User talk:Svondrak

Hi there. While I appreciate you've done a bunch of original research on the topic,

I do not understand your response. I am arguing about your removal of my Findagrave source. It's a valid source. It more valid than the magazine articles and YouTube videos referenced as sources.

I am not arguing against ancestry claims as I am the person that inserted them. My issue is that you removed them. Svondrak (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not original interpretation of primary sources.

If there are other sources that are questionable, they should be removed rather than more added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your secondary sources are unreliable. Just stop posting them.

Why cite a source article that claims Czech roots based a surname when I actually had a secondary source, Findagrave, showing an ancestor's birth in Bohemia. Svondrak (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again quoting a magazine article as a source that is wrong. Ric Ocasek's Czech grandparents did not come from Czechoslovakia. First it did not exist and second they were born in the Kingdom of Hungary (in present day Romania). Svondrak (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia :

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,

1. 3 - A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

---

None of the magazine articles about Ric Ocasek's Czech ancestry, or specifically the actual ancestral villages in 1800's Bohemia, were based on usage of primary sources. They were only based on his surname and possibly oral family history (which is another unreliable primary source).

The Findagrave entry that was referenced is a secondary source based on the primary sources of vital records. Svondrak (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post the magazine article that you mention. If you have an issue with that source, take that up with that editor.

Find a Grave is not a reliable secondary source. The primary sources presented require inappropriate synthesis to draw the conclusions that you've drawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with your removing my entries. You are stating opinion. Stop stalking my wikipedia entries and removing them. It's creepy. I have posted valid, useful information.

According to your standards if I put the info in a YouTube video it would be a valid second source.

Define "inappropriate synthesis". Svondrak (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Findagrave is a reliable secondary source when it contains images of primary source vital records. Svondrak (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's simply republishing primary source records. That doesn't make it an appropriate citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Benjamin Orr. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the expert, then cite an appropriate source. Svondrak (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]