User talk:Amaury/2010/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Greetings Donald Duck - thanks for keeping an eye out on my talk page and thanks for the explanation - I was slightly puzzled 'cos when I was going to answer the message, it had disappeared. All clear now. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you to review Template:Infobox musical artist#Associated acts, as I've seen the current edit war at Justin Bieber; you've made three reverts, and a fourth revert will lead you to a block for violating WP:3RR. Please use the talk page if you insist in adding Sean Kingston instead of reverting back to your version. Thank you. — ξxplicit 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. I've only reverted on there twice. - Amaury (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I can't count, but that's beside the point. Instead of engaging in an edit war, initiating a discussion on the talk page wields better results. — ξxplicit 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Furthermore, since it's the same topic, you need to review rules on reliable sourcing about what constitutes a reliable source. A youtube video is never a reliable source for anything other than to show that the video exists. It cannot source that someone is an associated act, because a) it only captures one moment in time, and therefore does not actually support the allegation that he is an associated act (which means, more than one performance); and b) is not a verifiable source subject to standards of journalistic integrity or peer-review. While we're on the topic, you also need to review our civility policy, because your edit summary was highly uncivil. Thanks, ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I can't count, but that's beside the point. Instead of engaging in an edit war, initiating a discussion on the talk page wields better results. — ξxplicit 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I reverted your copy/paste move of this article, as it breaks the history of the article. If you want it moved, go to WP:RM.--十八 23:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. It wouldn't move for some reason. Where exactly in that article do I go? - Amaury (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that this move is completely uncontroversial, so I had to start a discussion at Talk:List of Pokémon: DP Battle Dimension episodes#Requested move. You can voice any opinions you have there if you wish, but the move will probably take a little while, considering the backlog on WP:RM is as old as June 10.--十八 23:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you review Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy of Wikipedia. It states, "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". Restoring deleted content that is clearly unsourced, as you did here, is inappropriate. As I indicated in my warning to you,[1] other Wikipedia articles can not be used as references. However, in answer to your question in this edit summary, I did indeed look at the source, and found that the air date has been challenged since May 27.[2] Without a citation, it is speculative and should not be in the article. I templated you because, even after opening the discussion at Talk: List of The Amanda Show episodes#MOS compliance, WP:CRYSTAL and original research, you're clearly not getting the point about not adding uncited, speculative original research to articles. The content that you added to The Amanda Show was removed with an appropriate edit summary indicating that it was uncited speculation[3] and it should not have been restored without including a citation from a reliable source. Somebody with over 21,000 edits should be familiar with Wikipedia policy by now and shouldn't be making such errors. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)