|
Tell us more about yourself This page is your user page. You are free to change it however and whenever you want. Just remember, it is your face towards the rest of the community and the world. You can always get back here by clicking on your user name at the very top of every page. |
Start editing Every one of Wikipedia's articles has been created by its readers. Click here to learn more about how quickly and easily you can help make Wikipedia better. As we say: Be bold! |
Personalize Wikipedia With your account, you can enhance your reading and editing experience by marking articles to watch as they evolve and adjusting your settings. |
About me
|
| Click here to add an image of yourself (optional). Important information for minors |
I mostly just make little edits like spelling, punctuation, or grammatical errors in articles I'm passing, but currently my only interest is Wild Kratts. I'm also at TVTropes.com, after seeing a discussion about it and deciding to check it out. I'm RigorMorticius over there as well.
Also, I'm neurotypical, so I may not understand something that was or wasn't done. You'll have to excuse me in those cases; it's simply a misunderstanding.
Immature Behavior edit
Regarding Wild Kratts, specifically Martin and Aviva, the following points were outlined on the talk page:
- There is still no definitive proof, not by what Wikipedia considers proof. WP:NOR
- It is in fact biased. Newcomers to the page are not given the chance to watch the show and form their own opinion of the pairing. WP:NPOV
- The edit uses weasel words, which is another no-no. WP:W2W
- It often uses words like "seems" or "appear" in order to -weasel- (get it?) the reader into taking the statement as fact when it is unconfirmed.
The issue is not brought up because saying that they are not in a relationship will also bias the article, so it's best not to bring it up. If you post that info, I will revert it. If you add it again, I will simply revert it. If you put it once more, I will not revert it, but simply report it. I will not let this article fall into another edit war over this puerile issue. Consensus says that the edit and it's opposite (that they are not in love) are biased, and neither is allowed, which is why neither view is supported by the article. All evidence supporting either side is Original Research and Synthesis of Information. You should just let it go, because it's not going to stay on there as long as I'm editing.
More will be added to this, as right now, it's 500 AM. RigorMorticius (talk)