User talk:Xubelox

Captain Olimar
While it is nice that you removed so-called 'pointless crap' from the article, I would remind you to remain civil in edit summaries. I hear other users appreciate your contributions, it would be a shame to acquire a tarnished reputation. Thank you for your time, RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 22:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I want to say in the Captain Olimar article is that there has been some speculation, however spurious. And just because 'pointless crap' is used frequently in edit summaries doesn't mean that it's okay. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 00:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Celice.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Celice.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on The Simpsons Movie
Can we please discuss the issue and come to a conclusion on the talk page before making any changes to the article? I think avoiding an edit war is in everyone's best interest... Thanks si &raquo;  abhorreo   &raquo;   T 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it simply doesn't fall into the category of original research as defined at WP:NOR. Perhaps you could tell me how it does? si &raquo;  abhorreo   &raquo;   T 05:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do say its a theory and a "scoop", and therefor it's noted in the article. The question is "is antitcool a reliable source?" Personally, I think that it is for this situation, but in any case you'll note that that I previously mentioned that you could make a case against the aintitcool part. What I am mainly dealing with here is the other two pieces of information, and that subsection as a whole. They are not original research, and I object to you removing them on the grounds that they are. si &raquo;  abhorreo   &raquo;   T 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I would appreciate if you would address the other pieces of "speculation" and the speculative subsection as a whole. You haven't answered any part of what I said other then the part about aintitcool. In regard to the aintitcool bit... "Original research" applies to the Wikipedian adding the information to the article. Using someone else's research from an external source isn't. Yes it is speculative research on their part, and that's why its defined as speculative in the Wikipedia article. However, like I said, there is indeed a case against it (as the question is, "is antitcool a reliable source?"), and if you remove just the aintitcool part, I personally will stand back and not revert it, although others might. si &raquo;  abhorreo   &raquo;   T

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)