Talk:Ash Power

Edit war over references

I have been asked to have a look at this from an uninvolved third party perspective. As you both know, on the basic level everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. In this case one editor has challenged another as to whether there are sources for the medal entitlement of this officer. In this case, particularly as a BLP, the burden of evidence is on the editor who "adds or restores information" to provide the sources that back up the claim. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged" needs to be sourced. This isn't quite a blue sky case I think it is valid to say that someone with no military experience coming to this article would likely challenge whether he has these medals. In that sense I don't think it improper to ask for a citation.

That doesn't condone the actions of both editors involved in this. You are both aware of the three revert rule and the rather standard form of these disputes ie bold revert discuss. Once reverted, discuss and invite third party opinions on it. There are plenty of places to ask for opinions as you both know. Woody (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As 2 euros worth - of observation only - it might be more sensible, if there is a need to query citations - that a Template:Ref improve section note be added rather than individual cn notes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing: Notwithstanding the undoubtedly biassed argument I'm trying to present below, I personally think your suggestion has merit. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC) (On a lighter note, has inflation really turned two cents into two euros? Pdfpdf (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC))

First, lets get it straight that I do NOT disagree with the general principles that Woody is asserting - in fact, I support them.

However, I'll point out that I intend to completely ignore the 3RR and editwar issues from the following discussion - those are different and separate issues from the ones I wish to discuss. Althought they are important issues, I don't want them to get in the way. If someone wants to discuss them separately somewhere else, that's fine by me - please provide a link to that discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

"Necessity" for citations regarding the obvious

So. I'll open by saying that in my freely acknowledged (by me) completely biased opinion, elements of the above are ... I don't know - "not relevant" is the best I can think of.

Let's start with the easy ones:

1) Why is it necessary (or even useful) to have TWO on the same line for the same thing? Why isn't one (more than) adequate?

2) Why is a citation necessary for the Australian Defence Medal? Before you answer, read the ADM wikipage. Is there ANY doubt that Ash Power is not eligible for the ADM? Look at ANY picture of Ash Power wearing ribbons or medals. Is there ANY doubt that he hasn't been awarded this medal?

If so, what is the doubt?

If not, why is a citation needed?

Etc. I could go on in a similar manner, one medal at a time, but before doing so, I'd like to read the responses to what I've stated. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll start with your first point: because they are two different sets of data in two different cells. However, I can understand your point, and the first can be dropped. For the second, just because you know the criteria for the Australian Defence Medal does not mean others do. As Woody states, this needs to be verifiable and, per WP:RS, it should be done so through a reliable, third party source particularly as this article is a WP:BLP and Wikipedia should never be used to reference itself. The very same principal applies to all of these medals. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

However, ... the first can be dropped. - That looks like a good start!

For the second, just because you know the criteria for the Australian Defence Medal does not mean others do. - I'm sorry, but I don't understand how that is relevant, what it is relevant to, or what it adds to the conversation. Therefore, I'm ignoring it until you explain how it is relevant, what it is relevant to, and what it adds to the conversation.

As Woody states, this ... - Which "this" are you referring to? Please be explicit and definitive.

You may know what you're talking about, but I'm afraid I don't, and I don't have the skills to read your mind. i.e. Please explain.

(P.S. Listing a series of links to a series of WP pages is NOT an explanation. I think in the past you have used the term "linkspam" to address such situations.)

It is not clear to me that ANY part of your reply addresses ANY part of what I said at point 2).

If it does, please explain.

If it doesn't, could you please make an attempt to address at least some of the issues I raised in point 2)?

Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll attempt to make myself more clear. In essence, the stuff in this article in question requires references. Nothing here is common knowledge and, as per Woody's argument, needs to be verifiable. Just because you may know a certain thing, does not mean general readers do and information entered on a page requires references. Furthermore, references are particularly pertinent in this article, per WP:BLP, as Power is a living person. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll attempt to make myself more clear. - You're quite clear. You're just not saying anything that contains any information.

In essence, the stuff in this article in question requires references. - Sounds reasonable. OK. What's in question please? (i.e. I've defined what I think is relevant. Not only haven't you defined what you think is relevant, you haven't defined what you think is in question. As I am not psychic, I have NO idea what you're referring to, and what your points are. i.e. Explain yourself please.)

Nothing here is common knowledge and, as per Woody's argument, needs to be verifiable. - Sorry, too vague. What do you mean?

Just because you may know a certain thing, does not mean general readers do and information entered on a page requires references. - I've already said that I think this statement is irrelevant and asked you to explain why you feel it is relevant, and asked you to explain what you feel it is relevant to. I'm still waiting.

Why do you keep repeating "it" without explaining what "it" is, or why you think "it" is relevant, or what you think "it" is relevant to?

Let me assure you, repeating something irrelevant does not somehow magically make it relevant.

Furthermore, references are particularly pertinent in this article, per WP:BLP, as Power is a living person. - Again, what is that relevant to? Please explain.

Again, you haven't said anything relevant.

Again, you continue to use words like "it" without explaining what you mean.

Again, you continue to ignore the questions I ask.

Again, could you please make an attempt to address at least some of the issues I raised in point 2)?

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your points above. The medals require references per Wikipedia policy as information on them is not general knowledge. I will again address what you raised in point 2: the criteria for the Australian Defence Medal may be known to you but it is not a common fact nor general knowledge. Furthermore, simply providing a link to the Australian Defence Medal article is not sufficient as Wikipedia should never be used to reference itself. The same principal applies to each of these medals; the information on whether Power possesses these medals needs to be referenced to a reliable, third party source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your points above. - No, you haven't.

You have yet to make ANY relevant comment regarding my second point.
What's your point in making that statement? Are you calling me a liar? Are you saying I'm stupid? Are you trying to be clever? What? Why?
Why do you think I would continue to ask you to explain yourself if you had been explaining yourself?
Your statement "I have addressed all of your points above" is so obviously false that I don't understand why you would make such a statement.

The medals require references per Wikipedia policy as information on them is not general knowledge. - That doesn't mean anything, and doesn't say anything. It's just noise, and adds nothing useful to the communication. If anything, it adds negative value because it's an irrelevant distraction.

I will again address what you raised in point 2: - Sorry, that's impossible. You have yet to address it at all, so you can not possibly address it again.

the criteria for the Australian Defence Medal may be known to you - Third time: How is that relevant? And to what is it relevant?

but it is not a common fact nor general knowledge. - What? The criteria? Yeah, OK, the criteria ain't common knowledge. So what? It doesn't require a research degree to find and read http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/australian_defence_medal.cfm. What's your point?

Furthermore, simply providing a link to the Australian Defence Medal article is not sufficient as Wikipedia should never be used to reference itself. - I have no idea what you are talking about. It bears no relationship to anything I've said, stated, suggested or implied. Is it relevant? (I asked YOU to look at it. At no time did I state, suggest or imply that anyone else shoulf.)

The same principal applies to each of these medals; - Each of which medals? What are you talking about? I'm talking about the ADM for the very specific reason that I knew that if I didn't limit the conversation to the ADM, you would go off on an irrelevant tangent.

the information on whether Power possesses these medals needs to be referenced to a reliable, third party source. - Big sigh. Second time: Let me assure you, repeating something irrelevant does not somehow magically make it relevant.

Come on, pay attention. I'll hold your hand, break it into tiny little bits, and go through the bits step by step:
First step:

• Is there ANY doubt that Ash Power is / is not eligible for the ADM?
  • If so, what's the doubt? Please explain.
  • If not, what are you making a fuss about?

Pdfpdf (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(P.S. I've had enough of you for one night.)

Your reply is rude and displays a complete lack of good faith. The simple fact is that the medal information in this article requires either references, citation needed tags or should be removed. You removed the citation needed tags for each of the unreferenced medals contained in this article, all of which require citations if they are to stay per Wikipedia policy. It is not about whether or not doubt exists regarding Power's potential eligibility of the Australian Defence Medal, but about providing explicit, clear, and reliable third party sources that state he is eligible for these medals, including the Australian Defence Medal. Per Woody's statement above, the burdon of proof is on you to prove through reliable, third party sources that Power is eligible for these medals, which is the whole basis of this conversation. So, yes, unless you can provide a reliable, third party source to state so, there is the potential for doubt over whether Power holds the Australian Defence Medal. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For heaven's sake! Which planet do you live on? Clearly not this one!!

Your reply is rude and displays a complete lack of good faith. No, it's not. Did you read my reply?

• If so, please give a DETAILED and RELEVANT explanation of your statements.
• If not, please read it.

I am tired of this "shooting from the hip" rubbish you continue to peddle.

The simple fact is that the medal information in this article requires either references, citation needed tags or should be removed. ' - OK, now I have lost patience. Bullshit!

If fact, the rest of your reply is bullshit too.

Please discuss the matter with Woody and get him to reply. I no longer have any interest or patience in wasting my time or tolerating your irrelevant fantasies. Goodbye. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Woody, my own arguments, WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:RS, I am placing the citation needed tags back into the article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend the section citations needed solution I suggested above - it'll look so much better and do the same job - *and* is a compromise. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Blue Square Thing.

And I strongly suggest that Abraham, B.S. let Woody supply his own Woody's words of his own POV.

I would strongly state a number of other things too, not the least of which is that if Abraham, B.S. makes edits prior to concensus being reached, I will revert them as vandalism.

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ash Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608103948/http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200603/photos/coverstory6.jpg to http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/200603/photos/coverstory6.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ash Power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227132953/http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/ad2012/Media%20Notes%20AO%28Mil%29%20%28final%29.pdf to http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/ad2012/Media%20Notes%20AO%28Mil%29%20%28final%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227132953/http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/ad2012/Media%20Notes%20AO%28Mil%29%20%28final%29.pdf to http://www.gg.gov.au/res/file/2012/honours/ad2012/Media%20Notes%20AO%28Mil%29%20%28final%29.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)