Talk:Spud/Archive 1

Cleanup

This disambiguation page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. I removed the following entries because I could not establish their notability or encyclopedic-ness (e.g. because the term "Spud" was not mentioned in the linked-to article):

• Spuds is a nickname for King Edward VI School in Southampton, a jovial recognition by rival independent schools of the similar name that the school has to the King Edward potato.
• Spud is a nickname given by supporters of Arsenal F.C. to the supporters of their rivals Tottenham Hotspur F.C.
• Spud is also a name for a fan of the band Devo who were popular in the early 1980s with their hit song, "Whip It." The term can be heard in their song, "Smart Patrol/ Mr. DNA." They refer to themselves as "Spudboy[s]."

I replaced the following entries with a link to wikt:spud (where they are mentioned) because Wikipedia is not a dictionary:

• Spud is an Oil & Gas Industry term for first break/drill of the surface before a Well is introduced, in much the same way as with the planting of the potato.
• Spud is a nickname for a pole that has a flat blade on one end and is used to cut holes in lake ice, usually for fishing purposes.

– sgeureka ^t•c 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Spud the cat

My entries for Spud the cat are continually deleted and I would like to know why. He is a cat that is used in an advertising campaign/promotion for "Nature's Variety" pet food. The link to the website and the commercial has always been included as a reference yet the l33t crew continually delete the edit without giving a reason. Is it because he is gay or and/or black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "gay" or "gray"? If the former, how would you know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Myself and others have personally witnessed him try to 'have relations' with a fellow male cat. The dispute is because he is gay?? Wow, I thought this was the 21st century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the dispute is Original Research. "You and your friends?" Sorry, that's not a reliable source under wikipedia guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So I just have to remove the word gay? Sounds homophobic to me but if that's how you live your life then who am I to judge? In addition, I never used the phrase "me and my friends". Please quote accurately when trying to get your point of view across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You have to remove whatever is not stated in the citation. "Yourself and others" - sounds like original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted the information that was included in the citation if that is your major conceren, alongside his sexuality of course. You appear as if you are being very gung-ho, not reading the references and deleting whatever takes your fancy. Are you checking the reference before deleting the entire entry? If not then please give your reasons for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Big" is also a POV term. I'll concede that the cat appears to be black in color. Meanwhile, a cat that appears in an internet commercial is not necessarily notable. Why is this cat more important than the other stuff that one editor deleted? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not directly answering any of my questions. If you followed the link to the reference you would learn that, yes, it mentions that he is big. I have never said that "this cat" is more important than any other entries deleted. You would have to direct that to the editor that deleted those entries. Please explain how you would determine something to be necessarily notable. I have given two references from reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you have given absolutely no references from reliable sources. Your links go to the website that "spud" is featured on. That is not a reliable source. The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:RS and WP:N, and if that is too much to read, try at least to understand WP:5. Myself and others are trying and trying to explain what the problem is, but you don't seem to want to hear what we are saying. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I believe that this is the first instance of someone trying to explain the problem. If you read above I ask a series of questions which were not answered by the person above who just seemed content to delete the whole edit. When he/she did give advice I edited the content appropriately based on what I was told. With regards to verification from a reliable source, my source is [1], a source which I would consider to be third-party and with a reputation for accuracy. All the information regarding Spud the cat that was entered in the article can be verified here. I don't really understand the comment about the company's website not being a reliable source though. It is a reputable company, noted as being the leader in its field. Is that not similar to an article on Burger King using burgerking.com as a source or an article on bbc using bbc.co.uk as a source? On the advice of the feedback I received, I removed the information deemed to be garnered as a result of 'original research'. And in spite of your patronising tone, I was indeed able to read all the links you provided and feel that the information that I have posted meets the required criteria. With regards to the five pillars - no original research and I have a reference; there is no question of neutrality; there is no copyright infringement (although some here think they control the article); I have made no personal threats, in fact I feel that I am being persecuted against for not being a signed up member and not getting replies to even my most basic queries; Wikipedia does not have firm rules! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• You don't understand why the company itself is not considered a reliable source? Because the company has an inherent conflict of interest with regard to information about itself. The 2 links on the page are links to advertising for pet food. That is not a "reference", we calll that link spam. If you are not satisfied with how this situation is developing, you could pursue dispute resolution by following this link Beeblbrox (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but my content is not about the company. It is about a cat. There is no question of neutrality - he is a black cat, he appears in a commercial, I use the commercial as a reference. I fail to see the 'situation'. I also just edited the BBC page based on your one snippet of advice in response to my numerous comments. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone can post anything on the internet. What's notable or special about this cat? As compared, for example, with Spuds Mackenzie, the dog that appeared on TV in many beer commercials? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • In comparison to the dog you mentioned - he is a cat that appears in an internet video testimonial. I've never heard of this dog. Maybe he was only shown in the USA. Ehm, what was your point again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Spuds MacKenzie has a lot of info about him. Can you find any references to that cat outside of that internet video? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • After reading the rules (even though there apparently are no rules!), my understanding is that I don't have to find any more. I have a solid reference from a reputable source. I have also noticed that you happily delete the information that i enter with a reference yet you feel it necessary to undo the changes i make when i remove information that doesn't have a reference. this seems like a personal attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this situation (including your well-past the 3-revert violation rule) at the incident page. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, from my interpretation of what I was asked to read, I feel that my entry is factually correct and backed up. I feel that I am not able to discuss this 'situation' as nobody is addressing the issues that I bring up. And also I feel that you are somehow developing a vendetta against me - I made a legitimate change as there is no source yet you are happy to undo this change straight way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Your complaint that no one is addressing your concerns or trying to help you is 100% grade A bullshit as anyone could see from our parallel discussion on my talk page, I have bent over backwards to try and explain this to you, but you just don't want to hear it. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be so flustered. If you were to read my entire postings you would see that I am trying to have a discussion and am looking for clarification on issues that others bring up and I am responding to. If you read above you will see that I agree with the information you provided about conflict of interest but my point is this - would the source not only be considered a conflict of interest if my entry was about the source? I again use the example of the page for "Jared from Subway" using Subway as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.250.177 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you simply refuse to read WP:RS no matter how many times I point you in it's direction, I just don't know what else to say, except that you should seriously consider adoption. Subway could be used as one of the sources for Jared, but by itself would not be enough to prove Jared's notability. You need an independent source such as a newspaper, megazine or a reliable website. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time caller. I think I get the point the first guy is making about this - other articles use a source website as a reference so why can't he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Because unlike Spuds MacKenzie, who's well documented and discussed, this cat is apparently unknown outside of this one internet commercial. Then there's the business about it being a "gay" cat, whatever that means, which leads us to suspect the whole thing is frivolous; but either way, no notability has been demonstrated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So the source is ok to use but not on its own, it would need an additional source too? What's the big deal with gay? You mention it a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it sounds too stupid to be true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the subtle point here that maybe needs to be stated as clearly as possible is this: in an article that has reliable third party sources used to establish the notability of the subject, it may also be possible to use information from primary sources to "flesh out" the article, but those types of sources cannot be used to establish notability of the subject. The argument that the article is about the cat not the pet food does not hold up because the cat's supposed notability is based on it's connection to the food, and a pet food website is not a reliable source anyway. The whole thing about the cat being gay is just ridiculous, on top of being original research. (Do WP:BLP rules apply to felines?) Beeblbrox (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A close comparison might be Morris the Cat, who was a famous TV cat who did lots of pet food commercials, and more to the point, was widely discussed by the media. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Spud the cat item is not a reference to a wikipedia page, so it does not belong on a disambiguation page. Joe (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)