Gallery on Phil Konstantin
Hiya Phil (I assume that you're actually Phil Konstantin), Listen we don't usually put so many pictures onto pages, especially bios. This isn't Facebook or Myspace, you know? You should also be careful because someone will likely come after you wielding our conflict of interest policy and/or Wikipedia:Autobiography. I appreciate your efforts here, and I certainly won't give you grief about trying to improve Phil Konstantin, but it's important to be aware of the above issues. If you can locate and add references to third party published info, that would be terrific.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that as well. Please don't edit your own article, or upload excessive personal photos. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy Philkon's Day!
User:Philkon has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
A record of your Day will always be kept here.
a huge Thank You!
Please do not undo an edit just because it was made by an IP, as you did at Play-Doh. The edit is a valid challenge of unsourced material, not vandalism or test editing. Instead, supply reliable sources as to the importance of the material, and remember that IPs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC) - - -
"unsourced material": I saw the movie and the story about Play-Doh plays a significant part. Watch the movie yourself and see for yourself.
Please provide sourced material which proves PlayDoh is NOT mentioned.
- Something being mentioned in a movie does not make it notable enough for an encyclopedia.
- Did the movie mention of the item drive up sales?
- Did the makers of the item pay an outrageous amount to have it mentioned in the movie?
- Were the makers payed outrageously so the item could be mentioned in the movie?
- Did the makers use the item's mention in the movie as a selling point in a major ad campaign?
- Has the movie's mention of the item become a phenomena, sweeping nations and/or hearts?
- Any of these things could be included in an encyclopedia article, as long as it was covered by a reliable source - blogs, clip sites, and real estate agencies are not reliable sources about overall social impact, sales, product placements in movies, or movie production costs. ("I saw the movie" does not make either one of us a reliable source.) The rules about original research also forbid us from saying, "It's mentioned on so many sites, it's got to be important!" Find a single reliable source and the mentioned-in-a-movie statement is no longer trivial, and I will be very happy to leave it alone (I cannot speak for User:Fat&Happy).
- All of the above also holds true for "The Simpsons" mention/use.
- You might benefit from reading this section of the WP:POPCULTURE essay, especially paragraph 3. Also, please sign your comments on user talk pages. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I read the article and my assessment remains true. The mention of Play-Doh to make a very specific point (and what some feel is the best part of the movie) does make it a relevant point. Why would someone buy the product because it was mentioned in a movie make it relevant? And yet quite a few bloggers have used the story in the movie to illustrate a point. I do not understand your mentioning of if Play-doh paid to have its product in the movie. Do you know this happened? How would it make sense without the story being told as a part of the movie. Are you saying Play-Doh went all over Hollywood seeking out a writer who would write a story so Play-Doh could be used in it because it has an interesting story? First you accuse Play-Doh paying to have it included, and now you say they should have an ad campaign because it was mentioned? Those seem contradictory. You said it was unsourced. yes, I saw the movie. You said it was still unsourced. So, I provided clips of the movie showing the story. Now you offer contradictory justification, or the lack there of, that it is not culturally relevant. I do not support the Simpson's TV inclusion as having much significance. But, many people have blogged about the story in the movie. Gee, is it as culturally significant as the bombing in Boston? No, of course not. However, it would be significant for anyone looking up Play-Doh.
If the movie had only shown a can of Play-Doh on a wall, in a box of toys, or even a child playing with it without mention (perhaps product placement), I would agree with you. It is the story behind PlayDoh and its detailed story, and how the story changes the outlook of the movie, and how many people have blogged about it that make it more than just a tiny blip of info.
Finally, please provide a detailed and annotated definition of "reliable source." You keep moving the goalposts.
By your definition, PlayDoh itself should not be in Wikipedia.
If you feel this inclusion is so abhorrent, please submit it for arbitration.
- No goalposts have been moved; I have been asking for a reliable source since my first deletion. Without a reliable source the movie mention in the Play-Doh article is trivial and unencyclopedic. If you do not know what a reliable source is, please read this page, which I linked to you previously. I also suggest you read Verifiability as to why reliable sources are important, and No original research, which you are indulging in with "...my assessment", "...what some feel..." and "...many people have blogged...".
- My bulleted list above were examples of what a reliable source might actually be talking about in regards to the movie monologue. If all you care about is having the monologue mentioned in the Plah-Doh article, any subject like those would work. If you specifically want some mention of how so many people have blogged about it, you have to find a reliable source that talks about the monologue in such a way. If it is to be put into a Wikipedia article it has to be said somewhere in a reliable source first. As the editor wishing to add to an article, it is up to you to supply a reliable source for contested material. Find a reliable source about the movie monologue's cultural impact and add the source to the article, and all this stops.
- Wrt arbitration: we are nowhere near that yet. First we have to go through dispute resolution, such as third opinion, reliable sources noticeboard, requests for comments (article), requests for comments (user) and/or admin noticeboard (incident). If you restore the material again without a reliable source, I will opt for the RFC (article). Three editors have removed the same material in the past month with you restoring it; it is already past third opinion. You are not pushing any particular source as reliable (yet), that lets out the RS noticeboard. Behaviour has not slipped far enough for it to be commented on by more than one person (yet) so no RFC/U. No actions have been taken that warrant immediate blocking, so no AN/I. We are probably skating around the edit warring board, though (although that is not thought of as dispute resolution so much as "STAHP IT!"...). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Questions about Reliable Sources
"Three editors have removed the same material in the past month with you restoring it;"
I only see two editors who removed it: yourself and "Fat&Happy". I was working under the hypothesis you were "Fat&Happy" and had finally identified yourself by something other than a number. If there was a third editor, I will humbly stand corrected. However, without a third name, that would make you an unreliable source (jest intended).
Having read Identifying Reliable Sources, it appear primarily interested in the determination of facts and the veracity of the facts presented. The fact that the story of Play-Doh is in the movie is beyond question, unless you feel the links to clips I provided were faked. If you mean has a anthropologist done peer-reviewed research on whether the story has affected society, I will grant you I am unaware of this happening. My contention remains that numerous bloggers and reviewers have mentioned the Play-Doh story as a significant part of the movie. That is a verifiable fact, which I provided links to just a few. Being a television broadcaster myself, I have mentioned it on the air. Sorry, but I do not have a video of it to prove that I said it. You can verify the fact that I am a reporter in San Diego either through my own website ( http://americanindian.net ), my YouTube Channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/cherokeephil/ ) which includes copies of many of my stories, or this following link to my most recent story for which there is a video available (this week: http://www.cbs8.com/category/155799/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8811034 ). I will stand by the results of the review if more than just a few people respond. Phil Konstantin Phil Konstantin (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Philkon
- The RFC I started lists all three. (There were actually four, but the fourth (first?) was in December.) It does not matter what hypothesis you were/are working under. What you think about other editors matters not a whit unless such thinking spills over into Wikipedia.
- Wikipedia reports what the reliable sources says; we do not write those sources. We cannot speak from our own knowledge; there is no way for such knowledge to be independently verified. If you insist that the dialogue had a cultural impact, you must prove it with a reliable source.
- Fact: a friend lost a portion of her house because of Play-Doh and stupidity. It was not a famous person, did not burn down a town, get new laws enacted, set any records in awarded settlements, and was not covered by reliable sources outside the immediate area. Even though it affected a dozen lives and was reported by local, reliable sources, it is trivial within the context of an encyclopedia article on Play-Doh.
- Fact: Play-Doh was used in a climatic dialogue in a film. Stated that way, it is also trivial. See:
- Editors need to show why any fact is important enough to include in the encyclopedia
- Editors show how a fact is actually an important fact by citing reliable sources discussing the fact
- Because they can use only reliable sources, editors must say what the reliable sources say
- Example: going back to my friend, if the reliable sources only discussed how much it cost to repair the house, that would be all I could add to the article. It does not matter that I know the family was devastated to lose a 400-year-old table and a Colonial-era clock - I cannot prove it as I am not a reliable source.
- Example: say you find a reputable toy-specialty publication that states sales of Play-Doh rose just after the film came out. That is also all the article here can say: sales rose after the film came out. The increase cannot be attributed to cultural impact, nostalgia, or little green men because we cannot prove it with a reliable source.
- If reliable sources cannot be found, the fact does not belong in an article
- Since you have read WP:RS you will have also read that news agencies can also be reliable sources. Have you checked any of the major newspapers? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Soviet submarine K-129 (1960), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phantom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
We choose to go to the Moon
Apollo 16 map
I wouldn't mind you reverting my image in the Apollo 16 article back to the map if the map were not so poorly done. It has an uneditable caption at the top, a nearly redundant label with an arrow pointing at the site that is off center, yet another caption with almost the same words at the bottom, an unreadable index map at left, and a fairly blurry image of the moon from the earth. How about I come up with a better one from the Apollo 16 mapping camera or something similar? Also, I think the Apollo 14 shot adds some value to the article, and it's the only overview of the site in the article at that scale. Why not keep both? I found it interesting that A11 to A15 sites were scoped out by Lunar Orbiter, but 16 and 17 were photographed at high-res by previous Apollo missions. What aspect of Apollo 16 did you work on? Jstuby (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Using both pictures would be OK. The Apollo 14 photo alone, while nice quality, did little to help locate the landing area except for lunaphiles or experts. The combination you included in your comments is an improvement. The average Wikipedia user (if there is such a thing) would benefit from know where the landing site is located, and seeing it in a way that could be used easily. I ran computers in the Real Time Computer Complex (RTCC) which is located directly below the Mission Operations Control Room (the room you always see on TV) at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. The RTCC computers were the ones that ran the missions from Houston's end. I was at JSC from Apollo 16 through the end of Skylab. Later I covered parts of the space program as a reporter/author. You can see details in the KSC and article links below. http://americanindian.net/ksc.html http://americanindian.net/articles.html