Hello, ResonX, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit summary, articles need to meet the WP:GNG in order to avoid being deleted. This means coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources. The article was sourced by a game screenshot, a unreliable blog, a wikia, and a comic book. That's not coverage in reliable sources. How many Marvel characters have a article is irrelevant to whether or not Sally gets one.
I'd recommend working on simple editing of Wikipedia, and basic policy understanding, before taking on writing a whole article, but if you do go for it, work on making it meet the GNG if you want it to stick. Sergecross73msg me 23:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ResonX, please stop making this out to be some sort of huge injustice. It was merged/deleted before, and now, because it didn't meet the WP:GNG. That's Wikipedia's criteria for notabilty, that is, it's right to have an article. It doesn't matter if she appears in one issue of a comic, or a million, it's whether or not reliable source provide coverage on her. Reliable sources are professional sites. Like Gamespot or IGN. Not fansites or kids with art or videos on Youtube or something.
I've looked at old versions of her article, and they were even worse than the one you made, in regards to fulfilling Notability requirements. You need to write it to Wikipedia's standard if you want it to stick. I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm saying it hasn't done yet. If you don't like Wikipedia's standards for notabilty, I'd suggest working on some Sonic wikia or a fansite or something. These are the rules that have to be followed here. Sergecross73msg me 11:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, fan content isn't worth anything on Wikipedia. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts in changing one of the fundamental traits of Wikipedia. In the meantime, follow policy or your changes will be undone. Or go write at a Sonic Fansite, where fan content means something. Sergecross73msg me 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Tara Strong. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Manway 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resonx, just because you "don't personally believe in citing everything" doesn't change the rules of Wikipedia. This is another reminder that you need to learn Wikipedia's standards, not just your own. If a tag to add references is in an article, the one reason you should be removing it, is if you add sources, or remove unsourced information. Otherwise, the tags shouldn't be removed. Sergecross73msg me 02:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Read WP:VERIFY. And these aren't my personal rules, they're Wikipedia policy.
Anyways, no, not everything needs to be sourced, but anything "challenged" does require a source, and if someone is adding tags to an article, then that mean's it has been challenged. As such, it needs sources. Sergecross73msg me 03:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to terrible articles does not give a valid reason for creating another terrible article. It means the terrible articles should be deleted. If you want them to be deleted, go for it. There's WP:PROD and WP:AFD. I haven't done it because I honestly don't care about comic book stuff like that. My main interest is video game related, and rock music related. I have no obligation to do anything, let alone go about deleting random terribly written articles. There's just not enough time in the world to go about deleting every random terrible article. So I focus on things of interest. I won't object to you deleting them, in fact, I'd probably support it.
A fundamental rule of Wikipedia is using reliable sources to prove a topic passes the WP:GNG. Fan created artwork does not qualify as a reliable source. I don't know how to address the rest of what you said regarding 2008, I don't know what you're referring to.
One reliable source is more important than a million fan reviews, unless the fan reviews are covered by a reliable source. (ie if IGN does an article about how ridiculous some fan art is or something, it's worth mentioning.) Again, read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Sergecross73msg me 00:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your move. While "The Pirates!" is technically region neutral, it is not known by that exact name in any region, and that name is improper for the film. Since the film is of UK origin, we use the Uk's title for it instead. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly believe that you can effect positive changes to WP:RS and WP:V, good luck with that, but the place to start is not by "making/restoring articles for several fictional characters that deserve them", as you indicated you would do on my talk page. The place to start is by getting your changes to the requisite policies accepted by consensus, then "making/restoring articles for several fictional characters that deserve them". Otherwise, I predict you will waste a lot of time and effort on articles that get deleted or merged. Not saying I'll be the one doing the deleting or merging, since I'm not very active with the admin tools and I'm not terribly interested in fictional subject matter in general, but I predict this outcome nonetheless. Just some friendly advice. For what it's worth, there are parts of WP:RS and WP:V that I think need to be improved, so I was sincere in my wishes of good luck. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 18:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a new consensus and given my pronounced unfamiliarity with the subject matter, I personally will not remove the protection. I merely suggested creating a draft that could be presented in support of forming a new consensus. Not sure where to best start that conversation; perhaps at Talk:List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. I will say that, given the caveats I just mentioned, seeing a draft with four references total, and all of those confined to a single section of the article, probably wouldn't be enough to convince me to overturn what appeared to be a pretty strong consensus. Good luck in convincing those more familiar with the subject matter though; my opinion may be born of ignorance. Acdixon(talk·contribs) 18:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a fuller explanation, I removed all of the examples because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The examples were merely a list of "Lookey lookey I seen it here". Without third party commentary being provided to explain or place the examples in context, the section is merely a collection of trivia at best or wikipedia editor's making their personal commentary and analysis or at worse, completely inacurate assumptions about what is in the primary source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Whore of Babylon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to edits at Kratos (God of War) regarding the character committing suicide, it would be best to not add the category as we do not know if he's actually dead. Every character in that category is dead, correct? If we knew for sure that Kratos died, then there would be no issues with adding the category. --JDC808♫ 15:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive editing. It is clear from various talk page posts that you know full well that much of your editing is contrary to Wikipedia policies, but that you intend to continue in the same way because you personally believe that you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is WRONG. (Your capitals.) No matter how strongly you believe that, the fact remains that, unless and until the policies are changed, you need to edit according to current policies. For example, no matter how reasonable it may seem to say "Not everything needs a source if it's true", the problem is that if one person says something is true and another doesn't, simply saying "it's true so it doesn't need a source" doesn't settle the issue. We could change policy so that anyone can add anything they like as long as they say it's true, and that anyone can then remove it as long as they say it isn't true, and if we did so Wikipdia would be a very different place, with many articles subject to continuous edit warring. If that is the policy you would prefer, then by all means suggest changing the policy, but unless and until the change takes place please do not continue to restore disputed content without a source. Likewise, while it may well be true that "original research should be ENCOURAGED" (your capitals and bolding), Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. It seems that you think Wikipedia should become like one of the many forums, blogs, fansites, etc, which allow anyone to post anything, and there is no requirement that anything can be verified by reliable sources. You are perfectly free to try to get Wikipedia's policies changed so that it becomes like one of those, but until you do please accept that that is not what Wikipedia is. If you continue to edit Wikipedia in ways that you clearly know are contrary to consensus, guidelines, and policy, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been told multiple times, an editor making a pronouncement of "it has been confirmed" without providing a reliable source to verify the claim is inappropriate and if you continue to do so after receiving such notices you will be blocked. I will let you revert your edit as a sign that you do intend to work within Wikipedia guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. The most recent example was adding sources which you are clearly fully aware do not qualify under Wikipedia's guidelines as reliable, after being told that your addition of unsourced information was likely to lead to a block, and that it was being left there to allow you to remove it. I will reiterate just once whatever your personal view of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if you insist on going against them then you will be blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The reason for this blocking was invalid, for the sources that I added were accurate, and the other user had no right to remove them just because they were technically "unreliable" according to the site's skewed current policies when they were clearly true, which is far more important. Also, I am in the middle of doing some important editing that is currently unfinished and leaves inconsistencies.
Decline reason:
You don't have to agree with policy or consensus on a particular issue, but you are expected to abide by it unless and until you succeed in changing it. If you can't work under those conditions then Wikipedia is not for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I stand corrected. That was not "The most recent example". While I was drafting the block notice you reverted two redirects, at least one of which had been discussed, and what you did was contrary to the consensus at that discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have requested an unblock on the grounds that Wikipedia's policies are "skewed", and that other editors have "no right" to edit according to those policies. Considering that the reason for the block was precisely the attitude "I am right and Wikipedia's policies are wrong, and I will continue to ignore policy", I am puzzled as to why you think that is a reason for unblocking you. If anything, such evident failure to understand the situation might be a reason for increasing the block length. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was wrong and based on an inferior previous version of the article. Also, you still fail to understand that "Reliable third–party sources" as you narrowly define them are not necessary for all character articles. Let me ask you a question: Let's say that one "Reliable third–party source" as you would define it is worth 100 notability points. In that case, how many notability points are well–developed fan sites with accurate, in–depth information, thousands of pieces of fan art and fan fiction, and millions of visits worth? Please give me a number. ResonX (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that those policies should not be allowed to exist is that they are exclusive (that being the opposite of inclusive) and incredibly restrictive. Without them, Wikipedia could have much more content, be more representative, and be more fun overall, like it used to be. These policies only started appearing around 2007. ResonX (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, you claim that I am close minded and don't accept others' opinions, yet you are doing the exact same thing in a worse form by not letting me and others represent the things that we like and consider important on this site. The fact that multiple people have taken the time and effort to write articles for these things basically proves their notability. ResonX (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be the same things I was lecturing you about months ago. You're not going to make any progress if you just keep on going about doing whatever you feel is right. If you really care that much, then do some research on identifying what is currently considered a reliable source, and then use that information to either contribute, or propose changes to it. Brazenly ignoring the rules will only get you more blocks and reverted edits. Sergecross73msg me 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one thing that needs to be considered is ResonX's attitude when he messages users that he, in his philosophy, is "wrong". He's been speaking quite uncivilly toward me and admins. I think this 24-hour block was appropriate to give him some time to consider his actions. Thank you.
To return from your block for not following Wikipedia's rules and immediately [1] continue the exact same type of editing is a pretty good sign that your Wikipedia editing career will be a short one. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ResonX, I've noticed you're running into trouble getting some of the content you've been adding to articles to stay. I'm offering what I hope comes across as friendly advice: Wikipedia is not a fan wiki. Wikipedia has very different notability and sourcing standard from a fan wiki, and all you're going to do is run into frustration here. The advice you got here regarding your attempt to change Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards was good advice, especially this part: "With an attitude like that which expressly dismisses Wikipedia policies is likely to end with you having a short, but unhappy time here." You can absolutely do the kind of fan article development you'd like to do, but you need to do it at a fan wiki. Consider developing this article. Cheers... Zad68 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't need a source because nobody doubts it"[edit]
Hi ResonX, regarding the edit summary for this edit, "IT DOESN'T NEED A SOURCE BECAUSE NO ONE IS DOUBTING IT." Your perception of Wikipedia policy regarding WP:Verifiability is not correct. The fact that someone has reverted the edit as "unsourced" means that an editor is indeed challenging it. Please see WP:CHALLENGE. Cheers... Zad68 17:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it again, it's being challenged. No matter HOW MANY BOLD WORDS YOU USE, the policies of this site stand and facebook is not a reliable source. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ResonX is clearly not going to stop his disruptive editing. I belvie a longer block is appropriate for his behavior. He fails to comply with Wikipedia's policies, including WP:NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin12xd (talk • contribs) 19:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sorry WritKeeper, prior to seeing your note here I had already re-blocked ResonX as they continue to edit war to insert unsourced material to articles despite having just come off a block for the same disruption. As ResonX seems to show little or no understanding of the need to include reliable sources for challenged material or how to avoid edit wars I set the block for an indefinite time period. If you or any other admin believes that ResonX has demonstrated that they understand these policies then please go ahead and unblock. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I agree; I had just been holding fire out of habitual caution. I don't think there was any other way this was gonna turn out, really. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 19:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The policies for which I was blocked for disagreeing with are flagrantly wrong, and even if they weren't, it would still be my right to disagree with and challenge them. You can't force others to think a certain way, and you can't deliberately withhold valuable and interesting information based on technicalities, which is what these people are doing. Also, I made no offending mainspace edits to warrant a block this time. If you unblock me, however, will, for the sake of convenience, cease arguing with these people and challenge the offending policies directly, only continuing my additions to the mainspace after successfully changing them. Also, note that the only changes I intend to make would be positive and within reason, as I will explain in detail when I make my case to the main administration and community. ResonX (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
The moment your last block was up you did in fact make mainspace edits continuing the same edit warring behavior, and on top of that you posted angry tirades with lots more YELLING IN ALL CAPS about how you would rather be killed than follow Wikipedia's sourcing policies. [2]I don't think unblocking you is going to be a good idea for Wikipedia or for you, if the basic policies governing content here make you feel such rage. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Well, I'm not going to decline this myself, but let me be honest here: you're not going to change the policy. I'm sorry, but it's just not worth your time. If you get unblocked, you're perfectly welcome to try it, but it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually succeeding. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 02:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what can I do to get articles for these characters? Do NOT tell me that they aren't notable enough at all, because that simply isn't true. ResonX (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't posted an unblock request that will be accepted, but if you do get unblocked, here is the answer to your question:
That's it. Zad68 02:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that these characters don't deserve articles and won't get them no matter what, despite all their fans? Yes or No? ResonX (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until significant coverage in reliable independent sources can be brought, challenges to the content will result in the content getting removed. Zad68 03:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what if those don't exist? At what point does fan work become significant due to sheer volume? What if 1,000 times as many pieces about these characters existed, yet your mainstream sources still somehow ignored them? Would they get articles then?
And let me ask you this: What influences your editing choices more: the rules, or your common sense?
ResonX (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not understand this stuff. Look, even if it has sheer volume, if it only has sheer volume, it still does not belong here. If you think this is truly notable, there would be reliable third-party sources already to justify the notability. We trust the mainstream reliable sources to pick up what is notable and what isn't, at least the last time I checked. Thekillerpenguin(talk) 04:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you, it doesn't. It's reliable sources or the highway. For your common-sense question: both. Ut's common sense that we can't say anything authoritatively about something when we don't have the reliable sources to back it up. Our information is only as good as the sources that back it up. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 03:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't exist the content won't stay, generally. Once the fan work becomes significant enough that it starts receiving coverage in the independent reliable secondary sources, then those can be cited and the content will stay. I find the rules well-grounded in common sense. Zad68 03:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the unblock request:"You can't force others to think a certain way, and you can't deliberately withhold valuable and interesting information..." no one is doing either of those. You are quite free to go and set up your own website where you can express anything you want, put up what you think is valuable and interesting information.
What this website and every other website out there can do is define it's own purpose and inclusion criteria, if what you are doing doesn't fit, what this and every other website out there can do is remove that and remove you. You have no god given right to use this or any other website, don't like the rules, then go somewhere else.
Please go and tell the New York Times about how bad their website is because they aren't sticking up all the stuff you want, you'll be laughed at, because the New York Times is a newspaper relying on fact checked information from qualified journalists. Same as wikipedia is an neutral point of view Encylopaedia based on third party reliable sources. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't even have to start your own website; there are plenty of other, less discriminating online information sites. Try Everything2, Annex or WikiInfo, all of which have much looser content guidelines than Wikipedia. Yunshui雲水 08:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fan sites are by definition biased. Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view in all things. That is why fan sites, even if there are thousands of them, do not constitute reliable sources for Wikipedia. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've just blown your only chance at redemption. See you in Hell, you monsters. ResonX (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that little outburst just lost you the ability to edit even this page. Yunshui雲水 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, keep my seat warm in Hell, because the monsters are quite plentiful.
No, but in all seriousness, allow me to retort. Your unblock request plays off the concept that you were attempting to fight an injustice and all these unethical agents of Wikipedia, they have shunned you and that you need to get back in the fight. Well, that's the first land mine you stepped on. You were not challenging core Wikipedia policies- you were editing pages with fan citations and leaving remarks on editors' talk pages about how incorrect the policies they were following are. There were fully acceptable avenues for petitioning that were provided by generous editors that could have made your statements true. Instead, with what you presented, editors were left with new sections created by fan materials that presented not an ounce of notability. Creating an article with reliable sources is not difficult if it is something notable. All you need to do is find coverage from sources deemed reliable and notable, not wikis and fan sites, but rather, reliable media sources from organizations and authors such as IGN, Game Informer or anything TV-related, (I don't know much about television shows, so I'm not the right one to provide examples in that respect). It is because the articles you attempted to create did not have these and that the articles you edited had unreliable additions that you had your edits reverted.
Now, I would like to discuss the reason you provided for challenging your block. You said that the reason you edited the way you did was because the policies are flagrantly wrong. Well, as many editors have stated, it is not for you to decide that, but the consensus of the Wikipedia community. If you were to provide a reason in a petition that convinced the community to change that, then the policies could be changed and people could have things as "fun as 2005 was" - (I don't believe that will work, by the way). On a final note of user rights, let me clarify that Wikipedia is a privately-owned, non-profit organization, meaning that they can do whatever they want without so much as an ounce of administrative intervention, while concerning editing affairs. Utilizing the concept that you can defend yourself according to your constitutional rights will not work very well here.
If this all seems reasonable for you and you would like to edit Wikipedia with these standards in mind, I would encourage you to contest your deletion with the resolve to not make the same mistakes again and to better yourself as an encyclopedia editor. DarthBottotalk•cont 06:36, 03 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:ResonX/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ResonX/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ResonX/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America1000 06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
