User talk:Olliejmiles

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Olliejmiles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of The Dresden Files, Books in the Series[edit]

I disagree with what you added as it appears to be Original Research to me. (However, I clicked the wrong button and used revert rather than undo which would have allowed me to leave an edit summary.) RJFJR (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research being 'glancing at the book list, being aware of the antagonists of each, and reading the following pretty everywhere' being 'original research'.

http://bronzedragon.tumblr.com/post/40701111211/have-you-noticed-spoilers

I stated that there was a trend to the books most observant people are perfectly aware of. 'If this trend continues' is part of what I said. It was a statement of self-evident fact that each fifth book has the same antagonist. It stands to perfectly logical reason that 20 will be the same. I left myself room though with the use of 'if' as Butcher may change his mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olliejmiles (talk • contribs)

If you read the link RJFJR gave you above (Original Research), you will see that indeed, what you have described and done is considered original research. The facts may be true, but truth is not the primary criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the page Talk:The Dresden Files, I have provided a link where Butcher sarcastically confirms this claim to be true. If you can find a link where Butcher or someone authorized to speak for him explicitly confirms this, then it will be acceptable to include it in the article (just be sure to include the reference).

P.S. I have also refactored your response above to the usual format for a reply. It is normal to begin your response with a colon (:) when replying to the first comment in a thread, and to begin with one more colon than the previous comment when replying further down. If you click on the edit button above, you can see how I have placed a single colon at the beginning of each line of your response, and two colons at the beginning of each line of my response. Also, you should type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each response you make to sign it, so that others can see who wrote your comments. I hope this helps. :)

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care man. The rules of Wiki's are stupid. My assertion was made based on self-evident fact - each 5 is has the same antagonist - and I said, and this is the important part, if the trend continues as indicated by the very existence of each 5th book. It doesn't matter if I thought it up or it's a guess, or anything. The world is a sphere, the sky is blue, and each 5th book has the same antagonist, and no 20 will in all likely hood also have the same antagonist as 5, 10 and 15.

You can't argue with it. You can't say 'Well, the author never said that'. It just is. An observation and extrapolation of the future based on the now.

...Just read what you wrote properly: Well, yes, facts, truth, evidence, context, these things are, in my book, the ONLY things that matter. So yeah, me and Wikipedia are never going to be buddies. I like my sources of information to contain information that is factual, true, and explicit, which is say covers everything and not just those things which can be cross checked with the creator of the work in question.

Personally, I would be interested to know anything about book 16 onwards. If I didn't know that book 20 is going to be about the Black Order, I would interested to find out that each 5th book thus far has been about the same enemy. But that doesn't count for anything, does it?

Stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.222.37.43 (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care man. The rules of Wiki's are stupid.

Then why are you here? You could make an argument that WP's policies are stupid, but then as someone who had edited WP under an IP address, then created an account to edit it further, you're admitting that you decided to do something stupid, knowing it was stupid, without bothering to try and do it intelligently, even after being explicitly told how to do it intelligently. That says far worse things about you than it does about WP. Regardless, you have three choices. You can cooperate and abide by the rules (which would be constructive), you can leave voluntarily (which would at least be consistent with your opinion of WP policy), or you can continue to edit disruptively and be banned (which would be downright stupid). It's up to you. Should you decide to do the first, I and many other will be happy to help you get along in that. Until then, I will stop watching your talk page and concern myself with maintaining the articles I do watch.

MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm here because I didn't know about Wikipedia's retarded rules before I posted, being of the type to poke something to see what it does.

Yes, I posted under an IP address. Because, and this might shock ya so brace yourself, I didn't realize it made any difference what I do. And I don't care. And I've bigger issues to deal with than this right now.

ALSO: Don't plan on playing your stupid game Wikipedia in general. Shut up. Go away. Look up meaning of phrase 'Don't give a flying fuck'.

June 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at The Dresden Files. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One, I questioned Wikipedia's stupid rules on a clear logical basis. As always when you discuss something online, no one care's about the context of a situation, just that they're undoubtedly correct in their assertion and you're point of view, first said and then screamed, doesn't actually matter.

Two, stop posting on this board because as I've indicted, I don't like this website and it's stupid rules and don't care about it. If you hadn't posted anything, idiot, I wouldn't have thought about logging into this website for at least another year or whenever I forget that I hate it's posting rules for being stupid, whichever occurs first.

You're causing your own grief here man. Don't want to hear from me? Don't bloody reply to this message.

AND: For your information, my disruptive editing, you fucking bastard, was entirely correct, accurate, factual, true, and will in the course of time be proven correct. Now fuck off.

Hello, I'm MjolnirPants. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Olliejmiles that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Maintaining a civil discourse is necessary for Wikipedia to operate. A single instance of incivility can be bounds for banning if reported. I am not inclined to report this (nor the previous instance), as I believe in giving new members more slack, but in the future please try to behave as an adult. Per your request, I will no longer post here, but I must warn you that reinserting the claim into The Dresden Files will result in a report being filed at the Administrators Noticeboards regarding your disruptive editing and your response to it on this page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]