User talk:75.68.162.162

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -Jeske (v^_^v) 03:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Alright...

This is in reply to the comment you left at Jeske Couriano's talk page.

I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong. In order for something to be included in Wikipedia, it must be verified by a reliable source. 4chan isn't reliable because everything is created by anonymous users. Second, anybody can create any information that they want. Just because somebody said something doesn't automatically make it notable for inclusion.

For instance, if I created some story about the San Antonio Spurs that was completely made up, it has the same reliablity as the Mudkips story. See the rule Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, especially point one: "Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable." Just because somebody one day said something doesn't mean that it is notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. Please rescind your claim against Jeske Couriano, as he is simply trying to prevent other users from violating rules. --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like them, but... I care about this why? --Ksy92003 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My rebuttal

This is now in response to your comment at Talk:Mudkip. First of all, let me just say that Jeske Couriano has nothing to do with this. He isn't against the inclusion of the Mudkip meme in the article; he is against the inclusion of the Mudkip meme in the article if and only if it doesn't have a source.

“ [ Jeske's] third claim was that the meme is not sourcable. I had already proved this wrong in detail with my previous rebuttal, which can be found above. ”

How is it sourcable? How is something posted on 4chan valid as a source? Wikipedia can't be used as a valid source for Wikipedia, as anybody can edit it. 4chan can be changed by anybody else, so it can't be used as a valid source, either.

“ If one man, [I] invent[...] something, it is frivilous, whereas, if a hundred men, or five hundred men invent something, it becomes a cultural phenomenon, sometimes reffered to as a meme. Certainly a cultural phenomenon deserves a place in an encyclopedia. ”

Only one person can invent anything. Even stuff like the iPod. It was originally one person's idea. No two people can, at the exact same moment in time, think of an idea for a new product. It's possible, but the odds are as slim as slim can be. Everything is originally one person's idea and it develops as other people hear about that idea.

“ "[I]f a hundred men, or five hundred men invent something, it becomes a cultural phenomenon." ”

500 men can't invent something; they can only be a part of the invention of one man.

“ Furthermore, Ksy92003 goes on to cite Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, where it states Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable. Unfortunately for Ksy92003, the nature of this verifiability remains a question. Anyone can go to 4chan.org and verify the meme themselves. ”

This just contradicted your opinion. In that quote, you say, "[T]he nature of this verifiability remains a question. Anyone can go to 4chan.org and verify the meme themselves." You just admitted that anybody can edit it, thus removing the validity and credibility of anything found on 4chan.

If you had been here during the release of the Pokemon games, as we were getting the Japanese names, people were changing the names because they got it from Serebii.net. We couldn't use those because Serebii.net doesn't say where they get their information from, making it questionable.

Also, if anybody can edit something, then it loses validity. The LBUSD and colleges don't allow Wikipedia to be used as a source because anybody can change it to make everything absolutely false and inaccurate. 4chan can be edited by anybody else and they can make anything up if they want to. Because of this, it isn't valid as a source.

Seriously, consider me going to 4chan to post something. If I said "The San Antonio Spurs went to a Cleveland night club and killed everybody," I obviously would've made it up, right? But if I put that on 4chan, and you know it's completely made up, would you include that in the San Antonio Spurs article?

And who is "racist" towards Mudkip? Is that even possible to be racist against a fictional character?

I think you really need to re-consider your arguments. You don't have a legitimate case here. Just accept the fact that 4chan isn't reliable nor a credible source and something written on 4chan doesn't facilitate it being included on Wikipedia. --Ksy92003 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also left you a rebuttal pointing out the loopholes in your argument at Talk:Mudkip, particularly your obvious bias. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Talk:List of Pokémon (241-260) page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -WarthogDemon 02:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Your recent edit to Postmodernism (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Postmodernism (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Postmodernism, you will be blocked from editing. Oore (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Your recent edit to Postmodernism (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ** BLOCKED **

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. soum talk 05:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


And you were so rational before. Why all of a sudden resort to vandalism? -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 05:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)