|
You just wrote to me about changing the Seth MacFarlane page??? What's warning level 2? Are you calling me a vandalist because... uhm... I figured that 1999-1973=26 and not 24? I'll appreciate your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Stanley's Cup. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you add something to wikipedia, you are the one who has to verify it. Give me a cite for that information and it can stay. Alastairward ( talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted edits you made to Clubhouses (South Park episode) and Prehistoric Ice Man. The edits were, as I'm sure you realise, your own personal speculation. If you can add a cite sometime to back up your edits, it would be welcome. Alastairward ( talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not the way wikipedia works. As you can see from my edit history, I've been working on scrubbing original research from all the South Park episode guides. That's why I've come across your edits and removed them. Nothing personal, you've just crossed my path. Alastairward ( talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - he's been warned by an administrator to knock off the moving/removing of cited cultural references. As long as we cite them with a valid source, he can't touch them. Its about time somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him. Anthony cargile ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That first bit isnt actually true, the Admin asked that I leave one specific reference alone, not that I should cease and desist all editing of so called "cultural references". In that case I disagree with their decision, but defer to an admin's right to ban or suspend an account. With reference to your second point, yes, I actually would leave the "cultural reference" alone (voluntarily!) if they were properly cited. Problem is, few of them are out of the hundreds added. As for your assertation that "somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him", I have as much right to use and edit wikipedia as you do, no amount of bullying will have me stop. Alastairward ( talk) 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You know what I'm about to say don't you, your edit was speculation and was removed. Sorry, but you seem determined to go against the guidelines around here. Alastairward ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hi. Continuity with regards to previous episodes is not what "Cultural references" means. In addition, as Alastair pointed out above, unsourced speculation cannot be added to article, as it violates Verifiability. Please do not add such information to the article. Nightscream ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the cite you added was for a blog of some sort, not really a reliable source. I don't know why I have to wait for an admin to suggest action before I edit the article either. Alastairward ( talk) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if you feel you must stoop to abuse, then why should anyone take you seriously. Alastairward ( talk) 09:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't understand your tone or intent.
You chimed in on an unrelated note. The other user, Drewmartial, was adding uncited (and really poorly spelled) speculation to WP and reverting my attempts to remove it.
You're adding a poor cite, a blog of all things and demanding it be accepted as the be all and end all of cites. I'm perfectly entitled to remove it if I see fit. Alastairward ( talk) 09:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed your cite as a superior cite that actually proved what was asserted was provided. The one that you provided simply stated that the assertion (regarding the Oceans 11 parody) was true and gave nothing to back up that suggestion. Since it's been made redundant, it can be safely removed. Alastairward ( talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 24 hours for
edit warring on
About Last Night... (South Park). It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you believe that the websites you are using for cites are reliable.
IMDB may have admins, but it in no way displays cites for the information they display.
Similarly so, Southparkstuff is not the website for the creators of South Park, admins or not it is still run by fans. Where are their cites? Alastairward ( talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this is the English language Wikipedia, a cite for the translation would be nice. And why do you need a source to say he looks like a toad, when he's already described as being slug like? Is there a limit to the articles that I can edit now? Alastairward ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be adding a lot of cites to articles, which is good. But then you seem to be adding a lot of uncited material and giving nonsense edit summaries, or none at all. Please discuss changes that are so clearly challenged on the talk pages for articles. An Admin has already asked you to do so. Alastairward ( talk) 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
NotAnotherAliGFan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not the only person who broke this rule - check Alastairward's history please. Also, I'd appreciate if you (the admin that blocked me) contacted me first rather than just blocking one-sidedly. I await your response. NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In reviewing your edits to the article, it is clear that you were edit-warring, and that the block is valid. It's clear that you disagree with the other editor, and you might have a point - but the place to assert that point is on the discussion page, and not by reverting the article repeatedly. You even acknowledge that there was discussion ongoing ( here), but you failed to participate in that discussion. It is unreasonable to tell others to discuss the matter while you revert away - that's not an acceptable way to edit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If its any good, Alastairward was blocked too:
User_talk:Alastairward#Block_for_revert-warring. Some admin really needs to step in and resolve this, blocking both sides of a constant multiple-editor edit war does nothing more than piss us off, and the edits in question remain a very gray area.
Anthony cargile (
talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm off my block first, but you can still edit your talk page, I thought I'd ask for your opinion on the below. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
You added a claim, backed up by a link that didn't work for me at least, that there was a Russian translation of the word Toad that came out as "жаба". I don't speak Russian, so I don't know how that is pronounced. But I'm not sure at all what relevance there is to the article. Is it a coincidence? If so, what is the relevance to the article? Is it a source for the character's name, then if so cite, the translation alone would fall under WP:SYNTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I don't see how it merits it's own section in an article. If Kenny's death is a running gag, mention it on the character's page. As it is, the deaths are just another part of the plot and so as deserving of as much detail as the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Southparkstudios is a great source for cites, I added quite a few from that site myself. It's great because it's the creation of the show's creators and they add input to the FAQ regularly. I've not figured out the tags for videos yet, one or two misspellings made me think they were fan added. But for the moment I guess they're ok too.
However, something like
ccinsider or
gawker seem doubtful. The fact that ccinsider asks for tips from anyone made me suspicious, they both seemed to fall under the umbrella of
self published sources. If you trust it enough to use it when citing, you surely must be ok with telling us why.
IMDB as well, even if
(as of this week) they have a system of verification in place, they don't tell us who or where they check their plot synopsis against or which ones have been checked and which haven't. It all seems too unreliable.
The thing about wikipedia is that it offers
verifiability over "fact", which the above would, IMO take away from.
Alastairward (
talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to your comment [2], please read WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your query on my talk page, I only ever suggested that the FAQs on southparkstudios.com seem to be provided for by the show's writers. I thought at first that the tags might be useful, but then I saw a few spelling mistakes and wondered. Perhaps you might prove your assertation that they're added by the writers? Alastairward ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Episode continuity is trivia, not a cultural reference. Character history available at character page. If you are stating something with the cited intent of the writers, it would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH. Alastairward ( talk) 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I would finally add, for the moment that is, that as someone adding material to Wikipedia that has been challenged, it is up to you to give adequate reason for it to stay. Give reasons, discuss, build consensus i.e. prove it! Alastairward ( talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As you will see from that policy page, the [initial] burden of evidence is expected to fall on the person introducing new material. Wikipedia's community is becoming less tolerant of unverified assertions, as each one of these statistically adds extra risk to our credibility. It appears one of your fights is involving this addition. You might want to consult WP:TRIVIA also. Although the community tends to look down on trivia section, the information you are introducing is not necessary looked down upon. Just needs to be introduced in another way. The specific point about how many times a character's homosexuality is hinted at ... it is a minor violation of WP:OR, because that policy includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, which would cover this assertion. Though understandably you realise that counting is not really up there with, say, the kind of thing that goes on at Denial of the Holodomor. You really can't find an outside source that verifies this assertion? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't retag this article with the generic {{ stub}} template - it has been re-sorted to a more specific stub type ({{ Comedy-film-stub}}). I didn't remove the template, as you imply - I replaced it with a more appropriate one (and in the right place, at the bottom of the article). Grutness... wha? 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User:NotAnotherAliGFan: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz 11 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Ungroundable. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz 11 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Valcanite Anal Douche.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just like the accusation of " Article Manipulation and Editing Control", I have no idea what that means. Alastairward ( talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Check this article out before telling other people that your new edits must stay pending your approval of change via the edit summary. You made a bold change, I reverted, now we can discuss.
You might have noticed that I didn't say that what you added couldn't stay full stop, merely that you had added it to an inappropriate section.
Two other points as ever, be civil (no personal attacks on someone's perceived ethnic background) and remember the burden of proof on the editor adding material to wikipedia. Alastairward ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Crapton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crapton.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Mister Senseless™ (
Speak -
Contributions) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you name a few South Park articles with uncited cultural references that keep getting removed? I've cited the Jefferson's article using imdb (a reliable source), so if it gets removed again be sure to report it to an administrator. Whenever I have the time, I'd like to go through and cite the uncited CR that are so constantly removed, so please point any out to me so I can dig up the cites and get them posted again.
Thank you, and please reply on my talk page. An administrator has warned both me and Alastairward to not talk to each other, so please don't get him involved in this. I'd hate to see him get blocked again. Another-anomaly ( talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
" The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem." Which is why I removed the rape comment altogether. It's not like I removed the continuity but left in the comment. I removed all of it. Your comment implies that one was left in and the other removed, which is obviously not the case, which you can see if you look closely at the edit. Its removal was not "aggressive" nor without discussion. It had been removed countless times before when people kept trying to reinsert it, ever since the night that episode premiered. I will explain it one more time: A synopsis is a summarization of a story's most salient points. It is not a blow-by-blow account, and does not need to highlight specific gags, one liners, or bits of continuity trivia. Whether it's mentioned on the FAQ page (though for some reason that was not the page I was directed to when I first tried that url) does not change this. Nightscream ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
NotAnotherAliGFan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This seems rather one sided, doesn't it? What about the other party (check Alastairward's edit history for Feb. 12)? Will I ever get the answer as for certain users owning Wikipedia articles? I thought it was forbidden as well... In any case, I apologize for violating 3RR again but I would really like some positive input from you regarding this matter, as I truly feel my rights as a WP editor are being constantly violated. NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What others did does not matter in unblock requests. This is about your conduct. Sandstein 12:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi. I'm sorry to hear you were blocked, but once it expires, can you please share your thoughts on the Pandemic Talk Page? I solicited a Third Opinion, and continued a discussion on it here. Nightscream ( talk) Thanks. 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you've added a sentence about modern hebrew slang, but the meaning or significance of the sentence is unclear. Can you elaborate or clarify please? -- HighKing ( talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You linked a character with a WP topic and insist on it staying, despite not giving a reference or policy. Would you mind doing so? Alastairward ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you have now escalated to threats on my talk page now, care to explain? Alastairward ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User talk:Alastairward: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Saying, "you're lucky this is the cyber world, you miserable stalker." is indeed a threat, and is indeed a breach of WP:Civility. If you read Alastairward's Talk Page, you'll see that I already told him that there was an ongoing discussion, and speculated that he was not aware of this, which he confirmed on the article's Talk Page. The comment you left was not needed, and continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please discuss having a consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Do not revert, and do not attack other editors. Nightscream ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Diff I provided just above pretty much shows what I'm talking about. Saying, "Get some glasses please" is not civil. Nightscream ( talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't he a moron? Ruining South Park articles.-- 68.79.120.124 ( talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This one is pretty ridiculous, I have reverted edits you made to my userspace simply because it is my userspace. See exceptions to the 3RR rule, I can revert as many times as I like on my own pages. Alastairward ( talk) 09:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, NotAnotherAliGFan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alastairward ( talk) 11:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
AliGFan, I noticed this edit, in which you stated "Yes there was, our opinions are equal (none is superior over the other, right?) so it stays (with the added trivia tag)". The issue is not whether your opinions are "equal" or whether one is "superior" to another. The issue is Consensus. The consensus discussion on that episode's Talk Page, which is composed of many opinions, not just one, determined that that information not remain in the article. Reverting against consensus is considered disruptive editing, so please do not revert it. Nightscream ( talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie. I would advise giving out barnstars in the future, they are more coveted, and appreciated, and they cost you nothing.
The best advice I can give you:
Ikip ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to provide a source linking humanitarian aid to the reprisal attacks, the article is about something in specific. The article on the conflict is 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This article is about reprisal attacks by Hamas, not whatever you think Hamas did wrong. Nableezy ( talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to the questions on the talk page. Do not add your edit back into the article until consensus has been reached there. It would also very much help if you would read Wikipedia policy on original synthesis. It appears that this policy has been pointed out to you a number of times before, but you still aren't following what constitutes original synthesis.
Your addition appears to make a connection between a number of words (in what way is still unclear, see talk page). So a simple definition for one word is not a sufficient cite unless the connection is there also. The cite you are providing is also to a Hebrew (I presume) page that can't be followed by those who don't read Hebrew, and, apparently, links to a dictionary definition of one of the words. Which word, your edit doesn't make clear. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Towelie. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Got cite? Alastairward ( talk) 10:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at previous discussions of this issue on the article's Talk page it appears that there is no clear consensus to include this reference. Hence I have reverted your edit, since it seems that another editor feels it should not be included. On proving it's "not trivia", that, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Policy states clearly that the onus to justify inclusion of content is on the editor seeking to add it. So the ball is now in your court, and I invite you to discuss this matter on Talk:Bono. I see from above that you are already aware of WP:BRD- so "D", please. Rodhull andemu 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trapper Keeper (South Park). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapper Keeper (South Park). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
|
You just wrote to me about changing the Seth MacFarlane page??? What's warning level 2? Are you calling me a vandalist because... uhm... I figured that 1999-1973=26 and not 24? I'll appreciate your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Stanley's Cup. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If you add something to wikipedia, you are the one who has to verify it. Give me a cite for that information and it can stay. Alastairward ( talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted edits you made to Clubhouses (South Park episode) and Prehistoric Ice Man. The edits were, as I'm sure you realise, your own personal speculation. If you can add a cite sometime to back up your edits, it would be welcome. Alastairward ( talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not the way wikipedia works. As you can see from my edit history, I've been working on scrubbing original research from all the South Park episode guides. That's why I've come across your edits and removed them. Nothing personal, you've just crossed my path. Alastairward ( talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry - he's been warned by an administrator to knock off the moving/removing of cited cultural references. As long as we cite them with a valid source, he can't touch them. Its about time somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him. Anthony cargile ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That first bit isnt actually true, the Admin asked that I leave one specific reference alone, not that I should cease and desist all editing of so called "cultural references". In that case I disagree with their decision, but defer to an admin's right to ban or suspend an account. With reference to your second point, yes, I actually would leave the "cultural reference" alone (voluntarily!) if they were properly cited. Problem is, few of them are out of the hundreds added. As for your assertation that "somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him", I have as much right to use and edit wikipedia as you do, no amount of bullying will have me stop. Alastairward ( talk) 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
You know what I'm about to say don't you, your edit was speculation and was removed. Sorry, but you seem determined to go against the guidelines around here. Alastairward ( talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hi. Continuity with regards to previous episodes is not what "Cultural references" means. In addition, as Alastair pointed out above, unsourced speculation cannot be added to article, as it violates Verifiability. Please do not add such information to the article. Nightscream ( talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the cite you added was for a blog of some sort, not really a reliable source. I don't know why I have to wait for an admin to suggest action before I edit the article either. Alastairward ( talk) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if you feel you must stoop to abuse, then why should anyone take you seriously. Alastairward ( talk) 09:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't understand your tone or intent.
You chimed in on an unrelated note. The other user, Drewmartial, was adding uncited (and really poorly spelled) speculation to WP and reverting my attempts to remove it.
You're adding a poor cite, a blog of all things and demanding it be accepted as the be all and end all of cites. I'm perfectly entitled to remove it if I see fit. Alastairward ( talk) 09:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed your cite as a superior cite that actually proved what was asserted was provided. The one that you provided simply stated that the assertion (regarding the Oceans 11 parody) was true and gave nothing to back up that suggestion. Since it's been made redundant, it can be safely removed. Alastairward ( talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You have been
blocked for a period of 24 hours for
edit warring on
About Last Night... (South Park). It is essential that you are more careful to
discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply
revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}}
below.
Tiptoety
talk 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you believe that the websites you are using for cites are reliable.
IMDB may have admins, but it in no way displays cites for the information they display.
Similarly so, Southparkstuff is not the website for the creators of South Park, admins or not it is still run by fans. Where are their cites? Alastairward ( talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Since this is the English language Wikipedia, a cite for the translation would be nice. And why do you need a source to say he looks like a toad, when he's already described as being slug like? Is there a limit to the articles that I can edit now? Alastairward ( talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be adding a lot of cites to articles, which is good. But then you seem to be adding a lot of uncited material and giving nonsense edit summaries, or none at all. Please discuss changes that are so clearly challenged on the talk pages for articles. An Admin has already asked you to do so. Alastairward ( talk) 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
NotAnotherAliGFan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not the only person who broke this rule - check Alastairward's history please. Also, I'd appreciate if you (the admin that blocked me) contacted me first rather than just blocking one-sidedly. I await your response. NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In reviewing your edits to the article, it is clear that you were edit-warring, and that the block is valid. It's clear that you disagree with the other editor, and you might have a point - but the place to assert that point is on the discussion page, and not by reverting the article repeatedly. You even acknowledge that there was discussion ongoing ( here), but you failed to participate in that discussion. It is unreasonable to tell others to discuss the matter while you revert away - that's not an acceptable way to edit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If its any good, Alastairward was blocked too:
User_talk:Alastairward#Block_for_revert-warring. Some admin really needs to step in and resolve this, blocking both sides of a constant multiple-editor edit war does nothing more than piss us off, and the edits in question remain a very gray area.
Anthony cargile (
talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm off my block first, but you can still edit your talk page, I thought I'd ask for your opinion on the below. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
You added a claim, backed up by a link that didn't work for me at least, that there was a Russian translation of the word Toad that came out as "жаба". I don't speak Russian, so I don't know how that is pronounced. But I'm not sure at all what relevance there is to the article. Is it a coincidence? If so, what is the relevance to the article? Is it a source for the character's name, then if so cite, the translation alone would fall under WP:SYNTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I don't see how it merits it's own section in an article. If Kenny's death is a running gag, mention it on the character's page. As it is, the deaths are just another part of the plot and so as deserving of as much detail as the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Southparkstudios is a great source for cites, I added quite a few from that site myself. It's great because it's the creation of the show's creators and they add input to the FAQ regularly. I've not figured out the tags for videos yet, one or two misspellings made me think they were fan added. But for the moment I guess they're ok too.
However, something like
ccinsider or
gawker seem doubtful. The fact that ccinsider asks for tips from anyone made me suspicious, they both seemed to fall under the umbrella of
self published sources. If you trust it enough to use it when citing, you surely must be ok with telling us why.
IMDB as well, even if
(as of this week) they have a system of verification in place, they don't tell us who or where they check their plot synopsis against or which ones have been checked and which haven't. It all seems too unreliable.
The thing about wikipedia is that it offers
verifiability over "fact", which the above would, IMO take away from.
Alastairward (
talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to your comment [2], please read WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In answer to your query on my talk page, I only ever suggested that the FAQs on southparkstudios.com seem to be provided for by the show's writers. I thought at first that the tags might be useful, but then I saw a few spelling mistakes and wondered. Perhaps you might prove your assertation that they're added by the writers? Alastairward ( talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Episode continuity is trivia, not a cultural reference. Character history available at character page. If you are stating something with the cited intent of the writers, it would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH. Alastairward ( talk) 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I would finally add, for the moment that is, that as someone adding material to Wikipedia that has been challenged, it is up to you to give adequate reason for it to stay. Give reasons, discuss, build consensus i.e. prove it! Alastairward ( talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As you will see from that policy page, the [initial] burden of evidence is expected to fall on the person introducing new material. Wikipedia's community is becoming less tolerant of unverified assertions, as each one of these statistically adds extra risk to our credibility. It appears one of your fights is involving this addition. You might want to consult WP:TRIVIA also. Although the community tends to look down on trivia section, the information you are introducing is not necessary looked down upon. Just needs to be introduced in another way. The specific point about how many times a character's homosexuality is hinted at ... it is a minor violation of WP:OR, because that policy includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, which would cover this assertion. Though understandably you realise that counting is not really up there with, say, the kind of thing that goes on at Denial of the Holodomor. You really can't find an outside source that verifies this assertion? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't retag this article with the generic {{ stub}} template - it has been re-sorted to a more specific stub type ({{ Comedy-film-stub}}). I didn't remove the template, as you imply - I replaced it with a more appropriate one (and in the right place, at the bottom of the article). Grutness... wha? 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User:NotAnotherAliGFan: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz 11 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Ungroundable. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz 11 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Valcanite Anal Douche.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just like the accusation of " Article Manipulation and Editing Control", I have no idea what that means. Alastairward ( talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Check this article out before telling other people that your new edits must stay pending your approval of change via the edit summary. You made a bold change, I reverted, now we can discuss.
You might have noticed that I didn't say that what you added couldn't stay full stop, merely that you had added it to an inappropriate section.
Two other points as ever, be civil (no personal attacks on someone's perceived ethnic background) and remember the burden of proof on the editor adding material to wikipedia. Alastairward ( talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Image:Crapton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crapton.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Mister Senseless™ (
Speak -
Contributions) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you name a few South Park articles with uncited cultural references that keep getting removed? I've cited the Jefferson's article using imdb (a reliable source), so if it gets removed again be sure to report it to an administrator. Whenever I have the time, I'd like to go through and cite the uncited CR that are so constantly removed, so please point any out to me so I can dig up the cites and get them posted again.
Thank you, and please reply on my talk page. An administrator has warned both me and Alastairward to not talk to each other, so please don't get him involved in this. I'd hate to see him get blocked again. Another-anomaly ( talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
" The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem." Which is why I removed the rape comment altogether. It's not like I removed the continuity but left in the comment. I removed all of it. Your comment implies that one was left in and the other removed, which is obviously not the case, which you can see if you look closely at the edit. Its removal was not "aggressive" nor without discussion. It had been removed countless times before when people kept trying to reinsert it, ever since the night that episode premiered. I will explain it one more time: A synopsis is a summarization of a story's most salient points. It is not a blow-by-blow account, and does not need to highlight specific gags, one liners, or bits of continuity trivia. Whether it's mentioned on the FAQ page (though for some reason that was not the page I was directed to when I first tried that url) does not change this. Nightscream ( talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
Talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
NotAnotherAliGFan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This seems rather one sided, doesn't it? What about the other party (check Alastairward's edit history for Feb. 12)? Will I ever get the answer as for certain users owning Wikipedia articles? I thought it was forbidden as well... In any case, I apologize for violating 3RR again but I would really like some positive input from you regarding this matter, as I truly feel my rights as a WP editor are being constantly violated. NotAnotherAliGFan ( talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What others did does not matter in unblock requests. This is about your conduct. Sandstein 12:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi. I'm sorry to hear you were blocked, but once it expires, can you please share your thoughts on the Pandemic Talk Page? I solicited a Third Opinion, and continued a discussion on it here. Nightscream ( talk) Thanks. 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you've added a sentence about modern hebrew slang, but the meaning or significance of the sentence is unclear. Can you elaborate or clarify please? -- HighKing ( talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You linked a character with a WP topic and insist on it staying, despite not giving a reference or policy. Would you mind doing so? Alastairward ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you have now escalated to threats on my talk page now, care to explain? Alastairward ( talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on User talk:Alastairward: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Saying, "you're lucky this is the cyber world, you miserable stalker." is indeed a threat, and is indeed a breach of WP:Civility. If you read Alastairward's Talk Page, you'll see that I already told him that there was an ongoing discussion, and speculated that he was not aware of this, which he confirmed on the article's Talk Page. The comment you left was not needed, and continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please discuss having a consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Do not revert, and do not attack other editors. Nightscream ( talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Diff I provided just above pretty much shows what I'm talking about. Saying, "Get some glasses please" is not civil. Nightscream ( talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't he a moron? Ruining South Park articles.-- 68.79.120.124 ( talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This one is pretty ridiculous, I have reverted edits you made to my userspace simply because it is my userspace. See exceptions to the 3RR rule, I can revert as many times as I like on my own pages. Alastairward ( talk) 09:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, NotAnotherAliGFan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alastairward ( talk) 11:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
AliGFan, I noticed this edit, in which you stated "Yes there was, our opinions are equal (none is superior over the other, right?) so it stays (with the added trivia tag)". The issue is not whether your opinions are "equal" or whether one is "superior" to another. The issue is Consensus. The consensus discussion on that episode's Talk Page, which is composed of many opinions, not just one, determined that that information not remain in the article. Reverting against consensus is considered disruptive editing, so please do not revert it. Nightscream ( talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the cookie. I would advise giving out barnstars in the future, they are more coveted, and appreciated, and they cost you nothing.
The best advice I can give you:
Ikip ( talk) 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to provide a source linking humanitarian aid to the reprisal attacks, the article is about something in specific. The article on the conflict is 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This article is about reprisal attacks by Hamas, not whatever you think Hamas did wrong. Nableezy ( talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to the questions on the talk page. Do not add your edit back into the article until consensus has been reached there. It would also very much help if you would read Wikipedia policy on original synthesis. It appears that this policy has been pointed out to you a number of times before, but you still aren't following what constitutes original synthesis.
Your addition appears to make a connection between a number of words (in what way is still unclear, see talk page). So a simple definition for one word is not a sufficient cite unless the connection is there also. The cite you are providing is also to a Hebrew (I presume) page that can't be followed by those who don't read Hebrew, and, apparently, links to a dictionary definition of one of the words. Which word, your edit doesn't make clear. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Towelie. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Got cite? Alastairward ( talk) 10:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at previous discussions of this issue on the article's Talk page it appears that there is no clear consensus to include this reference. Hence I have reverted your edit, since it seems that another editor feels it should not be included. On proving it's "not trivia", that, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Policy states clearly that the onus to justify inclusion of content is on the editor seeking to add it. So the ball is now in your court, and I invite you to discuss this matter on Talk:Bono. I see from above that you are already aware of WP:BRD- so "D", please. Rodhull andemu 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trapper Keeper (South Park). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapper Keeper (South Park). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)