User talk:Foal Breeze

Bon Appétit (song) and IDGAF (Dua Lipa song)

If such "blatant" oral sex references are the kind of thing you're going to complain about in edit summaries and then decry the absence of as being an indication of Wikipedia's apparent self-censorship (despite the fact it's very much WP:NOTCENSORED), then you should start sourcing all content you add to Wikipedia, including inserting material you find obvious. Not only was your oral sex claim unsourced until your insertion of the Spin source (and accompanying retort), but also, in case you missed it, the user Another Believer marked the claim of its number of YouTube views as unsourced after you updated it. It appears this isn't your first instance of dubious unsourced contributions—in case nobody told you, that is not encyclopedic, it's WP:OR commentary garbage where you think you've hit upon something else nobody else has considered. If you try to restore crap like this again, I suppose you'll find yourself being sanctioned by other editors in not too short a time. Stick to what sources say. Ss112 20:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite curious that you have taken my criticism about an article so personally. Notice how the number of YouTube views has been listed there for several months. And only after I update it does an editor see fit to mark it as unsourced? And for you to point out to me that this was done.

I don't know what your & AB's motivations are, but I am here editing Wikipedia with the effort toward helping to make this site the best encyclopedia available.

An editor who shared that goal, instead of taking their time to tell me that oral sex was unreferrenced, could have easily found the reference that I did in less than one minute. An article that was already in the article.

And another key point...

Why come here to my Talk page to discuss issues of effort toward improving an article? It is clear to me that the most beneficial place to have such a discussion is in the Talk page of the article(s) in question.

The exception to that would be when it is the editor themself who is identified as the most significant aspect in need of improvement. And I had already pointed out that this appears to be your position, which you denied. Yet you still came here to post this.

Ideally, Wikipedia would be a place where everyone could work together toward a common goal. In my view, it is not all that difficult to focus these efforts toward incrementally improving articles, instead of these HUGE amounts of energy spent on personal attacks.

Final comment here: Applying simple logic does not constitute OR. Simple logic does not require a reference either.--Foal Breeze (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because this applies to more than one article, and is about an editor (you) inserting their unsourced ideas around the place. You'll find this is not the sort of content (your commentary on IDGAF (Dua Lipa song)) editors are going to find encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. This is like an editor going to Love Yourself and saying "Justin Bieber talks about not caring anymore but it's clear he does!" This isn't a viral blog post. You also need to read WP:BURDEN. It's not up to other editors to source material you add. They can, but it's on you to do it in the first place. Wikipedia being a collaborative encyclopedia does not mean this idea you seem to have of "I'll just leave this here, somebody will come along and source it". Ss112 20:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing two very separate issues on two separate articles.

It has already been pointed out to you that the issue over at Bon hardly had to do with lack of verifiability. It had to do with you choosing not to look inside references that were already listed in the article, yet for some reason decided that your energy was better spent by attacking me. And then coming here to continue that effort.--Foal Breeze (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So much for your first reply being your final comment here. Oh sure, it's always "attacking" somebody when the person claiming so doesn't realise they're doing something wrong. Well, you'll be reverted later by somebody else. Keep reverting past that and you may be facing a block. Have fun with that. I'm done with your inability to recognise what is encyclopedic and what is not. Ss112 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was my final comment in that one reply. You and I clearly have a major disconnect on what constitutes sound logic.--Foal Breeze (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and Wikipedia clearly have a major disconnect if this is the kind of BS that is going to stay or be put up with for very long around here. Also, you said "final comment here", which can be taken a multitude of ways, including the way I took it. Perhaps you should be a bit more specific with what you mean. Ss112 21:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to IDGAF (Dua Lipa song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Ss112 20:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that you come here to my Talk page highlighting an issue that requires discipline, and here you are creating two sections that cover the same issue.

I will reiterate my position that the most useful place to discuss an article is at the Talk page for that article.--Foal Breeze (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]