User talk:Kaspazes/Archive 3

Sword

As per your request, here it is, again, [[1]]. I did put this into the note on the talk page for the Swords article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.178.97 (talk • contribs)

Hey Kaspazes, it's actually not a copyvio. That website takes articles from Wikipedia (links on the talk page explain the details. That website is actually the one with copyright infringement. There are certain policies that the person needs to follow to be able to publish Wikipedia articles. The whole copyright thing can be confusing since so many other websites simply republish Wikipedia's articles on their own website. In a situation like this it would probably be better to put the {{copyvio}} template on the page until the matter is resolved. I did that earlier on the Sword article if you want to see an example of it (look here; notice that the page is blanked except for the notice). If you have any other questions concerning copyrights or similar situations just ask. Don't be discouraged copyrights are one of the hardest parts of Wikipedia. Read of the policies when you have time and in time you'll begin to understand them.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 23:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ok. Sorry about that. I think you reverted to the wrong version. Looks like someone else fixed it right before you tried. Merry Christmas to you too. Bpogi92 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature

{{help me}} Can someone please teach me how to create a signature of my own? It would be greatly appreciated, as all of these years on WP with the same boring one gets abit on my nerves. Merry Christmas 00:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You go to your preferences and check the "raw signature" checkbox. Afterwards, you can use wiki syntax in the Signature textbox to make your own! For example, mine is -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] ^{[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]}. I hope that helped! -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bishop Luffa School

Hello, The edits I made to the Bishop Luffa page were made because the information on the article was inaccurate and the Head teacher demanded the information to be removed, the sports hall was indeed burnt down but the information on the incident is incorrect. The Head at the school believes this information should be excluded from the article. I will remove this information once again, if you have any comments or enquiries feel free to navigate to my talk page.-- JiMoThY^TALK 10:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Durning

First of all, I reverted your edits to Charles Durning ([2]), as that information is certanally verifiable, if you have any information controdicting my theory, please put it onto my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing! Kaspazes ^talk

"controdicting my theory"? I assume you mean "contradicting my theory"? What theory? Are you the same person as user:Calgarytanks, who made the edit in question? If you or Calgarytanks are going to try to discredit Durning, you need to produce the evidence. Please see WP:BLP --rogerd 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done a considerable amount of reasearch on him, and it seems to me that all of that information is certainly verifiable. The World Book Encyclopedia states the same thing, and the article paraphrases it. Unless you can show any evidence against what is stated on the page, the edit will stand. Thanks! Kaspazes ^talk 12:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then produce this "evidence". Again, see WP:BLP and WP:NOR. You have done "a considerable amount of reasearch"? Do you mean "research"? Perhaps you need to learn how to spell, first. You, and/or Calgarytanks are trying to accuse a living person about lying about his military record. That needs something more to back it up than "I have done a considerable amount of reasearch on him". See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --rogerd 13:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks

Thoes did not realy follo through but thanks anyway Wrestling Maniac 19:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sojourner Truth

Please see the history page of this article and you will see that I have been extensively editing this article. My removal of material from the cultural references section was not vandalism, and making the same change was inadvertant and was not vandalism. Let us discuss further on the talk page of the article where I have already commented. Thanks. Epousesquecido 13:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I replied to your comment (on my talk page) there, rather than here. Let's keep discussion in one place or the other (whichever you like), as I am interested in your input. I've also addressed your concerns about the article on the article's talk page. Epousesquecido 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, I plan to add additional information to improve the neutrality of the article, which was my intent from the beginning. Sorry for the confusion. Happy New Year! Epousesquecido 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Terry Stanton

Do not continue to restore unverifiable and unsourced material. older ≠ wiser 14:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no space for unsourced and unverifiable content in Wikipedia. The information must be verifiable. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it is unsourced, it is unverifiable. The burden of providing a source is on the persons contributing the information. Using {{cn}} or other such tags is entirely up to the discretion of editors. In my opinion, leaving such unverifiable information about an extremely minor individual provides no benefit whatsoever and in fact creates the potential for a the problem of such minor personalities using Wikipedia as a self-promotional vehicle (whether done directly or through surrogates). older ≠ wiser 16:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the contributor, not of any other editor, to provide verifiable sources for the content of their edits. If such sources are not provided, the content may be removed. It is not up to me or anyone else to "prove" that the information is wrong--it is up to the contributor to provide a verifiable source. While you may have your opinion with regards to what may be harmful or not, in this case, I disagree. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your tags added to Poke Ball

you made quite a few claims about the article, and for the most part i would need to disagree with you. It seems you only had an interest in tagging and removing the TOC (which is borderline vandalism due to its disruptiveness), you didn't start any discussions on the talk page detailing how you thought things were primarily in-universe (specific quotations would be appropriate), or on how the article should be split up, or what policies Poke Ball violates under WP:NOT (there is no how-to, or overly specific game information) that make it a candidate for deletion. If this is not remedied, the tags will be removed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

although i too love going tag-crazy on badly written articles, i would have to agree with (^) because the Pokeball, especially in context of all the other Pokemon articles (including FAs Torchic and Bulbasaur), is a very WP-worthy subject, having a large role across the Pokemon franchise and much information about it.

Not only that, but most of the article talks about the Pokeball in the proper context, especially the begining.

And to split this article into smaller articles would probably lead to too much specific information about every ball and every subject about Pokeballs that would be very fan-crufty. We need to keep track of all the content, and keep it all reliable, and to keep it all in one page is the best way to do that.

And the article does have a good introduction, and since there is alot of information on every variation, to have the article in somewhat of a list format is fine.

And although the article does have alot of specific information, the Pokeball is far from being "specialized information".

so sorry, i think the best course of action is to remove the templates you have added to the Pokeball article. Blueaster 16:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)