User talk:Padlokasul

Suggestion
Just because article content is unsourced that does not give you carte blanche to remove it indiscriminately. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Yes it does. Everything on Wikipedia has to have a source. Read the rules.Padlokasul (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia policy WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." - what specific statements in those articles are you challenging? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are removing statements like "Because scissors have overlapping blades, they are not symmetric. " In what way is this content likely to be challenged? . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the description to show that it is true. Add a source.Padlokasul (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess you fail to realize that just saying "no sources" is a good enough explanation for just removing content. That is not the case. I am not sure if you have read what Barek wrote, but I highly recommend you to do it. Your edits will be classified as vandalism if you keep making such edits. --Altaïr (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Show your sources for the deleted sections.Padlokasul (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See how this ended up. If your "policy" for deleting everything unsourced was to be followed blindly, half of Wikipedias articles should be deleted. Maybe it's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point. --Altaïr (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Then half of Wikipedia articles should be deleted. If you have not got a source for what is written in Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source of information.Padlokasul (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, sources are needed on every article, but it doesn't mean that every unsourced sections or articles should be deleted without second thought. That is not how it works around here. I think it is you that probably should read the "rules". --Altaïr (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No sources, no content. Or can I just write any rubbish I like so long as I add one detail that has a source?Padlokasul (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said that. And there it is again: "No sources, no content". It is not how it works around here. There is this little notice on many articles having unsourced content, reading "Citation needed". It is there for a reason: For some other editor to find a source matching, or somewhat matching to what is stated, but it does not mean instant deletion. As I said before, I think you should read the rules a couple of times to understand what I mean. --Altaïr (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And the citation that is needed does not appear, so the entry is removed until the citation appears. Alternatively, put the citation there.Padlokasul (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When you are unblocked, I suggest you make it your mission to find references for all the uncited material on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to do other people's work for them. Let the people who added the content show their sources. If they haven't got them, the content should not be there.Padlokasul (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm Quinxorin. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from Scissors without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Quinxorin (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There were no verifiable sources so I removed the unsourced content.Padlokasul (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Curly Wurly with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Quinxorin (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) There were no sources for the content that I removed, which is why I removed it.Padlokasul (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by blocking admin: As pointed out, Wikipedia policy WP:V specifically states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." You are indiscriminately blanking content without consideration of if the material is likely to be challenged - which is not an action supported by site policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that I am asking to see the sources is a case of challenging it.Padlokasul (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You were not challenging the content. Your wholesale blanking of 100% of material that was unsourced was, by your own repeated admission, for the sole reason of it not being sourced - not because you challenge the content itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That is still a challenge to the content, which still does not have a source. I could genuinely post more unsourced content on Wikipedia before I was even challenged than the amount I could remove before being blocked.Padlokasul (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlokasul, it looks like you're experiencing a problem that a lot of Wikipedians have when they're starting out: you read the rules, and you're trying to apply them to everything, all the time, exactly as they're phrased. So you read that content likely to be challenged must have a source, and you quite understandably took that to mean that content that doesn't have a source should be challenged by removing it. However, the part you're missing is that we expect Wikipedians to apply some level of common sense. This means that you need to actually apply some thought to how you enforce our rules, and whether to enforce them at all. So for example, if I read a passage in an article that says "So-and-so got married to an underaged kid last week", my common sense tells me that that's very likely to be challenged. If it's true, it's important, but if it's not true, it's damaging! So it's essential that we remove something like that, where common sense tells us it's likely to be challenged. Contrast that with a statement like "scissors cut paper" or "Curly Wurly is a chocolate bar". Not only are those simple facts, the sort that most people can mentally verify just by calling up a mental picture of the item, but it's not likely that anyone is going to come along and naively think, "Wait, surely that can't be right. Scissors CUT? I demand to see proof of this!" That means the information about scissors isn't likely to be challenged by anyone thinking rationally, and that means we don't have to remove it right now. You can certainly say that the information ought to be sourced, and we have tags like  to mark that, but removing such content - especially when you're basically blanking out an entire article - isn't a common sense approach. It's what we refer to as "wikilawyering", where the letter of the rules ("Oh my god, we can't have content without a direct source!") is being used contrary to the spirit of the rules ("No one's likely to dispute that scissors cut paper, so I don't need to remove it."). It can take some time to develop a good sense of what falls under which heading, but we expect Wikipedians to develop that sense eventually, even if they have some false starts. If you're finding it impossible to distinguish between the "remove it now" situations and the "I don't have to execute the rule verbatim here" situations, you and Wikipedia may not be well-suited to each other in the long run. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason so much bias exists in Wikipedia articles is because weasel-words in politically sensitive entries are challenged by individuals but defended by mobs, so your logic is used to prevent sources and neutrality. "Everyone knows X to be true" is challenged, at which point the mob of admins merely say "Well, you're the only/first person to challenge it, so we won't bother to add a source." If you have not got a source, Wikipedia is only as reliable as the graffiti on the wall of a public toilet.Padlokasul (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are blanking content in articles such as Scissors, Marshmallow, Sand art and play, and Curly Wurly - yet comment about "weasel-words in politically sensitive entries". What is politically sensitive about the material being blanked?  Or are you being intentionally disruptive in these subjects in order to make a point of perceived issues elsewhere? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot even find a source for something as straightforward as a Curly Wurly, how can you possibly expect the content of articles about controversial subject matter to be either reliable or neutral?Padlokasul (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . Max Semenik (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was typing this up, but Max beat me to the punch. I'm going to ask that he allow you to continue editing your talk page long enough to post one more appeal, but only on the condition that you read what I have to say. Please be aware that, if my request is granted, this is your final shot before you must seek another route of appeal.

Ok, storytime. When I applied for adminship the second time, I received a lot of criticism from members of the community. Their complaints largely centered around the fact that I'd commented on a deletion discussion for an article on a book about a week before, stating that the author of a book was "apparently notable". They took issue with this because it was clear that I hadn't done any proper research on the book itself; the author was most certainly notable, being Bertrand Russell, a Nobel laureate among multiple other honors. Several months later, someone offered to nominate me for adminship again, but only on the condition that I do work to improve the article on Bertrand Russell, which had deteriorated some over the years. By demonstrating that, in addition to my other qualifications, I was able to learn from, correct, and seek to avoid my past mistakes, the community decided to grant me adminship.

I bring this up because you are now in a very similar situation. You have been blocked for failing to fully understand something; that something being that Wikipedia guidelines and policies tend to be a bit flexible. Yes, content should be referenced; however, only the truly controversial facts need to be referenced. Furthermore, your hack-and-slash approach is very disruptive, particularly when a good many of the facts you're removing are blatantly obvious either from the other references available, by inference from the other information provided, or simple common sense. A better approach, if you believe that some of the facts need references (and I do agree that several of the articles you edited could use some work in that regard), would be to do some research and add those sources, or add the fact template to things you feel truly need a citation. Interpreting Wikipedia policies and guidelines by the letter, and not the spirit, is considered to be very disruptive. They must always be evaluated in the context of the current situation, and in some cases ignored outright if doing so means you can improve the encyclopedia.

Just as I had to demonstrate that I understood my failings, you now must demonstrate that you understand yours. I am guessing that you are very close to losing the ability to edit this page at this point - there's only so many appeals you get before we lose patience. Please, take this opportunity to truly read and understand what all we have said here, and consider if there is a better way you could have handled this situation. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Max has agreed to let me allow you to edit this page again. You will be able to post one more unblock appeal. Please do not waste this chance. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlokasul is trying to impose conditions under which he is prepared to continue giving Wikipedia the benefit of his contributions. This is unacceptable. I recommend he is permanently blocked as judging by his contributions so far he will continue to be a disruptive influence on the project. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)