Anonymous 57

September 2006

Thank you for experimenting with the page Esthero on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• You, along with everyone else who uses "popups," need to learn how to read the edit before jumping on the revert button. I fail to understand how else a sourced factual correction such as this could be mistaken for vandalism. Yet it happened twice. For goodness sake. Anonymous 57 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The changes you made Esthero are really not suitable for an encyclopedia. If you want to correct or clarify the pronounciation, then please do it in a more formal way. The use of the first person is never appropriate in Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert it right now, since I do beleive you're attempting to improve Wikipedia. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Where did I use the first person? If you're referring to the text inside the quotation... well, God help this "encyclopedia." Anonymous 57 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm refering to. "but i'll settle for es STAIR o....you kinda gotta pronounce the 'th'....i friggin hate ES thero." Is that a quote from the artist? As it stands, it looks like it's a comment about your opinion that'd being put in, and that's why it looks like vandalism to the rest of us. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yeah, it's a quote from the artist, which I thought would be obvious from the use of quotation marks and the source in parentheses directly following, standard procedure for quotes. I should know by now, though, that Wikipedia prides itself on its hostility to infrequent contributors such as myself. Shame on me for forgetting. Anonymous 57 04:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There are style guides to writing in the formal tone that Wikipedia editors want. In this case, you'll probably want this one on pronunciation guides. As for the citation, I don't think parenthesis and quote marks alone qualify it as a reliable published source. Find something on the person's website or an interview or something. Random emails just can't be fact-checked. -- Shadowlynk 04:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Seeing as how the incorrect original pronunciation is just as unsourced (even more unsourced, frankly, than this email quote), I don't see that your reversion is warranted. Anonymous 57 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you HAD to source it (though if the pronunciation of this person's name is this controversial, maybe it should be), I just said that if you do intend to source something you should make sure it's a reliable one that's cited properly, which unfortunately "(e-mail)" isn't. Nor is just the allegation of a Wikipedia editor, thanks to "no original research". I won't touch the article any more, as this is hardly an area of my expertise, but others will probably try to clean it up to meet standards. -- Shadowlynk 04:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not controversial at all, except that people with "popups" (some sort of bot, I'm assuming) kept re-inserting the false material, presumably in the name of the War on Vandalism. If you questioned the reliability of the correction, try considering the reliability of the original version (in this case: inferior to the correction) before you revert to it. Sheesh. Anonymous 57 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All popups is is a little bit of code you put in your userspace that gives shortcut links in a tooltip-like pop up window. Not much bot to it, just saves a couple clicks. We DO still read the edits, and as Bethling mentioned, the phrasing and the lack of a proper citation made it look like you were just adding personal commentary. And we are considering the reliability of BOTH versions, right here and now: if we were certain that the original version was correct, we'd just keep reverting your edits. However, we're not sure, and that's why we're trying to talk to you to help you make your edit look good. -- Shadowlynk 05:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, who's "we"? That's really creeping me out. Anonymous 57 05:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Bethling. She started this conversation. :) -- Shadowlynk 05:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Did you not notice in the References section at the bottom of the page that every section of the article not only has notes but references that back up the section. The page has gone through Featured article status, and is referenced. -- Jeff3000 20:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Under wikipedia guidelines, not every statement needs a ref tag. Your behaviour is disruptive. -- Jeff3000 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course some statements are referenced, but there are still many, many assertions that have absolutely nothing at all to back them up. Every single statement must meet WP:V and WP:NOR. Please show me where it says otherwise. Anonymous 57 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And they are, look at the References section at the bottom of the page. The books are there. Also check the archives, it goes though the act of every section being referenced. -- Jeff3000 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the archive Talk:Canada/Archive 7#References. -- Jeff3000 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then use the appropriate <ref name="..." /> tags to mark these statements as referenced, if you know which source corresponds to which statement. Anything less is profoundly unhelpful. Anonymous 57 20:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to cite a source that says Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskachewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island are provinces of Canada? This goes beyond common sense into a ridiculously literal reading of a guideline. Sorry, such strong words are required to be used in this situation. Not every obvious fact needs a citation. Please read WP:UCS. --physicq210 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to tag everything you feel is improperly referenced with an (unref) tag. This behavior is far more disruptive than helpful, as several of the articles you are thus tagging are featured articles, so they have proven themselves reasonably well referenced already. Tagging entire sections is likely at best to be met with disapproval if not resistance from most seasoned editors. What I suggest you do instead is concentrate on a single article at a time, and for each section, indicate where you feel a citation is needed. And no, not every statement need to be backed up by a reference (just look into any other encyclopedia and you will see this is true). Referencing every sentence would just make the articles plainly unreadable.--Ramdrake 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense. Canada has about a hundred references already, needlessly adding references makes for an ungly page. Adding refneeded on uncontroversed matteres is highly disrupted. Citing wikipedia policies doesn't really make a point here. You are just wasting editors time. Please stop. --Qyd 21:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when was "adding references makes for an ungly [sic] page" a valid reason to allow unverified, unsourced, unreferenced content into Wikipedia? You really ought to rethink that statement. Anonymous 57 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when is the fact that Canada is made up of thirteen administrative divisions unverified, unsourced, unreferenced information???--Ramdrake 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh. Ever since it was inserted in the article without being verified, sourced, or referenced. Don't be dense. Anonymous 57 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Duh, I am a Canadian, and I don't have to source this to know it's true. Is Australia citing a ref as to the list of its states and territories? is United States. This basic information in its field and as such doesn't need to be referenced.--Ramdrake 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Is that right? Then instead of reverting my requests for citations in Canada, how about adding citation-needed tags to Australia and United States as well? Just because it's "common practice" doesn't make it right. Anonymous 57 22:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then carry on with your merry crusade. However, please be aware of these: [1] and [2]

Please also review WP:POINT. It seems that you have been plastering ref tags and or tags all over everything to make a point, rather than to improve Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, what point would that be? I guess you're disagreeing that asking for references and citations helps to improve the encyclopedia, but why? Anonymous 57 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have been applying these tags so aggressively that your behaviour lead to more experieinced editors complaining about your behaviour and blocking you temporarily. You should take that as an indication that your behaviour has been inappropriate on Wikipedia. I encourage you to use these tags judiciously, i.e., where they are most needed, and not question things like what the provinces of Canada are. This is something that you could easily verify and reference yourself if you think it is necessary, rather than trying to get other people to do it. This would demostrate that your aim is to improve Wikipedia, rather than trying to be disruptive. Ground Zero | t 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I blocked you for three hours for violating the WP:3RR rule in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Er, what...? Is that why I suddenly can't edit? Anonymous 57 23:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• I was adding citation-needed tags to an article that needs citations. This hardly counts as vandalism. But hell, it sure is typical of Wikipedia to block me for trying to improve an article, from what I've seen. Anonymous 57 23:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  The citation-needed stuff is really things that would require reading several other articles on the subject. For example, the song thing, that can be done by reading another article (that I do not know right now), as are some of the other things that are sorta implied through the text. Ryūlóng 02:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)