia as a resource. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

All I'm saying is it isn't up to us to decide something has had a "citation needed" flag long enough and thus should be deleted. I say it should be left alone. As this issue with George Tobias has shown, all it takes is one person to see it and either source it or remove it knowing it to be false or otherwise inaccurate. If they don't see it because you've arbitrarily decided it was up long enough and should no longer be seen, the information may never again be part of the article.

And if you're still going to delete it, why not at least put it on the topic's talk page? Just deleting it helps no one, in my humble opinion. milladrive (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Let me reply to the points you made in your reply.

• "All I'm saying is it isn't up to us to decide something has had a "citation needed" flag long enough and thus should be deleted."
  • Why not? Why should content that may be incorrect be left for years? I think that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.
• "As this issue with George Tobias has shown, all it takes is one person to see it and either source it or remove it knowing it to be false or otherwise inaccurate."
  • I wonder if a valid source would have been added to the Tobias article if you and I had not stirred activity on the watchlist with our edits.
• "If they don't see it because you've arbitrarily decided it was up long enough and should no longer be seen, the information may never again be part of the article."
  • That could happen, or someone might look at the article, think that information is needed, find it in a credible source, and add it to the article with a valid citation.
• "And if you're still going to delete it, why not at least put it on the topic's talk page?"
  • That would be a possibility.
• "Just deleting it helps no one, in my humble opinion."
  • If the flagged content is incorrect, deleting it prevents people from being misled.

You and I obviously have differing perspectives on this topic, and I respect your right to feel as you do. We don't need to continue this discussion, so let's agree to disagree and not continue it.

Thank you for reading my comments. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Are these "straight" quotation marks? I'm simply using what's on my keyboard. Is another method required? Lord Such&Such (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Those are indeed straight quotation marks. It's possible that the word editor app/program that you're using automatically converts straight to curly as you're typing. It's likely a setting in the app/program. milladrive (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply