User talk:Xanderville

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. ... disco spinster   talk  13:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Doris Day
Please stop trying to base your edits on something other than reliable sources. The date printed on the verso page of a book is not an endorsement by the Library of Congress of the birthdate; because a celebrity says he or she was born in some given date does not necessarily mean it is the true one - the celebrity's word is not irrefutable without additional back-up, especially in light of other sources which tend to refute that. Please provide a valid and reliable source to support your assertion besides the census being wrong. There is a vast difference between a 5 year old and a 7 year old, especially when census data would be given by the person's actual parents. Reliable sources please. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you don't understand the concept of facetiousness and you don't understand the concept of reliable sources. Do not make the mistake of assuming what I know or fail to know. It is simple, don't be a dick. Your persistence in reverting the date based on Library of Congress verso data and a unreferenced note about her autobiography do not consist of reliable and verifiable sourcing since you fail to actually add a reliable source. This only reflects your single purposeness and casts question on your ability to understand the concepts of WP policy. Library of Congress dates on books do not fall under the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources, while in the absence of other sourcing, census data is accepted as such, especially when it is given specifically down to the exact enumeration page and roll. It is very presumptuous of you to attempt to lecture about verifiability while you are unable to supply a reliable source of any kind. If you cannot do anything besides revert and leave inappropriate edit summaries, I will take this to WP:AN/I. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then by all means, supply the birth certificate. I know quite a bit about census data, I really do not need, nor will I tolerate, little lectures left on my talk page. Find the sources that are verifiable and reliable that can be used as references in the proper format for your contention. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Knock yourself out. There was nothing belittling about it, at least no more so than your lecturing me on what I "fail to understand". Meanwhile, linking to a Wikimedia guideline or essay isn't profane, except in the eye of the beholder. WP:DICK says clearly "No definition of being a dick has been provided. This is deliberate." So if you see it as profane, that's only your perception. I've not yet seen someone censured or blocked for suggesting that an editor not be a dick. Meanwhile, don't treat others as if you hold superior knowledge or some special insight, and perhaps others won't suggest you not be one. LaVidaLoca (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)