User talk:WikiuserNI/Archive 3

Please Stop Ruining South Park Articles

Alastairward- I'm writing you this note because I'm a concerned member of the Wikipedia community, and believe, as do many others, that your systematic de-editing of South Park articles on Wikipedia is ruining them. As you can see, I'm not a registered member of Wikipedia. I don't claim to be smart with computers and I feel that like the majority of Wikipedia users, I enjoy reading the articles but don't have the time or the care to edit. Like most people who happen upon Wikipedia, they do so by typing something into google. Most people who end up reading a South Park Episode page on Wikipedia don't care about what editing rules you are currently citing in order to prove your point; they only care about the quality of the article. A good article dealing with South Park should include not only the basic plot line, but it should also detail everything else that is worth mentioning. That means if the episode has used some form of pop-culture to get its message across, or if the episode itself is important enough to have become pop-culture, this must be discussed in the article. You seem to think that only things that have been cited properly belong in the articles, but what occurs most of the time is that there is no proper way to get a good citation. Instead of letting this slide in the effort of creating and fostering knowledge, you choose to slap down the law and in effect remove information that is important and correct. What you don't seem to comprehend is that instead of making Wikipedia a better place by following the rules as you envision them, you are in fact ruining all of the South Park episode articles. Instead of referencing the citing rules every time someone disagrees with you (which seems to happen alot, have you yet to take the hints that you and your edits are not found favorable in the Wikipedia community) maybe you should look at these rules: Common Sense, Ignore All Rules. In the photo from the Common Sense page, you are the man with his head down the muzzle of the tank, and those who have protested your edits are the ones urging you to step down. I don't know why you seem to think you are the King of Wikipedia and that everything you say is correct and is the only right way to do it, but I'm here to take your self given crown. You sir, are a nuisance and should stop what you are doing. Instead of helping make Wikipedia a better place you, like the firemen in Fahrenheit 451 are destroying knowledge and stopping the flow of information. I won't provide you with any specific instances of when you have removed information and had edit wars with those wiser than you, but only because with your perverted logic you will attempt to prove me wrong by showing me the rule pages and only worrying about that specific instance instead of the larger topic at hand. Every time I have seen you get into an argument about a specific instance you mentally put your hands in your ears and scream, as if to avoid listening to logic. I don't want to get into a childish back and forth argument with you (the only way you know how to argue), so I won't reference a specific instance. There are many cases where everyone who has seen a certain episode can all agree on what Trey and Matt were doing when they animated a scene or used dialogue that clearly referenced something else. Unfortunately, we are unable to ask them about every single detail in every single episode and are unable to get citations for most of the obvious things they wish the audience to see. An average person like me enjoyed the time before you started editing when I could go on to Wikipedia and find out what some of the references were in a certain episode that I missed. I became confused when I began to see that all of the useful information was being taken out of the articles, so I looked on the discussion pages for some of the episodes. I then saw that you had unilaterally taken out of the articles what you had deemed unfit for public consumption. What I began to do was to go to the episode pages with the sole purpose of clicking on the discussion pages in order to see the useful information that you had removed from the main article but was still listed there. I wonder if you edit out parts of the article on the Bible where it references the Bible because that is against the rules. You probably tell the other editors that they need to talk to the people who wrote the Bible if they want to include any analysis; other than that they can only list the plot. I understand that this analogy to the Bible is not a perfect one, and it will not help your argument to attempt to pick it apart piece by piece as you attempt to do with everyone else who tries to present to you logic and reason. Instead take from it this: In a perfect world, everything would come pre-cited and things like the Bible would have a bibliography. Unfortunately we are not always capable of saying where we got our information from, we only know it is correct because everyone else tells us it is. If everyone is telling you that your edits are authoritarian and ill-advised because a reference in South Park to a part of pop-culture is visible to even the blind, you must accept them as correct and in the right even if they don't have the citation. You must also remember that you, like the other editors on Wikipedia are not perfect and are not correct %100 of the time (I believe you were banned for a period of time for refusing to stop being childish). And I, like you am also not perfect. I clearly don't know the rules of Wikipedia as well as you do, and I have as much experience as you do when it comes to editing articles. I also know that it's not correct of me to use ad hominem attacks on you in order to prove my point that you are ruining the South Park articles, but, I choose to leave them in to prove a point. The point is that you are ruining the South Park articles on Wikipedia to the point that you have driven a person who doesn't edit on Wikipedia to write a 1,000 word plea to reason and have made me so frustrated to the point of personally attacking you. So Alastairward, I plead with you to listen to reason and to do the correct thing, stop ruining the South Park articles. Thank you. Sincerly, HWD 69.120.7.167 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have replied on your own talk page. Alastairward (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay, I liked the bible reference! But seriously: replying on the talk page of somebody who says "I am not a member and know nothing of wikipedia" in his opening sentences? Is that even legal? :)

So, HWD (guy who wrote the stuff above), here's the answer, though you might as well not read it since it's one of his trademark empty answers:

Thank you for a considered response rather than the diatribe that other users have thrown at me. In a nutshell, my reply is that information on SP episodes is freely available on many different fan site, wiki's, media outlets etc. What makes Wikipedia superior to many of these sites is that we ask that information be verified and not just put here as assumed fact. It's all well and good to ask for common sense or to ignore all rules, but the guidelines are there for a good reason. Alastairward (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointing, eh? Get used to it. Many have tried before, but in the end it's just not worth it. He wins. Please order one of our "I argued with Alastairward and all I got was this lousy T-shirt" apparel items. It's sad, but we have to accept the fact that his possession is nine-tenths of the law. You wrote a beautiful plea filled with good individually addressable points, and you got a form letter back. Stijndon (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wins? Wins what exactly? Am I still in trouble for having dared edit an article that you edited yourself? Its strange that I've been dragged to the Wikiquette alerts board twice (and found to be of good character) by you, Anthony Cargill, Notanotheraligfan, for not agreeing with your edits and therefore "owning" an article, when that point of view, as demonstrated above, has been your own. Alastairward (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

South Park

Would what you find here qualify as not being "original research" in wikipedia terms? http://www.tv.com/south-park/go-god-go-1/episode/892588/trivia.html Search for Battlestar Galactica there. Or what about making a "cultural references" made by the episode part in the article? Aplethora of shows has that, and it helps a great deal when one has a feeling of "i saw that somewhere, now where was that??". I use wikipedia a lot for such searches, and frankly it helps me a lot, but of course that wouldn't apply for South Park episodes now. And I think it is a shame! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

TV.com is user editable, as such, it would generate its own amount of OR and wouldn't be suitable for use as a cite. Alastairward (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And the rest of the proposition? Comment please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Yes, other episodes have cultural references section, why not this one? Any information added would be subject to the same checks and balances as any other bit of information added to any other episode, if it can be verified and is relevant, add it.

I've heard the same complain from other users, that they've just gone to the article after seeing it on TV and can't find the cultural references that they thought they saw in the episode mentioned int he article. That's not really something Wikipedia should be held to account for. Alastairward (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and who put you to charge here? Are you wikipedia representative? That other shows here have such sections and *thanks* to you this is doomed never to have it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Be civil please, all I'm doing is according to WP Policies, like no original research for example. Alastairward (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good for you that you are doing around South Park then, would like to see you around Second order phase transitions, how would you do with "no original research" there :))) I don't have time for demagogue-talk like this one, I only - with all civility - express my opinion that you are not doing such a great job like you maybe think you are. :) That's it, I give up, you won, but it's for the worst of the comunity - again, my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is actually an article on that, if you're an expert in the field, the article might benefit from your input.

As for South Park, who loses and why?

Look, I understand that rules are rules, and that there are people who fiercly advocate application of these rules - I understand that it is so, I don't understand such people though. Yes, if there were no rules, then wikipedia would not be useful to anyone - and trust me, when it comes to chemistry (my field) it greatly isn't. I doubt that there would ever be some creditible source on internet stating "yes, there is South Park-BSG relation there", but that doesn't mean there isn't relation.

As for second order transitions, yes, there is no article on them, I could do something about it, but tell me (now there no offense meant to you, I am just thinking) why should I invest time to it, when there are very few mentions of it on internet, barely one schoolbook available to me in Czech which i could cite ... would it really be worth it, spending, don't know, a weekend trying to put it together so that it would have sense, then putting it online, and waiting if there will be no-one concerned as to wherer Frumar:Chemie pevnych latek is a good enough source for wikipedia standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There are other sites, fan wikis etc, that have no such rules and allow anyone to post anything, they exist for people who don't want to see a citation, just get an opinion. If you want that opinion and treat it as fact without anything to back up the author's assertation, so be it. If you want to be sure of something, if facts are a bit more meaningful to you with something to back them up, then that's what Wikipedia is for. Alastairward (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As for making an article from scratch, I don't know why a certain article in a certain field should be created, wikipedia is there for anyone who feels it should be. Alastairward (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's no answer to my questions ... not going to try to contribute here anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvacek (talk • contribs) 12:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

They Live

Your argument on my page that the connection between They Live and Cripple Fight can only be established by citing a source is a clear violation of the Common Sense policy. There is such a thing as a blatantly obvious connection, such as a shot for shot homage to a movie (and we're talking about several minutes of this, not a few seconds) by another piece of media. This kind of thing is never going to be a subject of original research. Although based on the other commentary on this page you seem to be a troll whose only purpose is to incite arguments over minutiae. Jherico (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If someone had said that South Park in general or that episode in particular drew inspiration from other media X, I'd agree, that's pushing the limits the original research policy. On the other hand, calling attention to a several minute shot by shot recreation of a scene from a movie could only be original research if there's other conclusion you could come to. Arguing that the scene isn't a reference would only make a person look mentally deficient and arguing that a cited source is required to claim it is a reference violates common sense. A colorblind non-english speaking 10 year old could make the connection between the movie and the episode. It's like saying Patrick Stewart is bald. Jherico (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

About Last Night...

So... couldn't have the patience, aye? I'll respond soon, in the meanwhile I'm keeping my reference as it doesn't bother anyone other than yourself - I'm still expecting you to quote a firm WP rule that I broke here. It seems that you're missing the main point here - you're not the owner of WP, nor is your opinion the only one that matters. To quote you: "we don't need this reference." Who exactly are we here??? Man, you're way worse than a parking inspector - at least they get paid to piss people off... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page and the article's, using the policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability and in particular the content on sources, tell me why this should have been added and why it must stay? Alastairward (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Nazi

Great. You're one of those people that will only let South Park articles show a plot summary and nothing else. Don't you think a lot of people are wondering more about the articles than the plot? According to your rules there shouldn't even be a plot summary because one would have to reference a show script. Even then it wouldn't be verified! People want to know the cultural references, hidden messages, and parodies in the show. I'm tempted to Undo you a second time which would make your edits strike 3, which is also against Wikipedia rules. So I suggest you get your head out of your arse and quit being so verbose about Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.238.132 (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it you haven't been looking over my recent edit history, where I've added more cultural references than I've tagged or removed. Alastairward (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDB for plot synopsis:

IMDB is not self-published, and though editable by "any user", it does in fact (at least as of yesterday) require confirmations and sources for submitted informations, and it routinely rejects user submissions that are not themselves accomanied by sources... though IMDB does not share those sources as Wiki requires for its own articles. Different entities, different rules. Keep in mind though, that IMDB's usefulness as a source is in continued contention (see CIMDB and (recent discussions)... and you will find editors wishing it banned outright. That being said, and the arguments about its usefulness notwithstanding, it is still a terrific tool to guide you to other locations for finding the informations you wish. If you find a plot synopsis on IMDB, it is extremely likely that you will find a better and more complete one elsewhere, as that better one was likely used as a source for whatever is on IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also suggest you take a look at this and see for yourself that the consensus (along with a quote from Roger Ebert) is that IMDb seems reliable, as long as it's not a section explicitly tagged as "user generated." NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello stalker

So... what's your beef with Star Wars now? Could you care to explain why you happened to stumble upon this page (for the first time I guess) just a few hours after I edited it - and before even asking me to clarify my source (as usual), you reverted me again (in feeble attempts to enforce the loose ends of some forsaken WP rule that even the admins wouldn't easily recall)? I did not state anything except that "incidentally, the name sounds like its appearance translated into another language." As another user already advised you, there's plenty of other stuff yet to be done on WP than stalking my edits. Oh, and another thing: should I cite an automatic translation website to prove that my Russian translation is accurate? Please enlighten me. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote the user that responded on your talk page: IMDb is not self-published, and though editable by "any user," it does in fact (at least as of yesterday) require confirmations and sources for submitted informations, and it routinely rejects user submissions that are not themselves accomanied by sources. This user also claims that you will find editors wishing it banned outright - that is, if you look in the mirror :) but it also means that IMDb is not yet banned as a source on WP (and therefore, acceptable)... again, pity you don't like it, but it's still valid. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is banned on Wikipedia as a source, there are simply varying degrees of acceptance and in the case of our particular cite, it doesn't cut it. Confirmations are required "At least as of yesterday", when were your cites added? What were they verified against? Alastairward (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Jabba issue - aside from stating that Jabba's name means "toad" in Russian right next to the toad resemblance statement, I didn't create any synthesis - maybe you mean the one that instantly popped in your head upon reading the comparison because it's this obvious? Just try being constructive for once and stop resenting anything that might be interesting to anyone, who reads this article to understand more insights about the character. As for now, this piece of information has every right to stay. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny... although you're the native English speaker, it seems that I need to teach you about the meaning of "incidentally" - as I have been stressing, in no way am I claiming that one led to the other. Still, it is important information as for the etymology of Jabba's name (the word is the same - that, for itself, it an undisputed fact: same sounds, same syllables, same word). The fact that it just happens to be in the same sentence, does not give you the right to interpret it as synthesis, as you are entering the meta-edit-war world here my friend (your understanding of my edit is WP:SYNTH). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Block for revert-warring

Hi Alastair. Please do not engage in frivolous edit-warring, as you have on Clubhouses (South Park episode) and elsewhere. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:Edit warring. I see another Admin blocked both of you last week for edit-warring on another page. As you have been making more use of talk pages and have not violated WP:3RR, I might merely have warned you, but in light of your correspondence with User:Tiptoety so recently believe that another 24 hour block is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, I'm a bit disappointed to see that I'm blocked too.

Perhaps though you might suggest how to move on after the block is raised. I've asked the other user to discuss on several different pages, but I'm not getting much more than strange edit summaries or none at all. Alastairward (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is important that both of you obtain better faith in each other and treat each other more like editorial colleagues than enemies. This is of course not always possible, but each of you should independently try towards this goal, because if you do then any other issue at the heart of it is likely to become more obvious and thus more solvable. I and other admins will be willing to help both of you out when you return. But I'm sure you must realise by now, if you find a dispute emerges soon after you return, it is unlikely that revert-warring will solve it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, I'll bear it in mind when I return. Alastairward (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"Pandemic"

You don't think it's pretty obvious that South Park cast guinea pigs as the quarry of Peruvians because they're the only people who traditionally at guinea pigs? The episode makes a hell of a lot more sense if you know that. -- AvatarMN (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I AGREE

Yeah I think thats the best idea, since the info comes from the crew of the show. I asked about Kyle's hair being like Corbin Bleu, but i havenot recieved any feedback from them yet. Since i am now in school and unable to access SPS, can you check periodically today on there if my question has been answered? Thanks --J miester25 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a little look, I submitted one myself not too long ago I was watching for. Alastairward (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ungroundable

Several things:

• In the Trivia section, I am not suggesting any intention from the writers' end, but merely stating two facts. Wikipedia allows two related facts to be stated next to each other, as long as the editor does not blatantly suggest (within the article text) a connection between the two, but lets the reader decide for him or herself. As for episode continuity - please show me where and how it counts for consensus.
• What's your source for claiming that "Southparkstudios.com video tags are there to aid searches, not as a form of FAQ?" This is pure OR - moreover, anything taken from the show's creators' website (even praised by yourself quite a few times) counts as reliable as far as I'm concerned. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Had you known first thing about SEO, it would have been common understanding to you that misspellings are an integral part in tag building. Again: what comes from the show's creators' website is undisputedly reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you and/or TheRedPenOfDoom show me where I expressed my opinion and/or advanced anything that's not a cold fact (I believe counting still falls under that category). NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, WikiuserNI. You have new messages at Ramdrake's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Ungroundable

Okay, I'm not a usual wikipedia user, but I just made a suggestion for an article and you went all out douche on me. I don't know what you're problem is but being a lifeless wikipedia editor with nothing better to do doesn't make you better than anybody and certainly doesn't give you the right to be a prick.

Personal interpretations and biased presentation of sourced material

Please stop biasedly presenting references you don't like to promote your personal POV, let the reader decide. God you're amusing sometimes... reminds me of one of my favorite SP quotes: Mrs. Garrison defining the evolution of the human race as "the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel" when teaching it in class.
To ensure this is not interpreted as a personal attack: I'm only comparing the way you present a source that's not to your personal liking ("has been interpreted by ccinsider blog" and so on) to the way Mrs. Garrison presented evolution (to which she deeply opposed) to her class. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Then hire a translator. My above comment explains and even quotes a personal example. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it Gaelic I need to learn to get to you? By all means, please tell me why you so stubbornly ignore the explicit requests I keep making in my edit summaries and instantly revert instead of civilly challenging via discussion on the talk page and waiting to gain consensus before removing the challenged material. I've also explained why the list of comparisons to Michael Jackson is not original research btw. I have no time now, but will revert back when I get to it - I see you're very keen to this edit war thingy. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Space 1999 Uniform colours

Is there any harm in mentioning the uniform design in the main page of the article on the series, both referencing the fact that Gernreich was apparently quite well known at the time (a wee bit before my time I'm afraid), and a short bit on the design of the uniforms and how it changed between seasons. Douglasnicol (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Query

Totally funny how you accidentally stumbled upon two cases of OR in an obscure list of characters from some obscure animated series, and removed it. Obviously, this had nothing to do with me having once expanded these facts to remove some (fact?) tags from these exact two cases of OR within the huge list. You just found the same two facts as I once did, and decided to delete them, instead of repair them. I thought "Hello stalker" would be a fitting section to add this. Stijndon (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is here, perhaps you might link to the article in question. I hope you're not suggesting that some articles are "off limits" to me on your demand? Or are you suggesting that the edit I made was improper? Alastairward (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, they were arguably justifiable. In fact, the entire list in question is overlong. Your above comment is very clever and correct, neatly avoiding what I was actually asking. It's just that you used to accuse certain others of wiki-hounding you, stalking you, searching out your edits to revert them while they obviously had nothing to do with the articles in question. And now I have to believe that it's a perfect coincidence you made these edits: [1] and [2] after I did this: [3]. Please try and answer the question, if I want to read diverting statements I can think of some myself. Stijndon (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikihounding that started when you and Anthony (oh so long ago) decided to create a fuss on the talk page for "The China Probrem" was pretty obvious. Anthony would go from talk page to talk page, whereever I had left comments, adding his snide commentary, offering nothing substantial other than general abuse.

Now, all that I can see above is evidence that I edited an article page, an edit that you agree was perfectly valid. What is the problem? With regards the articles I frequent, check my edit history, I don't just edit South Park articles y'know.

Looking at what you wrote though, what exactly was your question? Alastairward (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact one: You edited two facts out of a long list. Fact two: These were the exact same two facts that I once edited in the same long list. Question: did fact one result from fact two? Stijndon (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments that you should disregard while answering, since the question is written above: You are such an adept dodger of questions. I trust you will also dodge this one with some comments that make me look silly and that make you look righteous, or the victim. Like what do I care that somebody else might have abused you? Does that relate to my question? Why do you bring it up? And how did my words "arguably justifiable" suddenly morph into "perfectly valid"? Are you a politician? Stijndon (talk) 09:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Life without comedy

You have no sense of humor. Anyway, ta-ta! --Cybercobra (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The Jefferson's article

Jefferson -> Jackson -was- cited. I double checked that myself. Lots42 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See your talk for a reply. Alastairward (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand your reply. You said 'Uncited'. It was not uncited. That was/is why I started the discussion. Lots42 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're asking me? You're the one who made the mistake in the first place. I just pointed it out. Lots42 (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently none, now. Lots42 (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, dude, don't be like that. As far I read the conversation, I pointed out a mistake, you acknowledged it was a mistake but that things got edited and it's fine now. If this is not what happened, I don't really care anymore. Lots42 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Common Sense

On the Jeffersons (south park article) you say it's unsourced that Mr. Jefferson is Michael Jackson.

WOW!!!

Ever heard of Common Sense?!?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See your talk for a reply. Alastairward (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you don't NEED a source for everything in an article.

Blanket even said: MICHAEL JACKSON in the episode.

That's all the proof I need.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See your talk for a reply (again). Alastairward (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah BLANKET says his name but gets cut off. Open up your ears.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Run away because you can't prove anything. Run behind your rules and policies. Stay out of the South Park articles.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

assuming good faith

If one was to not know any better and approach the world with a cynical mind, they might start to wonder why anyone who has a disagreement with User:Greg D. Barnes about the requirement to follow our WP:V policy soon begins to get attacked by anonymous IP vandals and would think that the incidents were connected. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm apologizing--Let's put this behind us and start clean.

OK, first of all, sorry for my conduct about the Jeffersons article on your talk page and the article's page. I was not in the best mood that day and I had no right to argue with someone who is clearly more experienced than me. I got to learn to keep my frustration level down when someone disagrees with me about edits.

About your User Page vandalism, I did it. I forgot to log in-that's why it was anonymous. I was such an idiot that day and I further apologize for that idiotic action.

I'm going to move on and put this behind me, please reply.

Sincerely, Greg D. Barnes--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Real-time tactics, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Friendly note about the above

Welcome to Wikipedia. we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Panyd. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)