User talk:O2dreams

November 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Squeakachu (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The research is flawed and someone keeps deleting my retort. The research IS the cite. If you bother to read it, then you will understand. I will add my comment back (ad infinitum) until you leave it, or delete the entire section citing that garbage research. O2dreams (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, you may be blocked from editing.

The research is flawed

According to what reliable source?

someone keeps deleting my retort

Because your retort doesn't belong in the article. If you want to include criticism of that source then you need a separate source to supply that criticism. It's not appropriate to add your personal opinion or analysis of a source. That's original research. Please do not restore your comments. Also, please read WP:NPA. "Moron" isn't terribly extreme as far as personal attacks go, but it's still inappropriate. Squeakachu (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine then, I will delete the section based upon unreliable (i.e. flawed) and outdated citation. It is NOT research, it is an opinion (of which you say that it is "not appropriate to add your personal opinion").

As far as your question regarding my "reliable source" for the "research is flawed", THEIR paper is my reliable source. I'm happy to poke holes in it for you, if you like. But it does not reach the level needed to be a "research paper". It is no more than a glorified blog post based upon someone's biased opinion where they cherry-picked tiny pieces of information to back up their pseudo position. Anyone who knows what proper research looks like should be able to see that. O2dreams (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Greyjoy ^talk 13:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have cited very valid reasons, and nobody has disputed them (not with facts, anyway). Just because "there was a cited source" does NOT mean it is beyond reproach. Otherwise, we should put it back into wiki that the Earth is, indeed, flat because there were published sources saying so centuries ago. At the very least, you can mention that the research that indicated such was created "XX" years ago and is no longer the case.

Please, tell me, what info would you like me to expound upon, or are you simply going to say that I'm wrong because I don't have a source? O2dreams (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

Hello O2dreams, I wanted to briefly discuss your edits on this article and why they are being reverted. The reasons given in your edit summaries for the removal of large parts of the criticism section appear to be that in your opinion the source (The Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture) is "outdated and inappropriate. It is merely opinion, not fact" and "reference material is no longer clickable, therefore there is no source for the outdated and false claims".

It doesn't appear that The Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture has been brought up for discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard so there is not currently a consensus on if it is a reliable source, however it does appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable peer-reviewed journal.

Wikipedia does not require a journal reference to have a clickable url link, the fact that the "reference material is no longer clickable" does not invalidate it as a reference.

Your concerns with the article can best be addressed by initiating a discussion on the article's talk page as this will allow more editors to discuss your suggested changes. Repeatedly attempting to just change it to how you want it, despite being reverted by multiple editors will most likely just result in you losing the ability to edit for edit warring. Greyjoy ^talk 08:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)