Talk:Crusader Rabbit

Fair use rationale for Image:Crusader&Rags.jpg

Image:Crusader&Rags.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arson and Sterno

This was not "two-headed dragons" but one two-headed dragon. Each head had its own name. Kostaki mou (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest cites

User:Beyond My Ken has restored claims not supported by the cited source. For example, Don Markstein's Toonopedia does not say "the initial episode – Crusader vs. the State of Texas – aired on KNBH (now KNBC) in Los Angeles on August 1, 1949." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you should mark it with a "CN" tag, but don't delete it unless you are sure that it's false information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: That's not really the way Wikipedia works: The onus is on whoever inserts or reinserts information to WP:VERIFY it. The fact that you're knowingly making falsehoods — falsely claiming that a cited source supports the information when you know it does not is troubling. Also, the fact that you continue to remove an archival link from a cite indicates you want complete ownership of the article. I'm sorry that you've twice removed an archival link. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Tenebrae, it is the way Wikipedia works. Take a close look at WP:V, and you'll see that unsourced information is not required to be deleted, instead, it says that it may be deleted. My general stance is that deletion is only really appropriate for information that is clearly or very likely to be false, misleading, or otherwise a disservice to our readers, and I don't believe that is the case here. In fact, I think it's quite likely that the information is accurate but simply uncited, which makes a CN tag the most appropriate action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The trouble is that the information is not "unsourced". It has a source, but a false source. I've never heard of having a citation followed by a CN.

And it is not likely that the information is accurate if no source can be found for it. A Google search turned up nothing that wasn't a mirror site.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And it is WP:OWN when you refuse to allow another editor to add an archive link. What possible other rationale do you have? I've tried twice and I've brought it up on the talk page. You've effectively locked me out of the article.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've moved the Markstein references to only those pieces of information which it directly confirms, and, as suggested on the AN/I thread you started, marked the KNBC info as "citation needed." Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see you doing what you should have done in the first place rather than wholesale reverting. But you still refuse to add an archival link — what on earth can anyone possibly have against archive links? — and you still insist on having Toonopedia redundantly in both footnotes and EL. Also, you continue with false citation: The year "1952" is never mentioned in Toonopedia, which says only that production ended in 1951. No year of final distribution is given.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Then fix the fucking problems, but don't gut the article.' Jeez, how hard is that to understand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

And there's the anger you always show. There is no reason to curse at me. I never cursed at you.

I removed a net total of 1,100 characters — not 1,100 words, just 1,100 characters — so hyperbolically claiming the article was "gutted" simply demonstrates that you cannot defend your point using calm and logic, but have to resort to falsehood.

I would "fix the...problem", but you refuse to allow me to even add an archival link. I'm asking sincerely: May I have permission to add an archive link and remove the redundant EL? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, color me human, I get angry when people like you falsely accuse me of trying to harm Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm human, too. And I still didn't curse at you when you twice deliberately reinserted false citations.

I ask again: Do I have your permission to add an archive link and remove the redundant EL? Oh, and the false citation that Toonopedia says "1952." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• No, Tenebrae, you do not have my "permission", for the simple reason that no Wikipedia editor WP:OWNs any Wikipedia article, and therefore is not in the position to give another editor "permission" to edit. Now, if what you're asking is "Are we in agreement that it would be useful to add an archival citation", my answer would be "It doesn't seem to me to be necessary to do so, since the original link is working fine, but, then again, there's really no harm in adding it, so, yes we appear to have, in the Wikipedia manner of operating, achieved a WP:CONSENSUS to go ahead and add the archival link." Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, concerning the EL, please do not delete it. It is absolutely standard practice to have official ELs in both the infobox -- which is a summary of the information in the article -- and in the "External links" section, where many readers will look for it. So, in my opinion, it would be best to leave it as is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You phrasing is completely saying you give permission, reluctantly, to add an archive link. And, yes, it is permission since you twice removed it when I had the temerity to not ask your permission. And you're not giving permission to remove a redundancy that is not standard to have. So don't worry: I'm not removing a clear redundancy since you would revert that ...proving again you own the article.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? YGBSM! You two are still debating nd WP:edit warring? Add the archival links. WP:BRD WP:Own. Let's spend our time fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. You are both wasting valuable energy. But it's your life. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I fixed the problems that I saw, and haven't touched any of Tenebrae's edits since. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)