Wabadoodel
Welcome edit
Hello Wabadoodel and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to We'll Meet Again, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is simply not true, i have read the guidelines and i follow them correctly, kindly stop terrorising We'll meet again. Wabadoodel (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
And I deleted your user page: it was offensive, harassment. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- fair enough, but i'd still like an explenation to as why the appearances of the song is not relevant information? Wabadoodel (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- the five pillars directly state that there are no strict rules on wikipedia. I believe it makes for a better experience for the reader to be able to see what media the songs have been in Wabadoodel (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because existence does not equal noteworthiness. That's as brief as I can put it. Imagine we start listing every TV show in which someone drinks a beer. Or every movie that has wallpaper. You need strong secondary sourcing to prove something is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. (The reader you have in mind should probably check Wikia.) Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- but the work is there. i get that when facing limited amounts of resources you have to pick and choose whats worth it to put work into. But in the end, it doesn't take away from the user experience that the stuff is there? and since the work has been done, why remove it just to be malicious? Wabadoodel (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- recently i visited the page in order to find out which piece of media i had heard the song in before and was delighted to figure out which one it was, and it brought forth nostalgic joy. Why rob the readers of this? Wabadoodel (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- for specific fandoms i get that wikias make sense, but for a large standalone topic like this, it makes no sense to argue that wikias could be used instead. Wabadoodel (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am happy with your delight, but that's a loaded question. I have a less loaded one in response: why don't you just use Google for that? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- i did, and it sent me to the wikipedia page for the song. If all websites removed their content because "you can just search for that on google" google would be useless... Wabadoodel (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- like dude i'm sorry i'm enchroaching on your turf and whatnot, but don't you think some of the guidelines you are imposing are taking away from the end user experience. I'm new to editing here but i dont get why you guys need to enforce all these conformity rules as if every single page had to look the same. In the end you are getting rid of information that could be usefull to someone? Wabadoodel (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- i did, and it sent me to the wikipedia page for the song. If all websites removed their content because "you can just search for that on google" google would be useless... Wabadoodel (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am happy with your delight, but that's a loaded question. I have a less loaded one in response: why don't you just use Google for that? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- like you are seriously making me cry, i put a lot of work and effort into those changes and you come along and ruin everything and end up making the page, a page that means a lot to me. into a husk of what it once was.. i'm not trying to attack you or anything, just trynna make you see my pov. and from where i am sitting this is bordeline bullying, something i know is against the guidlines. Wabadoodel (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- but the work is there. i get that when facing limited amounts of resources you have to pick and choose whats worth it to put work into. But in the end, it doesn't take away from the user experience that the stuff is there? and since the work has been done, why remove it just to be malicious? Wabadoodel (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because existence does not equal noteworthiness. That's as brief as I can put it. Imagine we start listing every TV show in which someone drinks a beer. Or every movie that has wallpaper. You need strong secondary sourcing to prove something is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. (The reader you have in mind should probably check Wikia.) Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022 edit
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at We'll Meet Again. Disruptive editing, edit warring, trolling, POINTy editing--see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We%27ll_Meet_Again&diff=1099120172&oldid=1099117166 Drmies (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)