User talk:217.132.62.222

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] re: Perappu et al

About your comment "If you spot any more original research, edit it instead of proposing deletion"

  1) It is original research that can not be improved with MORE original research.
  2) I neither know anything about the topic, nor do I care to; therefor I refuse to edit the article.
  3) You did nothing noteworthy to the article to remove the PROD tag that was there so I AFD tagged it.
  4) I believe the entire Pokemon universe could be contained in one or two articles instead of hundreds of articles filled with Fancruft.

Pokemon Articles

About what you told me concerning the deletion of Pokemon articles:

 1. When I said "edit it" I didn't mean add MORE original research but revert it to the confirmed and official information.
 2. If you neither know anything nor do you care, how can you distinguish between what's original research and what's confirmed, valid information, thus proposing the deletion of the article?
 3. Again how can you know that I hadn't done anything noteworthy when you don't know anything about the subject. The things I edited were the sole things I spotted as original research, and I happen know certain things about the subject.
 4. While you see it as hundreds of articled filled with Fancruft, all the Pokemon entries are a part of an authorized project to create coherent and informative articles about the Pokemon, so as worthy as your observation may be, it is only an opinion and you should not enforce it when many people are working hard as an organization in order to pull off this project successfully.

For information on the project see: WP:PCP

RE: Point 1+2 above -- Simple, all the articles have "Weasly words" in common. Things like "Seems", "Appears", "Likely", etc. It's painfully obvious to ANY reader that this information is gleaned from original research (my guess viewing a trailer from the movie or some-such). I DON'T KNOW what the "confirmed and official" information about any of these characters are, and based on the quality of these three articles, nobody else does either, I don't have to have intrinsic information about the "Pokemon universe" to know a bad article when I see it.Oarias 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Point 3 above -- Dude, between my PROD tag and my AFD tag you made one edit where you changed like 3 words, the article was still "weasly". as far as your comment "I know certain things about the subject". The quality of this article disputes that statement. I suspect that as far as new characters appearing in this Pokemon movie, you are just as in the dark as I am about eh... let's say... major characters that will be in The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion. Sure I'm a fan of that, names of characters have been tossed around fan sites and forums. But if someone tried to make an original research article out of those characters, I would PROD and AFD them in a heartbeat. That game hasn't been released yet..... and neither has your Pokemon movie.

RE: Point 4 above -- Geesh a Pokemon cruft "Union". Whatever... Notice I'm not not asking you to remove OBVIOUS major character articles or even minor character articles. But trying to defend articles that are based on speculation is a bit much for a web site that's supposed to be an encyclopedia. Oarias 22:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I would also add that the only time weasly words aren't used in the article is coming from looking at the pictures of the characters and "describing" them. Which is even more original research.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/7/User_talk%7E217.132.62.222.html"