An IP wants to make changes by replacing what they call an original research site with their own original research. According to WP:BRD as their edits have been reverted they must take it to talk and discuss the matter. I'll leave it you mister IP. Mabuska (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now been semi-protected for a couple of days so you will be unable to edit it. In the mean time maybe you can discuss your changes rather than trying to enforce your own WP:OR over what you regard as WP:OR. Also just because you determine a site to be unreliable as it is a Wiki depends on the standards of it amongst other things. It takes more than just a simple opinion to dictate whether a source is reliable or not. Mabuska (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have no argument for your OR acqusations. I just provided you with links to the episodes where the characters either say what was put on this page, or just saying the events. And, you havent followed the link on the page, so you obviously don't know why Im saying its OR, so, stop. Its only OR if I'm interpreting what has been said, or am putting my own spin. Have you even checked any of the sources listed in the text. Nor have you gone to the wiki. You just have it in your head its OR and yet accuse me of letting my opinion dictacte the matter. Also, no debeate over OR. OR is OR, you dont debate on it. You get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.91.188 (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply citing episodes is not enough to meet WP:VERIFY and to bypass WP:OR. If you read the guideline i've pointed out to you several times you'll have read this statement in its lede: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. - citing an episode does not equate to a published source. In fact you are violating these points in that guideline as well as Wikipedia:Burden#Reliable_sources. If TFWiki is an unreliable source you have to prove it beforehand to discredit it as a source - your word alone is not enough and TFWiki was judged beforehand to be alright to use.
- Also you have failed to outline a proper arguement for your case and should have abided by WP:BRD which means discuss your controversial changes before implementing them. You have ignored it and failed to revert your changes until a discussion has been concluded so a report to AN/I will be made for your behaviour which affects more than just this article. Mabuska (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything". Im ising the show itself as a source! Im saying what is literally said or happens in the show. The show can be used as source, as stated in the guidelines. More importantly, you completely avoid my question of have you even watched the episodes where this stuff is said? I've cited it in text, I've even provided you time stamps where most of the stuff I've said in the episode is said or shown, or provided you links to the episodes where added details are provided. Yet you still havent given ONE agrument how they arent reliable. You just keep saying they are. Um, its the show. Its in text citation. Plus, get off your high horse. Investiagating me and someone else. Sheesh. What is your problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.91.188 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You used sockpuppets and the investigation concluded you are all the same person. Also please read other editors comments in full before responding. You haven't shown how you are using teritary or even secondary sources. You are using and interpreting primary sources, non-published ones at that and so are guilty of original research. The problems with your edits are exemplified by your very own edit-summary: "Rewatched the first episode. I was wrong, apparently it was the high levels of Energon, not its unrefined nature." - if that is not original research then what is? It also shows how unreliable it is.
- Also what is my problem? Your use of sockpuppets (confirmed by investigation) and your ignoring of Wikipedia policies is my problem. You have consistently failed to abide by WP:BRD, and your low-level disruptive style of editing spans far further back in your main account Odoital25.
- Just to spell if out for you as you don't seem to be bothered reading WP:BRD - you made an edit that was bold. It was reverted. Thus you must discuss it and not continually try to force it into the article. Mabuska (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
