User talk:Thelegendofvix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image:GRSSK_logo.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:GRSSK_logo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. EstoyAquí(t • c • e) 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GRSSK.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:GRSSK.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Greek (TV series). If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greek (TV series). 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. You have already violated 3RR over this section. Do not replace it again, or you will be reported and likely blocked. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I do allow my articles to be edited, tweaked, etc but if someone feels that it should be deleted should I just let them? What if every article on wikipedia was permanently removed because someone did not feel it should be there? Then wikipedia would just a blank and article-less encyclopedia (in theory). Have you warned the other users involved in this issue or just myself? What if someone made a TV show called "2=2=3" would we allow an article to say "the equation is incorrect, the true answer is 2+2=4" as a response or would we just chalk that up to some excuse as to why it should not be there? Also, I do not believe that I own anything that I put on the internet, especially on wikipedia. However, I do feel that Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When the information is not appropriate, and multiple editors have told you thi, then yes, it should be deleted. And no one is trying to delete the article (and not: they are not YOUR articles at all), they are trying to clean it up and fix it up to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I ahve not warned the others because you are the one edit warning and refusing to listen to SIX different editors say it doesn't belong. That is not appropriate. As for your question, no, we wouldn't allow the article to say that the equation is incorrect, or anything else. Unless there is a referenced discussion on the name's origins, you don't get to make a guess or "correct" the show producers. The section you continue trying to add violates multiple Wikipedia policies including WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV and it doesn't belong. Wikipedia is not the place to air your personal opinions or research, it is for verifiable, factual, and encyclopedic content.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is subject-specific common knownledge you do not have to cite it. So in your above answer to my "2+2=3" question you are wrong. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite , it tells you when you do not have to cite and my entry fits the criteria. And yes I have read all of the articles you mentioned and yes, according to those guidelines it is acceptable for the article to stay. You would find the information I posted in an encyclopedia, simply look at the page with the Greek Alphabet. Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you do. There is nothing common knowledge about it, and you are taking said "common knowledge" and re-synthesizing it to apply it to the series, which is a clear violation of WP:OR. Multiple people have already told you this, for quite a while from what I can see. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not. Can you not read the section that says "subject-specific common knownledge - Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions.'"? That pretty much sums it up right there. If anyone is familiar with the greek alphabet and sees a Σ, or event GRΣΣK, they will know that the sigma is an S. That, my friend, is not original research, which is what I have been telling them for quite some time now.Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are trying to apply it in the wrong way, violating OR and other policies. You are making your own determinations about the series name, which is inappropriate. It has not place in the article as, again, SIX editors have now told you, including editors from the TV project itself. Your refusal to accept consensus here is only going to end up with you blocked while others actually fix, expand, and clean up the article properly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to apply it the wrong way. I am pointing out something to people who are unaware of the subject-specific common knowledge, much like pointing out that the world is round to a child.Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you aren't. Multiple people agree that you are not. I suggest you accept it already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Have you even read the entry in question? Probably not. Hence why you go and accuse me of sock puppetry. Cute. Thelegendofvix (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have, and its a bunch of OR trivia that doesn't belong in the article in any way shape or form. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it is not OR trivia. It takes one look at a Greek-English dictionary to find out that I am right. Stop hiding behind the OR argument, its rather weak. Thelegendofvix (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You want to keep being stubborn and refuse to accept consensus, fine. Revert again and get blocked and we can continue to actually improve the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I notice

Hello, Thelegendofvix. 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. Yours, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Collectonian

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 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. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the page. Please do not recreate it, as it has been shown that your accusations have no merit, and indeed are simply a bad faith response to the sockpuppetry accusation against you. Further attempts to recreate the page will be construed as disruptive editing and a violation of WP:POINT. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)