This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please stop removing the factual and verifiable information about the relationship between these two episodes. The primary source, the credits for "Samaritan", state the relationship and per WP:PSTS the credits can be used to make the straightforward statement. It does not matter whether you or any other editor has viewed "Samaritan". I have not seen or read the vast majority of material cited as sources on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean I can go around removing everything just because I haven't happened to have read the book or watched the movie it's sourced to. If you find the factual, verifiable statement that the one episode served as the basis for the other problematic, I'm sure you can find some way to access the UK episode online to verify it for yourself. Whether you choose to do that or not, quit removing the material. 76.201.156.158 ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The last I heard, "it doesn't air on Australian TV" does not stand as an exception to WP:PSTS. A source doesn't become unreliable just because you haven't happened to look at it. It's not my responsibility to spoon feed you sources beyond the episode credits and the inability of one particular editor to view a particular source has no bearing on the reliability of the source. There is no requirement that every source be accessible to every editor for that source to be usable and reliable. The statement is out because you haven't seen the episode? What arrogance! 76.201.158.76 ( talk) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
On hir talk page MelbourneStar has an exchange of messages in which s/he accepts that the credits for episodes of L&O: UK serve as sufficient sources to establish the relationship between the original L&O episodes and their UK remakes. There is no rational reason why those same credits do not serve as sufficient sourcing for the same information in this article. MelbourneStar specifically and unequivocally states that no additional citation is needed when the credits of the UK episode state that the episode is based on a US episode. Demanding additional sourcing on this article when s/he has already acknowledged that it is not necessary is irrational. Please stop reverting the information in support of irrationality. 76.204.89.112 ( talk) 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah no, I'm clearly just saying once this is past, I'll move back onto the bigger article, which is L&O UK. Just because I say 'I agree', does not mean 'I agree'. What I still find so hilarious, is that you'd rather violate 3RR and Personal Attack another User, then going ahead with Consensus or providing a reliable source. You've done neither, and to make things better, I'll promise you that I won't leave until either is reached.
This is a content dispute, and so semi-protection would be inappropriate. The page has been fully-protected for two-weeks. If you feel that the wrong version of the page has been protected, you can request {{ Edit protected}}, but I would strongly recommend discussion on the talk page and WP:Dispute resolution such as content WP:RFC — and posting to WP:RSN. -- Cirt ( talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Because of the ongoing dispute notice has been left here to confirm the consensus that on-screen credits serve as reliable sources for the episode. 76.204.97.251 ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please stop removing the factual and verifiable information about the relationship between these two episodes. The primary source, the credits for "Samaritan", state the relationship and per WP:PSTS the credits can be used to make the straightforward statement. It does not matter whether you or any other editor has viewed "Samaritan". I have not seen or read the vast majority of material cited as sources on Wikipedia but that doesn't mean I can go around removing everything just because I haven't happened to have read the book or watched the movie it's sourced to. If you find the factual, verifiable statement that the one episode served as the basis for the other problematic, I'm sure you can find some way to access the UK episode online to verify it for yourself. Whether you choose to do that or not, quit removing the material. 76.201.156.158 ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The last I heard, "it doesn't air on Australian TV" does not stand as an exception to WP:PSTS. A source doesn't become unreliable just because you haven't happened to look at it. It's not my responsibility to spoon feed you sources beyond the episode credits and the inability of one particular editor to view a particular source has no bearing on the reliability of the source. There is no requirement that every source be accessible to every editor for that source to be usable and reliable. The statement is out because you haven't seen the episode? What arrogance! 76.201.158.76 ( talk) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
On hir talk page MelbourneStar has an exchange of messages in which s/he accepts that the credits for episodes of L&O: UK serve as sufficient sources to establish the relationship between the original L&O episodes and their UK remakes. There is no rational reason why those same credits do not serve as sufficient sourcing for the same information in this article. MelbourneStar specifically and unequivocally states that no additional citation is needed when the credits of the UK episode state that the episode is based on a US episode. Demanding additional sourcing on this article when s/he has already acknowledged that it is not necessary is irrational. Please stop reverting the information in support of irrationality. 76.204.89.112 ( talk) 13:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah no, I'm clearly just saying once this is past, I'll move back onto the bigger article, which is L&O UK. Just because I say 'I agree', does not mean 'I agree'. What I still find so hilarious, is that you'd rather violate 3RR and Personal Attack another User, then going ahead with Consensus or providing a reliable source. You've done neither, and to make things better, I'll promise you that I won't leave until either is reached.
This is a content dispute, and so semi-protection would be inappropriate. The page has been fully-protected for two-weeks. If you feel that the wrong version of the page has been protected, you can request {{ Edit protected}}, but I would strongly recommend discussion on the talk page and WP:Dispute resolution such as content WP:RFC — and posting to WP:RSN. -- Cirt ( talk) 14:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Because of the ongoing dispute notice has been left here to confirm the consensus that on-screen credits serve as reliable sources for the episode. 76.204.97.251 ( talk) 21:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)