FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Pete Burness - help! -
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
And yet another reason why you should never use Wikipedia for serious research purposes. I am doing an article on animated film and I needed to get background on Pete Burness, the director best known for his work on the Mr. Magoo cartoon series.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 20th July 2010, 11:09am)
And yet another reason why you should never use Wikipedia for serious research purposes. I am doing an article on animated film and I needed to get background on Pete Burness, the director best known for his work on the Mr. Magoo cartoon series.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 20th July 2010, 1:13pm)
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 20th July 2010, 11:09am)
And yet another reason why you should never use Wikipedia for serious research purposes. I am doing an article on animated film and I needed to get background on Pete Burness, the director best known for his work on the Mr. Magoo cartoon series.
Pathetic that you would turn to Wikipedia for "background."
Well, how do you like that? You are capable of saying something that doesn't remind us of your fixation on Ottava! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
Seriously...while Wikipedia is worthless as a serious reference source, it should (in concept) serve some purpose as a thumbnail trivia site. I could have (and should have, it seems) looked up Pete Burness in the IMDb. I guess that I won't make that mistake again -- WP's film coverage is, on the whole, fairly weak.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
Hmmm...don't know why this got moved down from "Articles" to "Annex," since it is a discussion about a specific article. Oh well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 20th July 2010, 7:10pm)
Hmmm...don't know why this got moved down from "Articles" to "Annex," since it is a discussion about a specific article. Oh well. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
I moved it under the "same old dross" rule.
If you are bothered about the quality of articles, then this is something that should be discussed on Wikipedia, on the assumption that Wikipedia is functional, don't clutter up WR with yet another example of Wikipedia being rubbish, it doesn't inform.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th July 2010, 2:17pm)
If you are bothered about the quality of articles, then this is something that should be discussed on Wikipedia, on the assumption that Wikipedia is functional, don't clutter up WR with yet another example of Wikipedia being rubbish, it doesn't inform.
Considering WR is now cluttered up with about three-dozen discussions about Ottava, pedophilia, and Ottava's views on pedophilia, I was under the impression that we could shift gears and try to talk about a specific example of Wikipedia's contents. Obviously, I was mistaken.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 20th July 2010, 12:24pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th July 2010, 2:17pm)
If you are bothered about the quality of articles, then this is something that should be discussed on Wikipedia, on the assumption that Wikipedia is functional, don't clutter up WR with yet another example of Wikipedia being rubbish, it doesn't inform.
Considering WR is now cluttered up with about three-dozen discussions about Ottava, pedophilia, and Ottava's views on pedophilia, I was under the impression that we could shift gears and try to talk about a specific example of Wikipedia's contents. Obviously, I was mistaken.
Could always return to the secondary sexual characteristics of women.
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more?
Group: Members
Posts: 2,972
Joined:
From: The Midlands
Member No.: 4,015
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 20th July 2010, 7:24pm)
QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Tue 20th July 2010, 2:17pm)
If you are bothered about the quality of articles, then this is something that should be discussed on Wikipedia, on the assumption that Wikipedia is functional, don't clutter up WR with yet another example of Wikipedia being rubbish, it doesn't inform.
Considering WR is now cluttered up with about three-dozen discussions about Ottava, pedophilia, and Ottava's views on pedophilia, I was under the impression that we could shift gears and try to talk about a specific dysfunctional of Wikipedia's contents. Obviously, I was mistaken.
I missed a bit out, which was, that given that we are kind and generous souls who recognise that there is a dysfunctional community, the annex provides a place to discuss the things that belong on Wikipedia.
To be fair, there is a lot of stuff that is criticism that should sit within Wikipedia that the disfunctional community cannot cope with, but in principle the annex exists to filter out this particular crap.
Of course if we filtered out all the crap, there's only be 5 posts a week, so we have to have some flexibility in standards (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
Oh, this is really brilliant - not one but two (count 'em, two!) admins decided to jihad (or, in truth, G5) the article about Pete Burness. Why? Because a "blocked" user created it. (For the record, it wasn't me -- scroll up and you will see that I was the one who found it to be a mess and requested that someone clean it up.)
I think it is amazing that resident idiot Sandahl and overweight teen PeterSymonds removed all mention of the subject - an Academy Award-winning animator! It is ironic, since Mr. Magoo was created by John Hubley, who was blacklisted in the McCarthy era.
If there is anyone here who is not "blocked," can you please put Pete Burness back on Wikipedia? Here is the article that was cut.
In case you are wondering about my interest in this topic, I recently wrote a column about the Magoo cartoon "1001 Arabian Nights" and I am doing a new article this week on this Mr. Magoo classic:
This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 7th September 2010, 9:20pm)
Oh, this is really brilliant - not one but two (count 'em, two!) admins decided to jihad (or, in truth, G5) the article about Pete Burness. Why? Because a "blocked" user created it. (For the record, it wasn't me -- scroll up and you will see that I was the one who found it to be a mess and requested that someone clean it up.)
I think it is amazing that resident idiot Sandahl and overweight teen PeterSymonds removed all mention of the subject - an Academy Award-winning animator! It is ironic, since Mr. Magoo was created by John Hubley, who was blacklisted in the McCarthy era.
If there is anyone here who is not "blocked," can you please put Pete Burness back on Wikipedia? Here is the article that was cut.
It wasn't this thread that got it deleted; the original creator was this guy who had a long history of hoax articles. I'd say Wikipedia did the right thing for once in this case; if it's about a living person and there's a reasonable possibility that it's a hoax, it ought to be deleted unless and until someone demonstrates that it isn't.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 7th September 2010, 4:27pm)
It wasn't this thread that got it deleted; the original creator was this guy who had a long history of hoax articles. I'd say Wikipedia did the right thing for once in this case; if it's about a living person and there's a reasonable possibility that it's a hoax, it ought to be deleted unless and until someone demonstrates that it isn't.
Pete Burness died in 1969 - this is not a BLP.
Here is a book bio that details Burness' Oscar-winning career.
Really, it takes 30 seconds to verify that the man existed and the article was not a joke. Can you or someone else please restore it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 7th September 2010, 9:33pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 7th September 2010, 4:27pm)
It wasn't this thread that got it deleted; the original creator was this guy who had a long history of hoax articles. I'd say Wikipedia did the right thing for once in this case; if it's about a living person and there's a reasonable possibility that it's a hoax, it ought to be deleted unless and until someone demonstrates that it isn't.
Pete Burness died in 1969 - this is not a BLP.
Here is a book bio that details Burness' Oscar-winning career.
Really, it takes 30 seconds to verify that the man existed and the article was not a joke. Can you or someone else please restore it? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
Give me a few minutes; I'll recreate it in a more informative state. To be honest, nobody would miss the two-liner that was deleted.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 7th September 2010, 4:03pm)
I've filled it out with a stub cribbed from Who's Who in Animated Cartoons. Not great, but better than an empty space.
I agree that you're a good person and that this incident helps to prove it, but I'd be concerned that Mr. Horsey is now going to see you as his "go-to guy" for whenever he perceives a deletion travesty involving someone in the motion-picture industry...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 8th September 2010, 2:23am)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 7th September 2010, 4:03pm)
I've filled it out with a stub cribbed from Who's Who in Animated Cartoons. Not great, but better than an empty space.
I agree that you're a good person and that this incident helps to prove it, but I'd be concerned that Mr. Horsey is now going to see you as his "go-to guy" for whenever he perceives a deletion travesty involving someone in the motion-picture industry...? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)
Don't be concerned, Mr. Somey. Like I said earlier, I've been doing some articles on the Mr. Magoo cartoons and I was pissed that Pete Burness (a long-overlooked genius in animation history) received such a shabby treatment from the Wikipediots. There are tons of mistakes and omissions over at the mothership, but this was the only one that concerned me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Pete Burness - help!
