User talk:NotAnotherAliGFan

Welcome

Hello NotAnotherAliGFan! welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Wikipedia:Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Seth MacFarlane

You just wrote to me about changing the Seth MacFarlane page??? What's warning level 2? Are you calling me a vandalist because... uhm... I figured that 1999-1973=26 and not 24? I'll appreciate your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnotherAliGFan (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane produced other cartoons, and said in interviews that FOX came to him when he was 24. Plus, the article says he was 24 when he begin producing. No, I am not calling you a vandal. Just be careful when editing pages. Cheers. miranda 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I'll soon learn how to properly respond - until then, I'm posting here... in any case, the exact quote is At twenty-four, MacFarlane was television's youngest executive producer when Family Guy first aired in January 31, 1999. Albeit English isn't my first language (therefore, "vandalist"), my conclusion looks pretty logical. Don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnotherAliGFan (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

General content dispute and not vandalism. I moved the fact where the comment made sense see this. I have deleted your vandalism warning too, since it was a content dispute. Cheers. miranda 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Stanley's Cup. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifying information

If you add something to wikipedia, you are the one who has to verify it. Give me a cite for that information and it can stay. Alastairward (talk) 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article on Stanley's Cup cites an episode guide [1] and make no outlandish claims you couldn't verify from watching the episode. You on the other hand made some claims that can only be verified by asking the show's writers. How it is that you link a rugby game in a British surrealist film with an ice hockey game in South Park is beyond me. If you're too lazy to find a cite, that's your problem not mine. I see your original research remains off the article page, I assume you have therefore accepted this judgement. Alastairward (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when you leave replies on another person's talk page you could do so like this. Instead of hitting the "new section" option at the top of the page, simply edit the section you added first and mark each new comment with a number of colons (depending on how many new answers you've added) as I have done.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I found a very nice summing up of dealing with uncited claims and original research here. Alastairward (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about proving you wrong - what you are typing is pure speculation - you have to prove yourself right before anything else is added. See WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:V for more information. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

At it again

I've reverted edits you made to Clubhouses (South Park episode) and Prehistoric Ice Man. The edits were, as I'm sure you realise, your own personal speculation. If you can add a cite sometime to back up your edits, it would be welcome. Alastairward (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've answered here. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Needless to say, what you put on my talk page is not a cite for either episode. A user edited site like TV.com is not definitive in any way shape or form. Get a cite from the producers, then you add that material again. Alastairward (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply this, I don't have time to edit everything on Wikipedia! Pointing out that I've not edited every article you think should concern me, does not prove you right. Besides which, other Wikipedia articles are not valid references. Alastairward (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way wikipedia works. As you can see from my edit history, I've been working on scrubbing original research from all the South Park episode guides. That's why I've come across your edits and removed them. Nothing personal, you've just crossed my path. Alastairward (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry - he's been warned by an administrator to knock off the moving/removing of cited cultural references. As long as we cite them with a valid source, he can't touch them. Its about time somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him. Anthony cargile (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That first bit isnt actually true, the Admin asked that I leave one specific reference alone, not that I should cease and desist all editing of so called "cultural references". In that case I disagree with their decision, but defer to an admin's right to ban or suspend an account. With reference to your second point, yes, I actually would leave the "cultural reference" alone (voluntarily!) if they were properly cited. Problem is, few of them are out of the hundreds added. As for your assertation that "somebody higher-up decided to step in and stop him", I have as much right to use and edit wikipedia as you do, no amount of bullying will have me stop. Alastairward (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Starvin' Marvin in Space

You know what I'm about to say don't you, your edit was speculation and was removed. Sorry, but you seem determined to go against the guidelines around here. Alastairward (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hi. Continuity with regards to previous episodes is not what "Cultural references" means. In addition, as Alastair pointed out above, unsourced speculation cannot be added to article, as it violates Verifiability. Please do not add such information to the article. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

About Last Night...

Hi, the cite you added was for a blog of some sort, not really a reliable source. I don't know why I have to wait for an admin to suggest action before I edit the article either. Alastairward (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Please don't take offence, I just didn't see the cite you gave as particularly reliable and as such, to be challenged. Alastairward (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Might you then explain why you think your reference was valid before adding it again. The burden of proof is on you as the editor adding it. Also, please give an edit summary instead of simply reverting edits. Alastairward (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Offensive comments on my talk page

Of course, if you feel you must stoop to abuse, then why should anyone take you seriously. Alastairward (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page. Besides, I was referring to the person you had problems with in regards to Rainforest Schmainforest and the overall feeling these kinds of actions inflict. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Abuse on my talk page and your edits

No, I don't understand your tone or intent.

You chimed in on an unrelated note. The other user, Drewmartial, was adding uncited (and really poorly spelled) speculation to WP and reverting my attempts to remove it.

You're adding a poor cite, a blog of all things and demanding it be accepted as the be all and end all of cites. I'm perfectly entitled to remove it if I see fit. Alastairward (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "poor," as just used by yourself, constitutes the very essence of original research. This only proves your double-standards. My cite has every right to stay, regardless of your personal opinion. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

About last night, cite

I removed your cite as a superior cite that actually proved what was asserted was provided. The one that you provided simply stated that the assertion (regarding the Oceans 11 parody) was true and gave nothing to back up that suggestion. Since it's been made redundant, it can be safely removed. Alastairward (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and in particular the content on sources comes into play. Can you tell us why gawker.com is a good reference? Or why we need it when a far better source has been presented? Alastairward (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on About Last Night... (South Park). It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety ^talk 19:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I'm sick and tired of him sucking all the fun out of reading South Park articles on WP. Please read this and see I'm not the only person dismayed by his compulsive behavior. I firmly believe that a valid cite is entitled to stay, whether a particular editor likes it or not. I'll appreciate a detailed response from an administrator. I apologize if I caused any inconvenience. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and User:Alastairward have been blocked for edit warring. Please understand that I am not saying that either one of you is correct, and will not make the call as to say whether or not the citation is inappropriate or not. What I will say is that, instead of edit warring, both of you need to take your "discussion" (dispute) to the articles talk page where you can sort out the issue in a civil and constructive manner that ensures the best for the article. If issues become worse, or talking with the other party fails, try dispute resolution. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since we're off our block, do you want to try that? I've tried discussing it in a civil manner with you already, would you try to care again? Alastairward (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In line with the dispute resolution suggestion above, would you care to discuss the reason behind the edit war here? I await your response. Alastairward (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB and Southparkstuff

Please explain why you believe that the websites you are using for cites are reliable.

IMDB may have admins, but it in no way displays cites for the information they display.

Similarly so, Southparkstuff is not the website for the creators of South Park, admins or not it is still run by fans. Where are their cites? Alastairward (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take Alastairward's advice and discuss your changes on the articles talk page. Failure to do so will result in another block. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 23:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ebert seemed to be referring (as did other users) to the credits and technical information. We're not discussing that, we're talking about cultural references. Alastairward (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hello, NotAnotherAliGFan. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jabba

Since this is the English language Wikipedia, a cite for the translation would be nice. And why do you need a source to say he looks like a toad, when he's already described as being slug like? Is there a limit to the articles that I can edit now? Alastairward (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In line with the advice from the admin above, please state why you feel it is necessary to have the Russian translation of the English word "toad" on the Jabba the Hut article. At the moment, the material can be removed as mere speculation (see [[WP:SYNTH}}. Alastairward (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Every piece of information has a right to stay, until read and verified. Don't you understand what WP:SYNTH means? However obvious you may think it is, you've still compare two sources and decided for yourself that one must reference the other. Find a cite that actually says that Lucas or anyone else wanted to reference the Russian for toad and the information is much more likely to stay. Alastairward (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the english language wikipedia. I have no idea what "жаба" is supposed to spell and I make no apology for asking for some sort of explanation. Is there any link, even coincidental, between that word and the english word toad?

BTW, the link in the reference just leads me to a blank translation page, which doesn't translate the word for me, I might suggest you try another translator. Alastairward (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Then look it up, it's easily verifiable - both the translation and the pronunciation. The link doesn't work because I've yet to find a way to incorporate the character "|" into the {{cite web|url=URL|title=TITLE}} tag. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's easily verifiable, then provide the cite yourself (the burden of proof is on you remember). Look at the link just above the edit summary box, it asks that we provide verifiable material. If you have information to add, then cite it. It seems that you have decided to add, on your own admission, uncited material, which makes it even more likely to be challenged and removed.

You said in an edit summary that "this is an interesting piece of information connected to the etymology of Jabba's name". This suggests strongly then that you are connecting the look of the character with the choice of name, that there is an intent, a pun here. Therefore, unless you can provide a cite that shows intent on behalf of the writers, this is merely trivia and uncited at that. You're going into synth territory now and that last edit (which is saved for posterity) proves it. More than a mere translation is now required. Alastairward (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a language - just like you don't have to cite what you see with your own eyes, I don't have to cite a language, at which I'm still pretty fluent. As for synthesis - well, I'm making a suggestion in the edit summary, but not within the article itself. I'm putting "Jabba means toad in Russian" next to "Jabba looks like a toad" without advancing any opinion. (As Russian doesn't have a [dʒ] sound, the closest you get is [ʒ].) Maybe we can stop this hair-splitting farce already? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a language. And no, it's not the language of this, the English language Wikipedia. Please provide an accurate translation if you wish to have what you wrote taken the way you want. And why did you link to that talk page? Please indicate what discussion there applies here. Suggesting a link between the translation of one word in Russian and the character name requires a leap of logic, one that you have suggested but not cited.

Saying that you've stated a reason for making an edit in the summary, then denying that was your intent won't work. Unfortunately you've left an indelible mark on Wikipedia, I hope you don't mind me quoting it in future discussions! Alastairward (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not as dumb as you may think I am - of course I see a clear connection!!! But - in no way will I ever explicitly write it in a Wikipedia article, as it would truly be my own analysis and what not. When I saw Jabba and heard his name for the first time, the relation instantly popped in my head for obvious reasons - I'm only educating the reader by providing the translation, the reader will then make their own synthesis without having to read mine (I don't think insulting the reader's intelligence is a part of what Wikipedia is about, yet you seem to love doing it, which you proved on numerous occasions). Suggesting a link between the translation of one word in Russian and the character name requires a leap of logic - the translation is the character's name! Your feeble Socratic tactics are amusing to the most. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncited material

You seem to be adding a lot of cites to articles, which is good. But then you seem to be adding a lot of uncited material and giving nonsense edit summaries, or none at all. Please discuss changes that are so clearly challenged on the talk pages for articles. An Admin has already asked you to do so. Alastairward (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Clubhouses (South Park episode). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NotAnotherAliGFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not the only person who broke this rule - check Alastairward's history please. Also, I'd appreciate if you (the admin that blocked me) contacted me first rather than just blocking one-sidedly. I await your response. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In reviewing your edits to the article, it is clear that you were edit-warring, and that the block is valid. It's clear that you disagree with the other editor, and you might have a point - but the place to assert that point is on the discussion page, and not by reverting the article repeatedly. You even acknowledge that there was discussion ongoing (here), but you failed to participate in that discussion. It is unreasonable to tell others to discuss the matter while you revert away - that's not an acceptable way to edit. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocking Admin's Comment (conflict) User:NotAnotherAliGFan, it is not impressive that your only concern here seems to be to call out someone else's behaviour. An unblocking admin needs to see evidence that you intend to change, not that that someone else needs to change also. The other user, User:Alastairward, did not violate WP:3RR, but has nevertheless received a shorter block for repeated frivolous edit warring. The time delay in blocking each of you was because I was reviewing Alastair's contributions. It might benefit you during your block to read WP:Edit warring and especially Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (along with the articles linked on the top-right template headed Negotiation). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. This user seems to challenge as many of my edits as possible, forcing me to prove him that my cites are valid and my additions deserve to be on Wikipedia. I'm not the one playing God and going around questioning anything that might not be to my own personal liking. Don't you agree that all editors are entitled to the same rights? If Alastairward feels the compulsive need to scrub my addition until I prove it's valid, I can too claim that the addition is entitled to stay until proven unsuitable. In a nutshell, "innocent until proven guilty" should apply here - sadly, it doesn't. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, that analogy is more akin to "He Started It" than "Innocent until proven guilty". Whether another editor's conduct was acceptable or not is immaterial to the fact that your conduct was unacceptable. No one forced you to do anything; if you and another editor disagree, then go to the talk page and discuss it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My conduct has always been to defend myself from stalkers that cling to any loose end of a WP rule to annul my contributions. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the other party. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If its any good, Alastairward was blocked too: User_talk:Alastairward#Block_for_revert-warring. Some admin really needs to step in and resolve this, blocking both sides of a constant multiple-editor edit war does nothing more than piss us off, and the edits in question remain a very gray area. Anthony cargile (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues

• Glad to see you two in a dialog, as you both have Wiki's best interests at heart. I won't wade in, but did find a nice cite for Janbba's age. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm off my block first, but you can still edit your talk page, I thought I'd ask for your opinion on the below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Hmm... if this is truly the case, why did you revert before obtaining consensus? Shoot first, ask questions later? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference between you and I seems to be that I do give edit summaries, discuss with reference to WP Policies and do not simply revert everything the other person edited in. Alastairward (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not "simply revert anything" - at times, I don't add edit summaries because I discuss it elsewhere. Notice though that I'm still fairly new to WP, and in my later edits there is much more summary given per edit. As I see it, the difference between me and you is that your primary concern is "would it comply with WP policies?" while mine is "would the reader find it interesting?" - I'm reminding you (again) that Wikipedia is out there for the reader. WP works for the reader, while the editor works for Wikipedia - ergo, the editor works for the reader. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a big admission on your behalf and I think it's where the problem arises. Wikipedia doesn't just work for the reader, it works in a certain way.

If you simply wish to disseminate information to readers, there are any number of blogs, wikis, fan sites for you to do so. Wikipedia works along guidelines that suggest how information should best be presented. That is how we benefit users, by providing verification of what we say instead of assuming that something is obvious.

It's something you'll have to address when editing here. Alastairward (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

...and again, you're getting me wrong. Nowhere have I stated to "diss" WP rules - on the contrary, I'm doing my best to obtain better understanding and eventually, comply. What I was saying is that I think we all should be constructive and see how we benefit the reader, which is the primary reason behind the rules in the first place. Blind obedience is never too good. The most correct way for me to edit is to "get into the reader's shoes."NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you've lost me. For a start, disseminate means to spread, as in to disseminate information, not to mock or put down. Secondly, what is this new line of retort meant to mean, you've said something similar elsewhere, that you wish to provide something from the point of view of a fan. In which case, you might be better advised to use a fan site or wiki, Wikipedia is meant for everyone to use. I can only assume you're trying to find another way to sneak in trivia and not bother citing any relevance. Alastairward (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jabba The Hut

You added a claim, backed up by a link that didn't work for me at least, that there was a Russian translation of the word Toad that came out as "жаба". I don't speak Russian, so I don't know how that is pronounced. But I'm not sure at all what relevance there is to the article. Is it a coincidence? If so, what is the relevance to the article? Is it a source for the character's name, then if so cite, the translation alone would fall under WP:SYNTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

It's not my problem you don't speak Russian - the pronunciation is indisputable. The relevance is that "incidentally, the Russian word for toad sounds exactly like Jabba's name" - apart from that, there was no suggestion made as for "source," if anything it falls under this. It is of interest to the readers and therefore, entitled to stay. You don't even read the article, so what interest do you have in editing it apart from reverting my edits? I strongly suggest reading policy exceptions, and understand that instead of adding constructive contributions, you blindly enforce policies, sometimes making little to no sense, thus harming the overall quality of articles instead of improving them. I'll find more links when I have the time. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it falls under the article you suggested. Again, where is the link or relevance? Is it a mere conincidence (in which case it's a pretty slim bit of trivia) or an inspiration for the writers of the film? Why do you think it should be added? What does it bring to the article? Alastairward (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the article (I assume) you've read:

Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia.

Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research.

Let the reader draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition.

This is exactly what I've done here. I've added the fact that Jabba's name translates to toad in Russian, next to the comparison of Jabba to a toad by Roger Ebert and the footnote to the respective cite. I'm putting this sentence back and I'll greatly appreciate you moving on. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Read what you copied from that article, "Compiling related facts". How is this translation related to the article, other than through the rather tortured logic you provided? Did the writers of the film deliberately reference the Russian translation? (By the way, the link you gave didn't work, I would suggested the Babelfish translator if you must.) Alastairward (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The translation is the name of the character, who serves as the article's subject... can't get more related than that. Did the writers of the film deliberately reference the Russian translation? I didn't imply that anywhere, I just put related facts together ("looks like a toad" and "his name translates to toad in Russian") - the fact that it was so easy for you to make the connection doesn't mean I made it in any way. This only proves how obvious the connection is, I was only putting two facts that are closely related (even as a coincidence) without stating any of my understanding of the connection between those two facts. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good, now we're getting places. So you freely admit that you see no link between the two bits of information other than coincidence. Please tell me then, what is the relevance to this article. What do we learn from this fact that you've added. Perhaps you can add some evidence of consensus to this. Alastairward (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Either your English needs serious improvement or you are straight out playing dumb. This is the exact opposite of what I claim and keep proving to you: I, personally, made no suggestion within the article as for connecting these two, but given the fact that there is a lot of connection between them, I have presented them together. The relevance is that these are facts concerning Jabba's name (again, I have only put them together, I did not state in the article that "one, therefore two." NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No incivility, I'm just asking for clarification. You entered information in the article without seeing any relevance for it, may I ask then why I shouldn't simply remove it? If you're making an uncited suggestion of a link between the two (whether you say so explicitly or not) then that would seem to go against WP:SYNTH. If you're suggesting it's a coincidence of some sort, it would seem to be a bit of trivia, that can be removed.

As the burden of proof is on you, the editor adding the material, please can you provide a proper cite (the translation through Google doesn't seem to work) and some consensus for this addition. Otherwise, I see reason for removing it. Alastairward (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Kenny's Death

I don't see how it merits it's own section in an article. If Kenny's death is a running gag, mention it on the character's page. As it is, the deaths are just another part of the plot and so as deserving of as much detail as the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Again, you miserably fail to understand the idea behind the primary purpose of a SP article being presented here: for people who saw the episode, but want to obtain better understanding of its various nuances. It's highly unusual that the same character would die in every episode and come back in the next one like nothing happened. It's that small part that recurs one time after another in numerous variations - just like the chalkboard/couch gags in The Simpsons, the Stoopid Monkey's antics in Robot Chicken or the newspaper headline in American Dad!, what makes the subject itself of greater interest to the fans (in other words, the actual readers of the article). Therefore, it's only natural to create a separate section. Moreover - I currently fail to remember the name of the template, but it reads something like "Please focus on discussing the article rather than merely reiterating the plot." To me, this means that some trivia, which are relevant to the episode, along with outstanding recurring gags/catchphrases, belong in the article - again, to make it interesting for the reader. You seem to have forgotten that Wikipedia is there for the reader, not for the editor. Policies are great, but merely adhering to those policies without fully understanding them is plain wrong. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, first of all, remember to be civil. Secondly, stating the circumstances of his death is just reiterating the plot, twice in one article. That Kenny dies a lot, is trivia, mention that in the character article, which is linked to in the episode articles. Why do we need character articles or general articles if you're going to repeat all that information again in each episode article?

How am I being not civil here (miserably fail to understand=don't understand, no pejorative was aimed at you)? One of the questions that arise when discussing a SP episode from the first few seasons is "hey, how did Kenny die in this one?" and here is where the fans come to look for answers. It's important to the reader - I shouldn't repeat myself but you're leaving me no choice as you seem utterly oblivious to a very large portion of my explanations. The article makes much more sense that way - surely you cannot enter all of Kenny's deaths on the character's page! It's particular to each episode, it's an outstanding moment in each episode (again, read my previous answer) and therefore, it deserves a section of its own. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"One of the questions that arise when discussing a SP episode from the first few seasons is "hey, how did Kenny die in this one?" and here is where the fans come to look for answers." That's a big assumption (a little bit of OR if you will). Nowhere is that suggested in the article, and I don't see how discussions amongst fans of this sort would affect Wikipedia policy. Reiterating the materials twice in the same article is redundant, what else would it be? Alastairward (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Southparkstudios is a great source for cites, I added quite a few from that site myself. It's great because it's the creation of the show's creators and they add input to the FAQ regularly. I've not figured out the tags for videos yet, one or two misspellings made me think they were fan added. But for the moment I guess they're ok too.
However, something like ccinsider or gawker seem doubtful. The fact that ccinsider asks for tips from anyone made me suspicious, they both seemed to fall under the umbrella of self published sources. If you trust it enough to use it when citing, you surely must be ok with telling us why.
IMDB as well, even if (as of this week) they have a system of verification in place, they don't tell us who or where they check their plot synopsis against or which ones have been checked and which haven't. It all seems too unreliable.
The thing about wikipedia is that it offers verifiability over "fact", which the above would, IMO take away from. Alastairward (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

CCInsider is a part of Comedy Central's main website. As the owners (at least at some point) of the South Park franchise, I wouldn't even dare question them (asking for tips doesn't mean they take anyone's information). As for Gawker - well, it might be somewhat arguable, but reliable nonetheless, as at least one other editor pointed out. As for IMDb (for some reason, you keep capitalizing the "b" - another indication of how little you visit and know the actual site) - this is the largest movie/TV online database known today. Just Google any movie/series and see what comes up first (second in the worst case). Given that, I trust them when they claim that their information is sourced. In a nutshell: all three sources are good.

You act like the priest in the egg coloring episode (you should know which one, right?) - willing to kill the Pope and Jesus because they "got soft on you." Just acknowledge that your personal comprehension is for itself "original research" and try thinking how to actually benefit the community. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why google rank is a reason to include the information given in Wikipedia, I don't see how that logic works. It just means as I understand it, that the site is linked to a lot. Are we to believe that a correct spelling of the acronym for the site is all that qualifies its use?

Why would you not dare question the Comedy Central sources? The South Park article merely mentions that CC distributes and airs South Park, not that they own it. Why do they need tips and contributors if they "own" the show?

And none of this explains or demonstrates the reliability of these sites. Alastairward (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Google is the largest online search engine/advertising vehicle today. Their rankings are scrupulously checked by the best in the business; had anything slipped their attention, it would have been remedied within a very short period of time. I have been reaching the same results over the past few years: each movie/TV series brings up IMDb as the first link. If IMDb were even slightly unreliable, it could not survive this long. I tend to trust those who have proved themselves as the greatest in the internet business over... how shall I put it... you :-) By the way, I made my own contributions there several years ago; it took them several weeks to get approved and only about half of them went through, which clearly shows that IMDb's fact checking process is long and there is certain filtering. I think it's only respectable to have good faith in what they're doing.

Now for Comedy Central. Quoting from the South Park studios site, Comedy Central, South Park and all related titles, logos and characters are trademarks of Comedy Partners. They are all under the same umbrella, which makes them closely linked; therefore, if one is reliable, they all are. As for Gawker, given that they are one of the most successful blog networks and have a defined team of writers and editors, we can consider them reliable enough - again, nonsense would not have survived that long unless Gawker were a publicly self-proclaimed tabloid (which they are not). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And what of Google rankings? So they're used to show how popular a site is, again what of it? How does that prove that something is reliable? There's a related policy here; WP:DEMOCRACY. Wikipedia is not run by weight of numbers, but by discussion. Google rankings are not related to reliability of information.

And what of trademarks. Again I ask, what does that mean for article verifiability. There's a big step in logic saying that South Park is a trademark of Comedy Partners, to saying that an unsourced opinion on one of their other websites is fact.

In no way have you proved that any assertation on one of these websites that you used is verifiable. If we can't see where they get their information from, why should we trust it? Alastairward (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ungroundable

In response to your comment [2], please read WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It is your analysis that "Butters' possible homosexuality is hinted at" - complete specualation on your part as to what constitutes a "hint" of homosexuality. And I would argue that this episode is a clear validation of his non-homosexuality - he throws up after giving Cartman a hickey. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Southparkstudios.com video tags

In answer to your query on my talk page, I only ever suggested that the FAQs on southparkstudios.com seem to be provided for by the show's writers. I thought at first that the tags might be useful, but then I saw a few spelling mistakes and wondered. Perhaps you might prove your assertation that they're added by the writers? Alastairward (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Any further comment? I have raised this on the reliable sources board but you didn't seem to give much in the way of analysis. Alastairward (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Episode continuity

Episode continuity is trivia, not a cultural reference. Character history available at character page. If you are stating something with the cited intent of the writers, it would seem to fall under WP:SYNTH. Alastairward (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, in other words what RedPen said above! Alastairward (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of evidence

I would finally add, for the moment that is, that as someone adding material to Wikipedia that has been challenged, it is up to you to give adequate reason for it to stay. Give reasons, discuss, build consensus i.e. prove it! Alastairward (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:The Ungroundable

As you will see from that policy page, the [initial] burden of evidence is expected to fall on the person introducing new material. Wikipedia's community is becoming less tolerant of unverified assertions, as each one of these statistically adds extra risk to our credibility. It appears one of your fights is involving this addition. You might want to consult WP:TRIVIA also. Although the community tends to look down on trivia section, the information you are introducing is not necessary looked down upon. Just needs to be introduced in another way. The specific point about how many times a character's homosexuality is hinted at ... it is a minor violation of WP:OR, because that policy includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas, which would cover this assertion. Though understandably you realise that counting is not really up there with, say, the kind of thing that goes on at Denial of the Holodomor. You really can't find an outside source that verifies this assertion? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already changed "hinted at" to "called by another character" - this is pure fact stating. As for WP:TRIVIA - it falls under the exceptions, as it's important to the episode and the characters. Stating events derived from watching the episodes do not need further sources, as the episodes themselves are more than plenty. I fail to understand the connection to Denial of the Holodomor - nevertheless, it looks like you are hitting the point that South Park articles' verifiability is not on stake as so many others that bear much more encyclopedic importance. I'll try and look for outside sources, but again - I've only been stating facts that can be proven by simply watching the show, putting them together is OK. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the WP:NOTOR policy as you interpret it, is that you think it means you add anything that is stated on screen. That leads to plot repetition, unless you can state why it is important to see this information, in which case you draw near to OR or plain trivia. Alastairward (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Me, Myself & Irene

Please don't retag this article with the generic {{stub}} template - it has been re-sorted to a more specific stub type ({{Comedy-film-stub}}). I didn't remove the template, as you imply - I replaced it with a more appropriate one (and in the right place, at the bottom of the article). Grutness...wha? 22:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this tag is for people to notice it and contribute to the article - as a footnote it makes less sense. I'm not removing your tag, but merely adding another for the reason listed above. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't. Please read WP:STUB, which explains why stub tags are placed where they are. If you simply add an extra tag like that, it will simply be removed, and cause more work for us stub-sorters. Grutness...wha? 22:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks

Regarding your comments on User:NotAnotherAliGFan: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Grsz¹¹ 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Ungroundable. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz¹¹ 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Valcanite Anal Douche.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Valcanite Anal Douche.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Personal interpretations and biased presentation of sourced material"

Just like the accusation of "Article Manipulation and Editing Control", I have no idea what that means. Alastairward (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Check this article out before telling other people that your new edits must stay pending your approval of change via the edit summary. You made a bold change, I reverted, now we can discuss.

You might have noticed that I didn't say that what you added couldn't stay full stop, merely that you had added it to an inappropriate section.

Two other points as ever, be civil (no personal attacks on someone's perceived ethnic background) and remember the burden of proof on the editor adding material to wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Crapton.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Crapton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crapton.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity

Can you name a few South Park articles with uncited cultural references that keep getting removed? I've cited the Jefferson's article using imdb (a reliable source), so if it gets removed again be sure to report it to an administrator. Whenever I have the time, I'd like to go through and cite the uncited CR that are so constantly removed, so please point any out to me so I can dig up the cites and get them posted again.

Thank you, and please reply on my talk page. An administrator has warned both me and Alastairward to not talk to each other, so please don't get him involved in this. I'd hate to see him get blocked again. Another-anomaly (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pandemic

"The rape comment seems pretty much out of the blue without pointing out the episode continuity from The China Probrem." Which is why I removed the rape comment altogether. It's not like I removed the continuity but left in the comment. I removed all of it. Your comment implies that one was left in and the other removed, which is obviously not the case, which you can see if you look closely at the edit. Its removal was not "aggressive" nor without discussion. It had been removed countless times before when people kept trying to reinsert it, ever since the night that episode premiered. I will explain it one more time: A synopsis is a summarization of a story's most salient points. It is not a blow-by-blow account, and does not need to highlight specific gags, one liners, or bits of continuity trivia. Whether it's mentioned on the FAQ page (though for some reason that was not the page I was directed to when I first tried that url) does not change this. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not the job of the article to explain every reference or gag to viewers when they watch the episode. This is an encyclopedia, not a viewing guide or viewing companion, and it is not the role of a synopsis to mention such things, it's to summarize the plot. As such, that level of detail may fall under WP:Fancruft and WP:Trivia, as it is not noteworthy. If you insist on this, then we can get a Third Opinion, or have a consensus discussion. Nightscream (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

NotAnotherAliGFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This seems rather one sided, doesn't it? What about the other party (check Alastairward's edit history for Feb. 12)? Will I ever get the answer as for certain users owning Wikipedia articles? I thought it was forbidden as well... In any case, I apologize for violating 3RR again but I would really like some positive input from you regarding this matter, as I truly feel my rights as a WP editor are being constantly violated. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What others did does not matter in unblock requests. This is about your conduct.  Sandstein  12:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. I'm sorry to hear you were blocked, but once it expires, can you please share your thoughts on the Pandemic Talk Page? I solicited a Third Opinion, and continued a discussion on it here. Nightscream (talk) Thanks. 23:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I note the concerns above about my editing history. This is unrelated to the 3RR blocking, if you feel I have tried to "own" an article or have violated your "rights", an edit war is not the right way to discuss this. Do so in the wikiquette page or alert an admin. But of course you have done so before, and nothing was found to back your claims. Perhaps you might try discussing all this with the editors whose work you revert. Alastairward (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the very essence of my claim: I don't revert, I add and get reverted! Why don't you (or the other editors) try discussing all this with me, whose work you're reverting? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Because our reversions are a direct fulfillment of WP policy and proper writing standards. But in any event, when there is a conflict where interpretation of policy is being disputed, the proper thing is to discuss it, and you'll notice that as of this writing, the current version of the article still contains the material you favor. There's already been a Third Opinion on this on that article's Talk Page, but if you really want to argue your point of view about writing synopses, then please join that discussion to respond directly to our points. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Red hair

Hi, you've added a sentence about modern hebrew slang, but the meaning or significance of the sentence is unclear. Can you elaborate or clarify please? --HighKing (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've answered on the relevant talk page. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional South Park species

You linked a character with a WP topic and insist on it staying, despite not giving a reference or policy. Would you mind doing so? Alastairward (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've linked twice to the appropriate policy, stop playing dumb. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You linked to nothing and suggested it might be common sense. Be specific, or else you're just going round in circles. Alastairward (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is correct - WP:Common Sense, is it or is it not a policy? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you've deigned to quote a policy, be specific and say what part of it applies here. Alastairward (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and threats

I see you have now escalated to threats on my talk page now, care to explain? Alastairward (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats? God forbid! I was only referring to your level of luck, as well as the indisputable fact that as soon as you've logged in today, you started by reverting my edits on pages that you previously didn't even know existed! Geez, and I'm being accused here... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So, no explanation for the threats you have made? Alastairward (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Alastairward: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Saying, "you're lucky this is the cyber world, you miserable stalker." is indeed a threat, and is indeed a breach of WP:Civility. If you read Alastairward's Talk Page, you'll see that I already told him that there was an ongoing discussion, and speculated that he was not aware of this, which he confirmed on the article's Talk Page. The comment you left was not needed, and continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please discuss having a consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Do not revert, and do not attack other editors. Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on Fantastic Easter Special: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Diff I provided just above pretty much shows what I'm talking about. Saying, "Get some glasses please" is not civil. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm human after all and usually have little patience for mind games. Can't you read between the lines?

Oh, and another thing: "If you read Alastairward's Talk Page, you'll see that I already told him that there was an ongoing discussion, and speculated that he was not aware of this, which he confirmed on the article's Talk Page." Yeah, he sure likes playing dumb... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alastairward

Isn't he a moron? Ruining South Park articles.--68.79.120.124 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is as observed on screen, the rest needs citation. Stijndon (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits to my userspace

This one is pretty ridiculous, I have reverted edits you made to my userspace simply because it is my userspace. See exceptions to the 3RR rule, I can revert as many times as I like on my own pages. Alastairward (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hello, NotAnotherAliGFan. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alastairward (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

AliGFan, I noticed this edit, in which you stated "Yes there was, our opinions are equal (none is superior over the other, right?) so it stays (with the added trivia tag)". The issue is not whether your opinions are "equal" or whether one is "superior" to another. The issue is Consensus. The consensus discussion on that episode's Talk Page, which is composed of many opinions, not just one, determined that that information not remain in the article. Reverting against consensus is considered disruptive editing, so please do not revert it. Nightscream (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

solicited advice

Thanks for the cookie. I would advise giving out barnstars in the future, they are more coveted, and appreciated, and they cost you nothing.

The best advice I can give you:

Activate your email, not to necessarily talk to me, but to talk to everyone on wikipedia. Instead of speaking your mind here, when you get angry, you can do it off wiki, to people who are sympathetic, with no future repercussions. Remember that every edit can be used against you in the future. Edit wisely. that is why you need email, to vent offline.

Ikip (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks for the advice, but I think the e-mail thing can be easily abused, can't it?

It is your funeral.

I have had email for four years. As long as I am careful with who I e-mail, it is not a problem. I have been phished several times, but again, as long as I don't respond, no one gets my email or IP address.

I have had phish sign me up for junk mail, but that is the extend of the abuse. There is no junk mail coming from wikipedia. A lot of people use special email accounts only for wikipedia. If you notice almost all veteran editors have email. It is an incredibly effective tool. This is a public forum, and I have a lot of nasty editors here who would like nothing more than to ban me forever, so this is all I am going to say about this. Again, it is your funeral.

I removed your comments on my talk page, you are welcome to continue the discussion here, or start a new section there. I added the cookie to my awards page, thanks again. Ikip (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My funeral? Please elaborate... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not on wiki. Sorry. Good luck. Ikip (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reprisal Attacks

You need to provide a source linking humanitarian aid to the reprisal attacks, the article is about something in specific. The article on the conflict is 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict. This article is about reprisal attacks by Hamas, not whatever you think Hamas did wrong. Nableezy (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Elementary, Dr. Watson: this falls under the same category, albeit indirectly. An attack can be carried in a number of ways; one of those ways is to harm Palestinian civilians by depriving them from any humanitarian aid in order to have a very convenient excuse to point at Israel as the aggressor. You know it very well, do you really think you can undo history by sweeping traces? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That isnt a reprisal attack unless a source says it is. You cant just use your own thinking as justification for text in articles, doesnt work like that. if you want that section in the article bring a source that connects the topics, dont just use you own WP:OR to WP:SYNTH together separate topics. Nableezy (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly reminder, though you should know your next revert will push you to 4, and with your block log it would be a decent block if you were to be reported. Thanks again though, but think about addressing this issues with your edit instead of trying to force them through. Nableezy (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to... but you reverted based on your own opinion that the subjects are unrelated. By the way, I've already filed the report while I warned you... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to bring a source that connects them, and you should have provided a link to the noticeboard in the warning you put on my page. Nableezy (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Red hair

Please respond to the questions on the talk page. Do not add your edit back into the article until consensus has been reached there. It would also very much help if you would read Wikipedia policy on original synthesis. It appears that this policy has been pointed out to you a number of times before, but you still aren't following what constitutes original synthesis.

Your addition appears to make a connection between a number of words (in what way is still unclear, see talk page). So a simple definition for one word is not a sufficient cite unless the connection is there also. The cite you are providing is also to a Hebrew (I presume) page that can't be followed by those who don't read Hebrew, and, apparently, links to a dictionary definition of one of the words. Which word, your edit doesn't make clear. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 Hamas reprisal attacks

I've blocked you for 12h for edit warring at 2009 Hamas reprisal attacks William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if stating that stealing food and blankets from needy civilians is wrong constitutes a POV... we're in much larger trouble here. As I told Nableezy, you cannot undo history by sweeping traces.

By the way, what I was doing was merely reinserting the paragraph that stated documented facts, you are most welcome to check relevant diffs. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Towelie

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Towelie. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Got cite? Alastairward (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see any WP guideline that requires me to cite what's heard in the episode itself. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, please stop. AliG, it is not appropriate to put your arguments to other editors in invisible text in the article. State your arguments on a Talk Page, and if necessary, solicit participation by other editors for a consensus discussion. And Alastair, I do not see any "threats" to other editors, as you indicated here. Please work through your conflicts in a civil manner, or take a step back and cool down before continuing editing. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bono and South Park

Having looked at previous discussions of this issue on the article's Talk page it appears that there is no clear consensus to include this reference. Hence I have reverted your edit, since it seems that another editor feels it should not be included. On proving it's "not trivia", that, I'm afraid, is incorrect. Policy states clearly that the onus to justify inclusion of content is on the editor seeking to add it. So the ball is now in your court, and I invite you to discuss this matter on Talk:Bono. I see from above that you are already aware of WP:BRD- so "D", please. Rodhullandemu 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Trapper Keeper (South Park)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Trapper Keeper (South Park). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapper Keeper (South Park). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)