User talk:Joelyjoelyjoely

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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. Blowdart | talk 23:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. You're going to need to cite a source. See WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Note from Joelyjoelyjoely
Many existing facts in the articles I edited also had no citation, and yet you did not delete those. If you'd bothered to do a very simple Google search before deleting my edits you would have seen how widely known those facts were. Why should my edits need citations when other peoples' don't?

You think I'm making those edits to experiment and need a sandbox? I'm adding interesting facts omitted from otherwise bland articles.

Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Crocodile
From Verifiability policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I'm challenging your assertion that crocodiles cannot stick out their tongues, because I don't believe it until I see a cited source. On the other hand, I am prepared to believe that they eat fish, because they are aquatic carnivores. Up to you to justify, it's your edit. -- Rodhull andemu  22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BURDEN. -- Rodhull andemu  23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't you think there should be a burden on the would-be deleter to at least do a cursory Google before deleting?

Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because that would fly in the face of the guideline referred to above. On the contrary, why shouldn't you Google before adding it, after all it seems you are capable of doing that for Christina O? Everybody else seems to manage to provide sources. -- Rodhull andemu  23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did do a Google, to confirm something I thought was obvious about crocodiles, that was conspicuous by its absence on the original page. I found it to be mentioned so much that there would be no point in citing it. Kind of like "crocodiles eat fish" but more interesting. I then introduced the interesting fact. You can't be saying "all new facts must be cited," so you must be saying that it's all subjective. In which case, you should check before you delete facts as I'm pretty sure that's vandalism, just in case it's something you've manage to reach your ripe old age without hearing. BTW - I've read the WP:BURDEN statement, and your deletion without asking for citation in advance seems to be more of a wrong than my original edit. Whether I'm right or wrong comes down to interpretation of "likely to be challenged," whereas you deleting without a) checking and b) asking (or adding a WP:FACT template requesting it) can be construed as vandalism: WP:VAND You should only immediately remove unattributed badness about living persons. A crocodile does not fall into that category. But it's OK. I forgive you. Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As you will imagine, us Administrators here often get advice on what our policies are, and some of that advice is correct. If you read WP:VAND, however, you will find that deleting sourced content may be regarded as vandalism, and I have already referred to to the relevant policies in relation to whether crocodiles can stick their tongues out- as if I care whether they do or not- but I don't find it obvious, I find it questionable. -- Rodhull andemu  23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm new here, and this doesn't seem remotely friendly to me. But if you found the crocodile content questionable, shouldn't you use a WP:FACT tag and question it *as opposed to deleting it*? I'm beginning to suspect you are a little guilty here of WP:WL WikiLawyering. From my reading of these, is it not about the spirit more than the letter? Reading WP:WIARM seems to forgive newbies, but you have adopted your own interpretation in a "shoot first, ask quesitions later" kind of way. Ultimately, just deleting something is destructive. As a general principal, any one in a position of power should have probable cause before acting. I retract my forgiveness. Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it because I see so much rubbish added here every day that I don't have time to do that. However, for a newbie, you do seem to pick up things very quickly, so I guess in time you will avoid unnecessary deletion of your edits, simply by citing reliable sources for them. -- Rodhull andemu  00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit of a bully, aren't you? And it's clear from your personal page that you really enjoy the policeman part of your job. So, let me get this clear, 'cos I'm still a bit shakey here. You go around deleting all unsourced edits? You want all edits to be sourced? Or is there some sliding scale here, where the arbitrary line between what does and doesn't require a source lies in your head? Your actions are pretty agressive and seem to make a complete mockery of the ethos of newbies not having to read the rules before posting. Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this on my Christina O edits from you: "23:09, 15 January 2009 Rodhullandemu (Talk | contribs) (3,797 bytes) (ce, rm blog as unreliable source & unnecessary wlink. Prolly not a good idea to undo an Admin's edit.) (undo)" Is that some kind of threat? You're effectively saying "if an admin deletes your edits don't think of putting them back even WITH citations". Are you *sure* you admins are not letting all this power go to your heads? Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you've found out how to look at an edit history. Well done. However, I deleted one reference out of three (only one reliable source is required in these circumstances) because blogs are not regarded as such since *anyone* may have input to them. I did, however, check out the other two references, which I didn't feel were unreliable (which is the whole point behind our policy). No threat intended by that, or any other, edit, but admins only become so because they understand policy, at least in their specialist areas (and content reliability is one of mine), and if they undo an edit otherwise than on a content basis, it's because it FAILS to comply with policy, although actually, any editor can, and should, be doing that. What I am saying is that if an admin reverts your edits, it's usually soundly based in the policies and guidelines we have here, and you are open to discuss the issue in a mature matter, either on the relevant Talk page or with the admin on their own talk page, or on your own talk page. What you are NOT expected to do is to be truculent (e.g. Crocodile: "How about a WP:FACT tag nex time instead of just deleting without checking")- on that, I spent an hour yesterday evening Googling for anything reliable that could support your contention, and found precisely nothing. Blogs and personal websites, yes, and mythology, but nothing concrete. I did that to resolve this one way or the other, but we are still back to your responsibility to source that fact, however unimportant it may seem to you. A cn/WP:FACT tag is laziness, and even more so when you suggest it yourself- it isn't up to other editors to fill in your deficiencies, however optimistically expressed, and THAT is why if you fail to substantiate a fact, it goes, eventually, and that is the end of it. The sooner you realise that, the longer will be your editing career here. -- Rodhull andemu  23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's bad manners for anyone to remove anything (legal reasons notwithstanding) someone puts without checking first. You may have spent an hour googling (and let me tell you, 58 minutes of that was wasted - I found solid stuff in 2 minutes; and my trusty book on crocodile husbandry from my days as a zookeeper), but that was *after* you deleted my post. Had there been more than a 5 minute lag between my posting and your deletion, and a corresponding deletion note saying "googled and only found myths; this needs proof" would be perfectly reasonable. But you just deleted it and googled after the fact. Which is my point. The burden of proof should surely only come in to play after you've pointed out there's something needing proving. Ask first, delete later; use of a FACT tag would seem to be the friendly way to do things (and seems to be the spirit of the policies you sent me). WP:WIARM seems to welcome new folks, giving chances before deletion. But here you are basically saying "NEW GUY: YOU ARE DEFICIENT!". Which really doesn't sound like the spirit of things. While I'm about it, is there a WP:TRUCULENCE? Do you have any idea how pompous and elitist that makes you sound? Why should I venerate you? Are you something to be revered? After all, you just delete people's edits without checking or even informing them they need to cite it. I clearly barely rank as human to someone at the lofty heights of Admin. So, if reliability is one of your specialist areas, I'm guessing you're pretty annoyed that the crocodile fact is true and verifiable. Which is probably why you keep coming back to my talk page. And while I'm on the subject of talk pages, when you say I can communicate "with the admin on their own talk page", have you had a look at your page recently? You start of with a big "GET LOST INSIGNIFICANT NEWBIES". All you have to do here - to qualify as a nice person - is ask first. If you think something is questionable but not illegal, then why not a FACT tag? When you say "it isn't up to other editors to fill in your deficiencies" (btw - do you realise you actually said that out loud? doesn't sound very "Ignore All Rules" to me!) and accuse me of "laziness" I'm not asking other editors to fill in citations for me. I'm asking that unless you have proof otherwise, use the FACT tag and ask the original editor to supply one. WP:WL And lastly, "the longer will be your editing career here" - the bully-boy threat comes out again! So, you're going to delete my account and block my IP then? Thanks a bunch. "Welcome to WikiPedia and Have a Nice Day." I think not. Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye Cruel World
My brief experience with some WikiPedian admins has not been a pleasant one. They seem too keen on godding (if any one cares to create a page for it, "godding" is similar to "dogging" with a few changes: Sysadmins meet in seedy places on the Interwebs and abuse their God privilieges while others watch from the bushes. Another common meaning of "godding", of course, is the attendence of churches or places of worhship by members of alternative faiths or non-believers. Feel free to cite this page as an authoritative source for "godding." ) WikiPedia is not at all a welcoming place. By the time you reply to this, I'll be unable to. Right-o, I'm off to commit WikiSuicide. (WP:SUICIDE) (For the avoidance of doubt, I mean "put my account beyond use") Joelyjoelyjoely (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)