User talk:Mr Monty Marbles

A buffoons interpretation of citations

The point about somebody being "well known" or "commonly known" is that we do not need a source for it! Isn't that wonderful? That's how it works.UberCryxic 17:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed one important point my dull-witted friend, how do we know he is still commonly known by those terms? Maybe you should go take a good long look at WP:V; you see, there are these things called citations, and we kind of need them to back up claims (otherwise we'll have Original Research). Meanwhile, looking at the present here - not in the past where so many Jackson diehards live - Jackson is more commonly known as either the Fallen King of Pop, or Wacko Jacko... by your reasoning I guess I don't need a source for either of these monikers! Isn't that wonderful? Happy times for everyone! Mr Monty Marbles 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this: I'm talking about a name or a label. If it's a claim of some sort, like "widely regarded as one of the greatest entertainers," then we can go ahead and use a reliable source, although in this case we are doing so only because Jackson is a living person and we want to be as clean as possible. Some time after he dies, that source won't be needed and we can just say he's widely regarded as such without any worries.UberCryxic 19:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this retard hasn't read WP:V. All material on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source.Mr Monty Marbles 06:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babe Ruth infobox

please do not change the infobox on Babe Ruth again--Yankees10 01:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Yankees10[reply]

My apologies, it was unintentional Mr Monty Marbles 05:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]