User talk:WikiuserNI/Archive

Editing
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Spook (my talk 11:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do, I have been hasty in places, thanks Alastair

Niall Doherty
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do.  (aeropagitica)  16:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN
Do remember to sign your posts, so I can just click my way here instead of going into the edit history.

As I read through the Trivia section, I laughed and thought "This can't be meant seriously." (Not taking a side in the firefighters' strike because they were afraid of being burnt alive? The bassist never having watched an episode of AirWolf? I thought that was great stuff). You mean it wasn't a joke?

Sometimes vandalism ends in up in BJAODN if it shows some genuine humor (there's one I put in there from "Triumph of the Will" when it was a featured article). Daniel Case 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Facts; The band name really comes from the JRR Tolkien characters, this really was revealed on Irish TV, Niall genuinely hasn't seen an episode of Airwolf, Colm really is a McFadden related to Brian of the Irish boyband (he used to get free tickets from time to time), he really was listed as being in Iran and Faith of the Heart is a permanently denied request for the band to play. Thanks for saving the trivia though, its nice that some of it lives on! Alastairward 23:05, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Strabane
Why don't you come up with the ACTUAL number of soldiers that died you lazy cunt? All yer good for is criticising other's work. 172.209.210.43 18:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi anonymous, criticism is necessary for factual accuracy in any article. I've added to the Strabane talk page, I may edit later. Alastairward 10:29, 11 April 2006

thanks
For bothering to say thanks, nice to know my effort was appreciated :) (Johnny Copper 10:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Once upon a time...
Well they are just stubs.How did you find them?You can create some relevent redirects.Or may be you can propose some redircts,i'll create them.--Pixel ;-) 10:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
The incident was unfortunate, however, a large number of the conspirators were freedom fighters participating in Bangladesh Liberation War. Many of them were decorated with the gallantry awards given by the government. So, I don't see the problem with the term.

If you are interested, you might refer to Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood, which covers the 1970s history of Bangladesh in great detail.

Thanks. --Ragib 22:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ireland Country
Hi Alastairward. Yes, indeed the problem has been resolved as far as I'm concerned (I was probably the main beligerent on the "leave the word out" side). For me, the issue was not whether Ireland (meaning the Republic) was a country, but that it should be said more clearly what be mean by that given that there is another entity, also called Ireland (meaning the island), which is also a country too. For others, the issue was more clear cut: the island is the country, with the Republic being a soveriegn state. However, no-one ever said (despite what was made out, that "country" should not be used in the article - just that it be left out of the 'definition'.) The current introduction, plays on the ambiguity of "Ireland" and "country" a little in order to resolve the dispute (which in the end was a 50:50 split). The issue ultimately, as the definition of a "country" that you use points out, is that "country" always bring in ideas of nationhood. Where is the nation of Ireland - the Repblic or the island? --sony-youth talk 09:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

strabane
keep away from the strabane article- it is none of your business what is your ascination with it anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.173.84 (talk • contribs)
 * Watch yourself. This kind of language will get you kicked out of here. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that one Owen, the Strabane article is getting a ridiculous amount of petty edits over some small bits of info Alastairward 11:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

English medium education
Dear Alastair, Perhaps you might be so kind as to expand a little on what you mean by "I'm not sure how that paragraph describing the effects of a lack of foreign language education sits with the rest of the article"? I'm sorry that you did not find the article of much merit...I did spend some considerable amount of time on it! My use of other Wiki articles as references seems also to be a problem to you...I wonder why?

Eog1916 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Bone
Battle of the Bone has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this film might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Notability (films) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bartell LaRue
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bartell LaRue, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bartell LaRue
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bartell LaRue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Bartell LaRue. Mbisanz (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bartell LaRue
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bartell LaRue, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 04:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Deletion of the List of English Medium Schools in Ireland
Dear Alastair, I am somewhat perplexed by the delation of the above mentioned list. I am not all that aware of the Wikipedia English project site's rules and regulations, as my time is mostly devoted to othe language versions ov Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain the process whereby the article was deleted? Was the decision taken on the number of pro and con votes, if so what was the count? Is there other criteria involved? Bon suerte! EOG1916 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eog1916 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Eog1916, when the article was nominated for deletion, a link was automatically added to your talk page to notify you of the deletion request and to allow you to comment on the article. Here is the discussion page.


 * The decision to delete the article was made on the basis of the existence of two other articles, List of Primary Schools in the Republic of Ireland and List of Primary schools in Northern Ireland, which made the deleted article somewhat redundant. Alastairward (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alastair, What was the pro and anti vote count? Eog1916 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)EOG1916

Is it appropriate to base a section on a single opinion piece and lift large sections of text from it?
Dear Alastair, I thought that this was a particularly good article and I tried to précis it! Mea culpa if it did not meet with your standards. I will try again perhaps..if I can get the time. Eog1916 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Ulster Scots and Ulster Gaelic Dialects
I note your remarks re Ulster Scots Dialect...what then about Ulster Gaelic Dialect? 13:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirects after merges
Hi Alastair, Nice work on the Star Trek recurring character lists!

When you are redirecting the original page, please add. This has to be on the same line as the #redirect, otherwise it doesn't work.

You can also leave the categories on the original pages and this is useful for those categories that do not apply to the merged page, e.g. races and occupations. See Lon Suder for the fullest list that I reinstated.

I've done the above on the merged Voyager articles and H Mudd, but will leave any others to you. Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again, thanks for the House of Duras merger. I've added some StarTrek.com links including a timeline that I stumbled across for the whole House of Duras. Mergers are harder work than people imagine, aren't they! This one still has a mix of present and past tense; I'm inclined to put it all into the past tense, including the introduction - what do you think? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Leslie
Perhaps we could add Leslie to the list of TOS minor recurring characters if we haven't already. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen his article on Memory Alpha? It's incredible. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Primary Schools in the Republic of Ireland
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Primary Schools in the Republic of Ireland, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Please note: I did not place the Prod but am merely informing you as a courtesy. TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

mauling
Check out my edits, I'm waiting for the star wars fans to climb up my ass. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

southparkstudios.com
southparkstudios.com does not breach any copyright because it is and always has been South Park's official website.--Theoneintraining (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem visit this page for proof http://www.southparkstudios.com/news/?id=3405</. I know what you mean by you do not want to direct any external video's to copyrighted material, however take this for example: While a lot of David Copperfield's illusions are posted on YouTube so technically that is copyright however David Copperfield himself has said he does not mind because it offers free publicity so he is happy for them to be on there. I think when directing external link videos from Wikipedia you should be more inclusive and trust that the external website has the right for the material to be on there.--Theoneintraining (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need a reference to tell you this stuff?
Dear Alister, How is it original research to, for instance, say that the jingle is that from NBC? You don't need a source to tell you that, go watch an NBC news story, for Christ's sake. Most of the stuff doesn't need a source because they're simple visual references. Quit pulling "original research" out of your rear in an attempt to keep obvious material off of a page. Most of the other South Park episode pages have a Notes or Trivia section, you're the one trying to make a "special case" out of Super Fun Time. The Warcraft episode reference cannot be denied, it is not original research to point out that the lady is the same in both episodes; the "reference" is the two episodes for God's sake. The handcuffed motorcycle ride and the "mimicking" things, I guess you can take those off, but the Ferris Bueller references can't be denied.  Stardust Dragon  21:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, I didn't disagree with a small part of your edit, I disagreed with all of it. I don't care if some editor doesn't agree that something references something else; there is absolutely no valid way to dispute the NBC, Make Love, Not Warcraft, and montage points. Like I said earlier, this is obvious. Also, grats on being able to read my history.  Stardust Dragon  14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, It does not matter if it was intended. The trivia section does not serve that purpose, nor does it claim it was intended or make any statement to that effect. It simply states what we know to be fact. If you wish for every single fact to be sourced, I suggest you start with the A article and work downwards from there. Capisce?  Stardust Dragon  14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Do you even read the corresponding post before responding? "What we know to be fact" does not mean speculation. This will not change no matter how many times you scream speculation and OR and all that fun stuff. Keep on trying, though, seeing you post computer-automated responses with no apparent link to the posts they are in response to is pretty funny. Except not really.  Stardust Dragon  00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, It's also funny how you think Wikipedia needs a source to tell you stuff like "the NBC jingle is the same." Is some reporter more qualified to state that than we are?  Stardust Dragon  00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Changing the argument because you just noticed you were completely non-topical? I guess that's fine. Read the first sentence here and check out a few sentences in here. Stardust Dragon  19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Who is to say that the NBC jingle was used? Anyone with ears. Who is to say that that chick is the same one from MLNW? Anyone with eyes. Whether or not it was intended is irrelevant, but I've said this three times now and it still won't get through your thick skull. Personally, I don't even care if it goes on the article anymore, debating over this is a lot more fun. Your "sourcing" argument fails as per the definition of obvious, and your "why should trivia be included" argument fails as per the links I provided -- "this guideline... does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. -- if you were too dense to understand that.  Stardust Dragon  00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alister, I don't care what happens to the other articles; I edited the South Park ones, thus, those are the ones I care about. Nowhere in Wikipedia is it written that every article must have the exact same framework. South Park has so many references that they could warrant a page of their own given real-world notability, but I digress. Aren't South Park episodes based on the jokes and references, being a comedy show? And isn't that the point of the episode, and by extension, the point of understanding the episode? Please don't stop now, I'm having great fun.  Stardust Dragon  17:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, "you almost understood the point I was making" This condescending elitist attitude is why I'm so "hostile." It's like arguing with an admin, except you're not one. You're just repeating the same "source" shit you've been spouting instead of comprehending the argument I was making. Indeed, you even pulled out the "original research," because apparently these facts are too large for your mind to grasp. You can bitch about OR all you want, it doesn't change the fact that OR refers to something that is not proven. If you'd watch the episodes in question, and an NBC news report, perhaps you'd understand. And in response to "why acn these articls stnd wihtowt ur info lol," well, because if you don't, the world will blow up due to aids. Yes, it's silly, but so is your argument. The point of Wikipedia is adding information, if that shit worked here nobody would ever be able to add anything because hey, the article DID stand before the info was added. If this is the only way you can find to make yourself useful on Wikipedia, disputing some obvious facts in a pitiful attempt to maintain some conception of having power and authority in your life, I suggest you at least dispute facts that are disputable and not ''obvious (that is, by definition, easily grasped by the senses and mind). Indeed, maybe I could have had some more fun with this if you didn't start repeating yourself; I gotta say, with all that Barn  Stardust Dragon  20:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, From WP:OBVIOUS: "State the obvious." You can cry all you want about me being antagonistic, it doesn't change the facts that your arguments are flawed. "I don't care what happens to the other articles; I edited the South Park ones, thus, those are the ones I care about. Nowhere in Wikipedia is it written that every article must have the exact same framework." ""you almost understood the point I was making" This condescending elitist attitude is why I'm so "hostile."" You're repeating shit that I already answered, I guess my fun's run out : ( In closing, I have "tried" to explain it all to you. You just don't comprehend jack shit that doesn't have some paid journalist saying it. Stardust Dragon  23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Also, stop beginning your posts with "Dear Muramasa" or "Hello again," I know who the hell you're talking to.  Stardust Dragon  23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, As usual, you fail to read through my entire post to see what I am referring to in obvious. You see the first sentence of that policy? "State the Obvious?" Yeah, read that, then read the rest of the above post. Once again you fail to disprove obvious facts. It does not matter if they were intended or not. All that needs to be said was said -- "X is true," not "X was intended and is true" or "X was a coincidence." Your definition of OR fails here; you don't realize the difference between an untrue fact and an untrue implication that you seem to draw from that fact. Lastly, your use of the plural "editors" to refer to those I am "abusing" is quite humorous when, in reality, the only one is you. I'm quite friendly towards most others; it's, as I explained earlier, when we get into this elitist WP:OR zealot bullcrap that I lose my patience. Stardust Dragon  16:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, have a look at User:Muramasa_itachi/Bleach if you want to see what's wrong with your logic.  Stardust Dragon  16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alister, Do you see how none of the stuff on my page is actually referenced in the real article? Or is this beyond your grasp as well? We don't want to make Super Fun Time an "exception" after all.  Stardust Dragon  22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Also, don't make me ask you again; I told you specifically to cut the "Hello Murmasa" shit and when I tried to remedy the problem for you you stubbornly reverted it. I'm getting tired of your arrogant antics and as I've said I don't care what happens to the trivia section of the article now.  Stardust Dragon  23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Do you understand this pitifully obvious fact? The stuff you say should be referenced on my page is not referenced in the actual article. And guess what? Nobody cares. 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs)
 * Dear Alister, It's not. There are references, but not at every single fact, which is what I was getting at; I know this because when i pasted the citations needed template there indeed was no reference in the article's text where I pasted it.  Stardust Dragon  23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, It's not, once again. None of the "facts" that I put the citation needed tag on have a footnote or reference in the real article. See Bleach (manga), or perhaps you're just too thick-skulled to understand the point I'm trying to make. That's okay, I'll find a kindergarten teacher to carry it across in a way that your pitiful sheep-like brain can comprehend if that's what it takes. Stardust Dragon  23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, Lastly, it's Muramasa, if you insist on putting those obnoxious greetings on even though I requested twice that you didn't. Again, I'll get a kindergarten teacher to put that in baboon-monkey speak so you'll understand it if need be. Stardust Dragon  02:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alister, And as you still have yet to understand the two sentences that constitute WP:OBVIOUS, I'll show you the one I'm referring to. State facts which may be obvious to you. Do you understand what "obvious" means, Alister? It means "easily grasped by the senses or mind." Since you've yet to dispute the fact that any of these facts in the trivia section are not easily grasped by the senses or mind, only that some journalist fuck has yet to ask the South Park creators whether or not it was intended, I am forced to conclude that you in fact agree with this point, meaning you no longer have any valid reason to object their addition into the article. Will that ass-whooping be enough for you today, sir? Stardust Dragon  02:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alastair, I'm confused. Am I supposed to congratulate you for making an edit that you see as helpful, or is you adding a source to one fact in Wikipedia supposed to somehow refute the billions of contentions you are currently losing? Also, thank you for at least referring to me as Stardust, it's a lot less obnoxious.  Stardust Dragon  13:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alister, I thought we were getting somewhere with the names, but it would seem that you still are incapable of spelling out one goddamn a in between "mur" and "masa." As usual your newest post didn't really have anything of substance in it, it just asked a bunch of questions that are irrelevant. The English wiki being viewed outside the US is interesting, but then again, WP:OBVIOUS states that we state facts that may be obvious to the writer, but not necessarily the reader. Thus, that little detail works against you and furthers the hole of loss you've dug yourself. I suggest you just concede now; I've torn your contention apart in more ways than you could ever imagine and your thick skull is incapable of comprehending how badly it's losing this argument. In short, it doesn't matter if the citation tags were "warranted" or not. In articles like Sasuke Uchiha, GA-class articles, tags such as those I added to my demonstration page aren't there. What this means is that there are facts stated that do not refer to a source. Not every single fact on Wikipedia requires a source; otherwise we would have reference sections that are multiple pages long. There are plenty of obvious facts stated to the reader that are not sourced in the example GA. And what do you know? The article is still GA-class. Now, I admit I did get a bit tangential there, so I'll break it down so I don't have to read another post of you misunderstanding shit. All you need to carry away from this is that GAs that do not source EVERY SINGLE FACT are existent, and nobody aside from you has made it a point to challenge this. I'd really like to believe that you're an internet Che Guevara revolutionary and stuff, but the fact that you're pants-on-head retarded turns me away from this theory.  Stardust Dragon  19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Alistier wraed, And don't act like you're being "polite" by deliberately misspelling my name. Fixed it, if you revert again you're practically admitting to being disruptive by insisting that you misspell my name, which you know pisses me off.  Stardust Dragon  19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't read much of the post but there's a clarification issue. Yet again you misunderstand my point and ignore the sentence provided from WP:OBVIOUS that I keep capitalizing on. You say that every fact requires citation, but you concede that GA-class articles will not have a citation at every sentence. Which is it?  Stardust Dragon  14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Capitalizing on" something is not literally capitalizing. English Learning to grasp basic vocabulary words may help you here.  Stardust Dragon  19:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"I can see footnotes to a long list of references at the bottom of the article, not a footnote beside every sentence, but enough to verify what is in the article. You insistence that every fact does not require verification is quite wrong as I have said before." No. It's one or the other, you can't have both. When you can realize that this is a contradiction in your logic, come back; my fun here's worn out and I'm not going to continue to respond until we can get somewhere with the understanding of this pivotal fact. Since each sentence is not cited, and the article is a GA, obviously, not all facts require citation; otherwise each sentence that is not a repetition would need a citation. This make sense? Stardust Dragon  19:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "The facts in the featured articles are referenced fully, that is why they are featured articles. It doesn't matter whether the footnotes (the link that takes you from any point in the article to the reference) are beside every word, every sentence or every paragraph" Really? Where is the reference for, say, this fact: "In the anime and manga, Sasuke is a member of the Uchiha clan."? Or perhaps this one: "His primary motivation throughout the series is to avenge the destruction of his entire clan by killing his brother, Itachi Uchiha, a task he pursues at all costs." Surely this one would have a source too: "The Chidori, a collection of lightning-based chakra in the user's hand, serves as a rapid thrusting attack that severely damages any target." Need I go on?  Stardust Dragon ' 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So an admin specifically approved an article that had facts without sources? Good move there buddy.  Stardust Dragon  00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aww, I was going for squeezing it to one word per line. Anyways, what I'm trying to get across is that there are some facts that are not sourced in that article. This fact cannot be denied. I gave examples of some of these facts two posts above. They do not have references to specific pages of the manga, they do not have references at all. And admins didn't care and gave it GA class anyways. Make sense?  Stardust Dragon  17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments are the refuge of the weak. I guess your excuses ran out.  Stardust Dragon  23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great. Want a cookie? You still haven't answered the question I posed two posts above; you just act as though it's intuitive so as to avoid giving the answer you know will completely disprove everything you've said.  Stardust Dragon  13:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that I don't want to edit war with you is in no way a concession that you're right. Are you attempting to bait and game the 3RR?  Stardust Dragon  13:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe I just don't want to get into an edit war. Since you've made no effort to ask the questions I've posed at you, by your logic I am forced to conclude that you have no further points of contention. I have no intention of readding the trivia section -- i made it clear earlier that I never cared about that -- proving you wrong was just a personal project for me, as I suffer from an inferiority complex and cannot accept letting someone have any sort of perception of superiority over me.  Stardust Dragon  13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was expecting something other than a personal attack, maybe I hoped that you would actually answer the point at hand instead of just calling my comments "bile." Personal attacks aren't okay to make just because I do it; someone that so sensitively defends Wikipedia "policy" ought to know better, or at the very least do it well and make points while mounting personal attacks like I have. But I digress. If you consider asking you to answer my points "bile" I guess there's no hope for you. Glad I could take you off your high horse.  Stardust Dragon  14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except you haven't, I struck the coup de gras a couple posts ago and from there you just start making personal attacks. I hardly consider explanation as to why I don't intend to edit war with you as bile, but I suppose you think otherwise. That's certainly fine. If you haven't already, look at the vizard page; see if that compromise is good for you.  Stardust Dragon  14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"The facts in the featured articles are referenced fully', that is why they are featured articles. It doesn't matter whether the footnotes (the link that takes you from any point in the article to the reference) are beside every word, every sentence or every paragraph" Really? Where is the reference for, say, this fact: "In the anime and manga, Sasuke is a member of the Uchiha clan."? Or perhaps this one: "His primary motivation throughout the series is to avenge the destruction of his entire clan by killing his brother, Itachi Uchiha, a task he pursues at all costs." Surely this one would have a source too: "The Chidori, a collection of lightning-based chakra in the user's hand, serves as a rapid thrusting attack that severely damages any target." Need I go on? StardustDragon 15:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC) So an admin specifically approved an article that had facts without sources? Good move there buddy. StardustDragon 00:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Aww, I was going for squeezing it to one word per line. Anyways, what I'm trying to get across is that there are some facts that are not sourced in that article. This fact cannot be denied. I gave examples of some of these facts two posts above. They do not have references to specific pages of the manga, they do not have references at all. And admins didn't care and gave it GA class anyways. Make sense? StardustDragon 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

These are what I'm referring to. I don't mind you editing the Vizard page, but it seems like you're just reverting my edits for the sake of disagreeing with me -__- "Where is it said that its a rhinoceros" Do we need Kubo to describe her for us before we are allowed to write about her visual appearance now?  Stardust Dragon  14:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating "you misunderstand Wikipedia" without warranting the fact. How? I'm forced to conclude this is your guise for saying "I don't have a warranted response for this, you win."  Stardust Dragon  14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't much care myself, but that's four reverts on the Vizard page; best watch out for the 3RR zealots.  Stardust Dragon  14:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quit stalling for time and answer the specific analysis I just reposted. I don't care how the argument started.  Stardust Dragon  14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why did it, given the three quotes I gave you that were uncited?  Stardust Dragon  15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC) And obviously I already know what a bit of discussion does, seeing as though I engaged in this endeavor before getting into an edit war =_=  Stardust Dragon  15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Close but no banana. I'm not referring to the existing footnotes, I'm referring to some facts that pass as obvious and are uncited. Those are the ones that I quoted. I actually pondered bringing up citations for them, but the article was at GA-class so I figured that they had already determined the shit as obvious. Trivia generally doesn't qualify as that, but i think some of the stuff that was there in particular could pass as that. Either way, I don't care about this stupid sh*t and to be honest, all of this conversation past the first two posts has been me shooting the breeze.  Stardust Dragon  22:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If they don't have footnotes, they're uncited.  Stardust Dragon  13:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Uncited facts... Not seeing the difference  Stardust Dragon  14:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So not having a reference doesn't make it original research? You've claimed the contrary multiple times. There are no "exceptions," if a fact cannot be verified, it is original research. Period.  Stardust Dragon  14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you got me there, but if they're not in the footnotes, where are they?  Stardust Dragon  23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Idk who the hell he is, but Alan Shearer has like, tons of unsourced shit at the top.  Stardust Dragon  20:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

muramasa_itachi
greetings alastairward. it seems that this guy is quite a troublesome fellow... the world is filled with... people. you fill the rest. crazies.--Rcmtiongson (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He is, isn't he? Alastairward (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. it's a waste of time trying to reason with the deaf, or in wiki's case, the blind.--Rcmtiongson (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA  Stardust Dragon  13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is all in reference to the abusive nature you demonstrated in commenting on edits or on my talk page, perhaps you might drop that attitude? Alastairward (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, this kid that's calling me troublesome left abrasive comments on my own talk page and doesn't understand how a talk page works; I doubt he knows much about the argument at hand other than it involves someone he personally doesn't like. I'm sorry, but "skull-like" does not fly for a description of a hollow mask. As for dropping the attitude, my last few posts were in a more friendly light, if you couldn't tell; I was in a good mood the past few days.  Stardust Dragon  13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * funny guy... so me calling you "anarchist", which you yourself described yourself with, is abrasive?! if someone describes himself as hidebound and is called the same by someone else and takes offense... oh well. don't sound patronizing, you don't know me.--Rcmtiongson (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care about calling me an anarchist, but the way you used it it was as if you're treating it as a derogatory term. I don't want to clog Alastair's talk page with more pointless shit, but I also don't want to delete this myself unless I have his permission since it's his talk page.  Stardust Dragon  21:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)