User talk:Leebarden
October 2010[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You don't know what you're talking about. The changes I made were factually correct. Get a proper job! Leebarden (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I was trying my very best to be constructive when I changed the incorrect information and this person decides it is vandalism and changes it back to its incorrect state. Perhaps you could shed some light on their actions for me.
- Changing his name? Sorry, no. Don't tax our patience. Acroterion (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually his birth name was Wisden. As reported on the BBC, NY Times, Mirror and Virgin Media! Leebarden (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing on the BBC obit I saw, and in any case, as a popular entertainer, we would use his stage name and mention the birth name in the body of the article, once. I do see it in the NYT, in the appropriate style we'd expect to see here. You may not take that as a license to change the name throughout the article. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually I changed the birth name as well as the name of his mother and brother. His mother married Mr Wisden and therefore becomes Mrs Wisden. His brother would have been born a Wisden and wouldn't have a stage name. So my changes were factually correct. I did not change the name throughout the article at all, but in 4 places where it was appropriate to do so.Leebarden (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will add a note about this to the article's talk page. It seems someone had previously verified the relevant names. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- While your changes were in good faith, they have the appearance of vandalism. When you make changes like this, you need to explain why and to provide sources as you do it, because simple changes like this happen as vandalism all the time, and if you're not steeped in the subject you can't tell if it's right, especially on a relatively well-referenced article such as this. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia and that there's a steep learning curve here. We get a lot of this sort of thing, and most of the time it's vandalism. A relatively little-known fact, inserted with no further explanation, tends to get reverted as vandalism. We're sorry to be so touchy - simple assertions that "I'm right" can't carry much weight. I'll take a look at is parents' names. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- A surprising number of sources don't mention the birth name - the Guardian, for one. I can see why this hasn't been picked up before in the article - it appears to have been rather obscure, although it seems strange that the referenced biography wouldn't have it. Note: I'm not English, and only have a passing familiarity with the subject, and certainly don't have access to the bio. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Per discussions with other editors, confidence in the accuracy of the published reports of "Wisden" is quickly declining. We're trying to figure out where the information might have originated. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- A surprising number of sources don't mention the birth name - the Guardian, for one. I can see why this hasn't been picked up before in the article - it appears to have been rather obscure, although it seems strange that the referenced biography wouldn't have it. Note: I'm not English, and only have a passing familiarity with the subject, and certainly don't have access to the bio. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- While your changes were in good faith, they have the appearance of vandalism. When you make changes like this, you need to explain why and to provide sources as you do it, because simple changes like this happen as vandalism all the time, and if you're not steeped in the subject you can't tell if it's right, especially on a relatively well-referenced article such as this. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia and that there's a steep learning curve here. We get a lot of this sort of thing, and most of the time it's vandalism. A relatively little-known fact, inserted with no further explanation, tends to get reverted as vandalism. We're sorry to be so touchy - simple assertions that "I'm right" can't carry much weight. I'll take a look at is parents' names. Acroterion (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)