User talk:TheFarix: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Super Robot distinction: new section)
(Super Robot distinction)
Line 65: Line 65:
   
 
What is the problem? You removed it under flimsy circumstances and I restored it because I thought it was accurate. A google search shows there's a correlation. I've never seen the need for a category to be sourced as you demand. My only experience is dealing with someone who picked five minutes of the show to base their categorization.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 
What is the problem? You removed it under flimsy circumstances and I restored it because I thought it was accurate. A google search shows there's a correlation. I've never seen the need for a category to be sourced as you demand. My only experience is dealing with someone who picked five minutes of the show to base their categorization.—[[User:Ryulong|<font color="blue">Ryūlóng</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryulong|<font color="Gold">琉竜</font>]]) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  +
  +
:{{U|Ryulong}}, categories have always been subject to Wikipedia's policies on [[WP:V|verifiability]], [[WP:NOR|no original research]], and [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]]. The fact that these has been lax enforcement isn't an excuse to continue to ignore the problem. If you believe that categorization should not be subject to these policies, then you are welcome to start a RfC on the matter. But simply stating that categorization is not subject to these polices, and you think they are accurate is the same type of BS we had with {{U|CensoredScribe}}. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:47, 28 August 2014

new project

I need help making a couple of potential policies, guidelines. That is currently my only interest. Would you consider being part of building them. Lucia Black (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing what they are, I can't give you a definite answer. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
An official "double jeopardy" rule. and something in similar lines to WP:NOTPUNISH but without less advice (but not an essay). i'm not comfortable talking about it in talkpages. i can go in deeper level in my sandbox talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

DON'T BLOCK PAGE !!! ><""

Don't Block Bladedance of Elementalers
I own this sources for airdate... so, unlock the page at least for me.
Source: [1]

Regards, Borrougagnou (Talk), 19:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You own the website? Sorry, but the site needs to pass WP:RS, specifically WP:SPS, and I am not seeing anything on the website, especially here that gives any indication that it is reliable. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Go to the about Page of this site About this antenna (当アンテナについて).
I'm not own this website. And the source is not unverified...ok
Here is another source unverified BUT but that does not make mistakes because this site is a Japanese TV program....
All sites that have a good source are not necessarily reference in Wikipedia.
www.tvguide.or.jp Since 1996...
I am a seeker information ;), I contribute to Wikipedia for more than 4 years.
Regards, Borrougagnou (Talk), 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If the source is not reliable, it cannot be used. And give the date the domain was registered and the about page, there is nothing there to indicate that it is a reliable source. It will serve you well to read the guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Also, the second link does not work. So there is no way I can examine it to determine that it is reliable. It doesn't matter how long you've "worked" on Wikipedia. You're edit history on English Wikipedia only goes back a few days, and it is clear that you are not familiar with the English Wikipedia's standards. —Farix (t | c) 10:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, for the second link... this page are not fonctionnal but Yesterday is fonctionnal...
but a third link: [Official Site of Tokio MX] convinced?
or a Program TV Guide of Channel Tokyo MX IN the Offcial Site of Tokyo MX: [Look at 24:30 TV Program]
I have been slow to understand wikipedia.. and the time prevented me...BUT I create the Temporary Profile in English with term in english User:Borrougagnou/(en)_Page1 I'm not a beginner, Although I am not familiar with all the English Wikipedia's standards.
French Wikipedia is more forgiving...I am determined to find evidence for English Wikipedia
Regards, Borrougagnou (Talk), 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Super Robot distinction

What is the problem? You removed it under flimsy circumstances and I restored it because I thought it was accurate. A google search shows there's a correlation. I've never seen the need for a category to be sourced as you demand. My only experience is dealing with someone who picked five minutes of the show to base their categorization.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, categories have always been subject to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The fact that these has been lax enforcement isn't an excuse to continue to ignore the problem. If you believe that categorization should not be subject to these policies, then you are welcome to start a RfC on the matter. But simply stating that categorization is not subject to these polices, and you think they are accurate is the same type of BS we had with CensoredScribe. —Farix (t | c) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)