User talk:Mythsearcher

This user may have left Wikipedia. Mythsearcher has not edited Wikipedia since October 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Talk Archive 1 2

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Ragib 03:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of fictional appearances of SR-71 Blackbird, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Crufty list of non-encyclopedic pop culture appearances which are themselves discouraged by the Military history Project Manual of Style.

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 {{dated prod}} 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but the article is still in violation of the milhist mos. To be fair, I am going to seek coordinator input on the matter, but I expect that some deleting will occur before all is said and done. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather it be deleted immediately, but it is in fairness to you and your position that I have not officially filed an afd yet. I am seeking consensus from the other coordinators on a course of action, when I have that I will get back to you. Remember that I walk a fine line on these matters, as a contributor and an inclusionist I like to think that all material added has a place, but as a coordinator entrusted with ensure the project's articles adhere to our standards I am also bound by our guidelines on the matter popular culture. In a few days I will have a sense of where the coordinators opinion on the matter lies, and at that point I will get back to you with their suggest course of action. In the meantime, I intend to re-read the conversation on the talk page to better understand your position on the matter, and I will also look through the article history to see how bad the cruft waltz has been. If I think your solutions works I may change my tune and side with you on the matter of keeping the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken stock of the situation, looking through the links you provided and seeing where consensus lies. It appears that the article, however malformed it may be, was created in good faith and is at the moment keeping the cruft out of the parent SR-71 Blackbird article, as the editors on the page hoped it would. However that does not change the fact that the article is an unencyclopedic list and will need to be deleted if it is not improved. To resolve these two positions I am willing to wait until the end of August for the cruft list to show some improvement, and if it does not I will nominate it for afd. Alternatively, if you decide that the list is no longer needed then you may nominate the article for deletion yourself. I am open to discussing a merge solution, but that may be tricky as I am about start my second summer school semester. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left a belated response for you over at Talk:Cloaking_device#Plasma_Cloaking_Device. Click on the link. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...its just that since I created almost all of the old UC era Gundam ships I would have liked the opportunity to do the merging. I was unaware that a discussion had even occurred on the matter, otherwise I would have taken the initiative and done the merging myself as a final tribute to my earlier articles. Now there gone, and I did not even get a chance to say goodbye, such as it were. Oh well, I suppose that's life for you... TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 05:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. FYI: That barnstar you were going to award should be the BarnSakura. Use this text: {{subst:BarnSakura Award|YOUR TEXT HERE}}. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 06:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rough draft pop culture section with two paragraphs written; they are small as they should be so as to avoid inviting those with a pop culture mindset to add anything and everything to the page. Before advertising I wondered if you might offer some feedback on the section. Its located here. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 01:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take another look after my other final today and get back to you on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're well aware of the three-revert rule, so please stop trying to insert your dictionary definition onto the Obama (disambiguation) page. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been given an option on the talk page which is much more appropriate for your addition. Thank you for your cooperation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mobile weapon sensors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Mostly original research and excessive detail that is important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Farix (Talk) 12:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farix (Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and edited the 0083 and 08MS character sections the same way I did with 0080 earlier this morning. Feel free to redirect the 0080 character articles to the main page for that show. And feel free to add a brief description of each 0083 and 08MS character. Or not. If you think simply leaving their voice actors is enough, that's fine. As for the characters from Gundam ZZ and Victory Gundam, I think we should have separate lists for them as we discussed. See List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. Shaneymike (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the character section from Char's Counterattack. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have that along with a cast section. I'm wondering if maybe we should redirect the following character articles - Chan Agi, Gyunei Guss, Quess Paraya, and Hathaway Noa to the List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. Shaneymike (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See changes I made to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. Shaneymike (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished redirect all the character articles for 0080 and 0083 to their main articles and adding brief descriptions for all the major characters in 0083. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to do 08MS. Feel free to do the same with those articles. Shaneymike (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im on your side for this one, fanart isn't allowed on the wiki so maybe we should bring a sysop in if xander keeps it up.Deus257 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for for your kindness in awarding me the Article Rescue Barnstar. I will continue to do my best to improve the Gundam SEED Destiny article.

Furthermore, I want to award you...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For spreading good feeling among participants in the Gundam SEED Destiny article discussion of August, 2009, and encouraging all of us to work harder to set aside our differences and improve the article. --LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out what to do with the article on Mobile Suit X which is located at MS-X. It doesn't appear to be notable and is entirely unsourced. I'm trying to figure out where it should be merged to, but I'm coming up with no answers since this is such an odd article. It describes it as a series of mech designs that that never got past the conceptional drawings and were never published in any book. Then it goes on about an unpublished manga series that was canned after production began on Zeta Gundam. Perhaps you can figure out if the contents is salvageable, and if so where, or if it should be deleted. --Farix (Talk) 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue. For an example of undue, try to have an article with a few dozen sources and only 1 stating something really unrelated.

This is what you stated from the page Talk:Boku wa Imōto ni Koi o Suru. Can you link to me the policy stating that minimum amount of content in an article, where it's not 'lacking in content,' is needed to be considered undue? Jonhan (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you mentioned it clearly, and that's the problem. What I'm trying to figure out is where are you getting this from, which policy and where is it explicitly stated that an article has to be a certain length? Are you making it up on the spot? I have not read any discrimination between article lengths and whether or not a source added, with no other supporting sources, is contingent on the amount of information on the page. The only thing that matters is reliable information, as far as I have read, non-POV and non-fringe. Jonhan (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for your reply. I believe you have some correcting to do since they looked for neutral arbitration, you took a side with a policy you pulled out of thin air, then dictated the issue over a false policy. Or is this not the case and there is actually said policy? The fact that there is only 1 source supporting a point of view can be considered fringe. Jonhan (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying for an article with little sources, it is better to include reliable sources even if they might not be the truth.

THIS is what I have a problem with. Show me WHERE EXACTLY it says that it is better to include untrue sources in an article with a little amount of information, rather than including those same exact untrue sources in an article with more information. Including a source is not contingent on the amount of information on a page as far as I know, can you show me where it says it is?

A general rule is applied here that the consensus at the specific talk page is not on your side

This is very unrelated, but there was 1 person opposing what I had mentioned, and 1 supporting me. So yes the consensus was on my side.

you do not claim every single sources undue just because you cannot find another source stating the exact same thing

When you question it's validity, you do need another source to back it up or it will be fringe opinion.

You have no grounds to say that it is undue, since you don't even try to provide any sources saying otherwise.(undue is about minority views, and you do not have proof to support yourself claiming a majority view otherwise. The burden of proof is on your side, not mine, since you are the one claiming undue, meaning you think there is a majority/significant view on the concerned subject, not me.

You cannot, I repeat, cannot prove a double negative. The burden of proof is on the person asserting that his view is the majority. I didn't insert the statement, so I did not make any claim, so I do not have the burden of proof. They have to do that with more sources, which they didn't. I'm not making any claims, I'm questioning claims for more sources/evidence otherwise WP:Fringe. You're turning this into who was right/wrong, which I'm trying to avoid, the only thing I'm interested in is verifying your post and the seemingly false influence you brought.

The reason I brought it up is because you convinced me at the time that there had to be a certain amount of information on the page to claim WP:UNDUE, which you are still claiming with your first sentence that I quoted. So I began thinking about it more and came here to ask you for your evidence of this. I want to make sure that you have none. By the way, feel free to reply here so it's more fluid and we don't have to multitask between pages. I'll check back. Jonhan (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your problem. You are playing with words here, not trying to do anything productive. I have said at the talk page I am talking about the inclusion of the source as a whole, not a specific wording the source uses. Do you understand? Your claim of undue is totally NOT sticking along with the wikipedia policy and guidelines, which is at WP:V and WP:RS. I can also quote WP:NPOV as a related policy. The WP:UNDUE guideline also does not support you claim of that source being undue, since the review on that source is NOT focused on the effect, but only mentioned the effect. I did not say it is better to include untrue sources in the article, and you totally missed my point about I have no wish to understand if the source is true or not, the policy said include the reliable sources, I am not the expert, the sources may not be an expert but it is published, verifiable and reliable. It is about the policy, and it is NOT my position to question if the source is undue or not since I do not see a display of sources claiming otherwise. The fun thing is, you claim consensus is with you, yet the one stating the source might need to be removed (Flyer22) also said the same thing, that consensus is not with you. In fact, I do not see anyone at the discussion supporting your claim of undue. And no, we do not find sources to back up other sources, wikipedia does not work that way. WP:UNDUE never state you need sources to back up other sources. I will repeat this once, the source used there sticks with WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and you are using your own WP:OR to claim a source to have errors and said it is WP:UNDUE. So you are the one raising the question on the source and the burden of prove is on you, not me, since the source is a reliable one, and I do not have any need to do anything since I am NOT the one questioning the reliability of the source. Also, I pointed you to the policy pages, and you can well go to those and try to seek advise there. You did not, and bought the discussion from the specific talk page which ended over 1 month ago on my page, without trying to notify other parties involved and tried to accuse me on my view of the policies, I have very clearly stated to have never known the series or the effect, and had told you my view is on the policies and the reliability of the source. If you want to know why I do not agree to your point of undue, try this Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. The source used in that discussion is a reliable one, meaning it is referenced with a commonly reference text,(also see Jimmy's 1st note) and I do not see tons of different views or another strong view with many sources claiming other wise(You did not give me any) thus I told you I do not find the point undue, unless you can find other reliable sources claiming otherwise, or you can somehow convince others that the source is not reliable. I followed the policies, you cannot get any useful contribution by asking me anything, since I am only stating everything on the policies. I have repeatedly told you I do not know what the article is about, thus I can only judge by the general policies, and you should have been well informed about this. You are really playing with words trying to accuse me of something(I do not know what you want to and can gain from this discussion at all) that does not help in improving wikipedia to a point where you are getting quite disturbing. I asked you for more sources since undue is usually about different views, you cannot show any, thus I told you undue would only be claimed on articles with more sources, since in those articles, it is very easy to see which source is of minority. You can well ignore me here, but it is what I understand from the policies and guidelines, and all of these are NOT from thin air and is only how I am trying to explain the guideline to you. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow no paragraphs. I'm going to try to address this as honestly as possible because I want a serious answer from you. You've completely dodged your initial statement. First off, I'm not trying to address that issue here. I'm addressing the claim that you made in the page not the issue on the page. If I wanted to address the issue on the page, I would NOT post there. This is about your specific comment.

I did not say it is better to include untrue sources in the article, and you totally missed my point about I have no wish to understand if the source is true or not, the policy said include the reliable sources, I am not the expert, the sources may not be an expert but it is published, verifiable and reliable. It is about the policy, and it is NOT my position to question if the source is undue or not since I do not see a display of sources claiming otherwise.

You Just said it here, word for word. I'm quote to quote you verbatim: I am saying for an article with little sources, it is better to include reliable sources even if they might not be the truth. Show me exactly where it says this. This is the most important point, don't give me a lot of fluff, if you're going to rebut a point, address this very sentence you made.

And no, we do not find sources to back up other sources, wikipedia does not work that way.

YES WE DO. If a 'reliable source' is in question, you need another source to back it up or it's not reliable. I don't believe in a 'reliable source' list where everything on that list is reliable -- this is the very issue I was bringing up on the page had you not came in with the 'this article is so short, therefore anything added to it should stay, unless you find more information to expand the article, then you can claim WP:Undue.'

The source used in that discussion is a reliable one

That's what was in contention. I was on the verge of claiming that the source was FRINGE or POV, until you came in and convinced me the article was too short and it should stay. If for example, I said "Forrest Griffin is hated by most people" then quoted a 'reliable source,' you would NOT look for a refuting source saying 'so and so is wrong, most people do not hate Forrest Griffin,' it just won't happen in a published source. You claim the source is POV or Fringe, then ask for a supporting source or it's labeled unreliable, does not matter if it came from CNN or not.

I have repeatedly told you I do not know what the article is about, thus I can only judge by the general policies It is about the policy, and it is NOT my position to question if the source is undue or not since I do not see a display of sources claiming otherwise.

That's perfectly understood. However, you introduced a false policy that is not written anywhere in the guidelines. Let me repost exactly what you said when I brought up UNDUE and the David Letterman:

Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue.

Of course if you could find multiple reliable sources stating similar reviews(giving the series pretty much the same comment), you could try to claim the incorrect one undue.

You suggested I added more content to claim the incorrect source UNDUE and with the lack of information on the page 'obviously anything related is not undue.' Where does it say the amount of information on an article dictates that?

I've addressed everything I felt was relevant, let me know if I missed any important points. And please stop turning this into who was right or wrong, I'm discussing the policy I feel was fabricated that you brought up, not the specific issue on that talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says verifiability, not truth is the inclusion criteria. This should answer your 1st question quite well, and I have quoted it many times. I do not want to reply any of your claim about if the source is untrue or not, I am quoting a core policy of wikipedia here, and there should be NO argument you can pull out to counter this one. This policy existence is to prevent WP:OR and any dispute on topics that are controversial and people might argue if the source is true or not and start edit wars.

WP:UNDUE says Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. And it is very clear that the source used in the article is NOT taking up a majority of the page with its untrue (as you have claimed) viewpoints. Thus I supported the inclusion of it until the article have more sources, that will show the particular source as a minority.

You are not trying to understand that the undue policy is not about if you think the source is untrue or undue, but a policy about if a view is majority or minority by a clear showing of number of sources. I have no knowledge in both subjects,(ie. I do not know the series story thus I cannot judge if the effect is used right or wrong there) and thus I can only judge by seeing actual sources about the article, and you claiming it to be undue yet cannot present any sources(about the series) to support your claim is not convincing at all. That is the very basis of what my comments are on. Like I said many times, I cannot judge the source to be reliable or not, experience editors of the WP:ANIME project said it is reliable and it is a consensus, thus I would lend to agreeing it to be reliable. I have asked you to seek advise and maybe claim the source to be not reliable at WP:ANIME since people there should be more knowledgeable about this, you did not. Yes, you can try to bring it up as unreliable there and see what the consensus is, and I am not going to comment if it is reliable or not at that discussion since I am not the expert. I pointed you to where you should go, and maybe you can also try the admin notice board on reliable sources. At the time of the dispute, there are 33 sources quoted in the article, 23 of them are only publication dates sources(first 23) 24 through 32 are rankings and the one and only source (33) quoted with a review is the one you claim to be undue. The one and only view point was claimed to be a minority view, very funny but I don't see it being reasonable at all. Do you understand the reason why I asked for more sources to be displayed in order to claim its undue status? I DO NOT see any other views, how on Earth do you think I can support it being a minority view and there is a majority view somewhere in the public that I have no idea where? I asked for more views since there are none, do you understand this at all? Even as the current article goes, after a month of the discussion, I see only 4 sources reviewing the subject, 43~46, and the source in question is still taking up 25% of the sources, meaning even if the article have 25% coverage over that source is still reasonable per the undue policy(and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. proportion) I still can't see the reason of it being called undue. You can ask anyone with reasonable understanding to the undue policy and see if I am understanding it correctly or not. My comments are on the specific subject, thus if you have an article with like 100 sources, I can really see why a single source is being called undue if it is quoted and cover like 20% of the article, but an article with 1~4 sources and the source is taking up 20%~100% of the article and is only taking up to somewhere like 20% of the article? Sorry, undue is NOT the policy that should be used here. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow no paragraphs AGAIN? Are you trying for an honest rebuttal or are you trying to save your butt by giving a long rant hoping to confuse anybody by throwing in a bunch of unrelated points?

Once again, you have no idea about what the article/series is about so stop commenting on it. The only thing you should be commenting on is policies. You spent half your rant commenting about that specific article and its issues when you should not have.

The first question I posed had to deal with 'articles with little sources,' you answered the reliable sources clause, but that's not what I was curious about. You emphasized the amount of information, not the reliable information, your next quote which you plainly dodged is EXACTLY what I mean.

Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue.

Of course if you could find multiple reliable sources stating similar reviews(giving the series pretty much the same comment), you could try to claim the incorrect one undue.

If an article is lacking in content, anything related is not undue? Please answer this one.

The one and only view point was claimed to be a minority view, very funny but I don't see it being reasonable at all. Do you understand the reason why I asked for more sources to be displayed in order to claim its undue status? I DO NOT see any other views, how on Earth do you think I can support it being a minority view and there is a majority view somewhere in the public that I have no idea where? I asked for more views since there are none, do you understand this at all?

Once again, I'm not the one claiming a majority view, THEY ARE. I've said this many times in my first rebuttal, I'll say it again and again until you actually address that. If you are making a claim and saying it's the majority view, 90% of articles on Wikipedia, you won't find a "contradicting article" saying what the majority view is if the single posted view is unreliable and is a POV or a lie. For example, like I said earlier, if someone posted a bogus source from a 'reliable site' claiming Forrest Griffin was hated by everyone and rigs his matches, you won't find a contradicting article that will say he does not rigs his matches and is not hated by everyone, period. That's not how burden of proof works, the person claiming his single source is majority has the sole burden of proof to support that claim or it is trashed.

My comments are on the specific subject, thus if you have an article with like 100 sources, I can really see why a single source is being called undue if it is quoted and cover like 20% of the article, but an article with 1~4 sources and the source is taking up 20%~100% of the article and is only taking up to somewhere like 20% of the article? Sorry, undue is NOT the policy that should be used here.

We're not disputing how much of the article it takes, we're disputing the inclusion of the article. You've said it right here again, the amount of information on the site dictates whether or not a source should be included or not. SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS THAT, THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING THIS WHOLE TIME. I had to use caps man, because you keep asserting this over and over again while this was the only question I wanted to know from you. Thanks for your replies. Jonhan (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am not convinced by your assertion about the one and only source being undue, and thus I am not convinced that it should be removed. End of story. The only source I see is obviously NOT undue since it is ridiculous to claim the only source a minority. The amount of sources displayed is of course related in this particular case, you are trying to claim the only source a minority, which is totally not convincing and impossible to convince others that it is undue. You do not understand, or try to understand the situation here, you displayed no other sources, there is no slightest chance that you can convince ANYONE that the one and only source being a minority view. Why should I believe in you just because YOU claim it to be a minority view? Why should I believe in your word, when you cannot display ANY sources to SUPPORT your view? Like I said, I have NEVER read the series and thus I have NO means of knowing WHAT the series is about. You can claim that I am not assuming good faith, but again, from a person with no bias at the very beginning, I assumed good faith on both sides of the dispute, and the one with a source(the single source) shows a more promising view that judging from all the policies, should be supported. HOW on Earth do I know if YOUR CLAIM is not a simple Original research of yours? Since you did not provide ANY supporting sources? Be real, the world is NOT going to judge your words and actions by your own words, and wikipedia works on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. You claiming something without presenting any sources but you own WP:POV is NOT going to help your argument AT ALL. I have repeatedly told you that you need more sources to convince me the single source is undue simply because even if I assumed good faith, I need you to have some prove, not your empty words. I can assume your actions are good faith, ie, trying to improve wikipedia, that does NOT warrant my support on your POV nor making me trust all your words without suspecting anything especially when you are in dispute with other editors. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am not convinced by your assertion about the one and only source being undue, and thus I am not convinced that it should be removed.

Buddy, this is getting real old, real fast because you're getting repetitive and blatantly ignoring every one of my points deliberately, and you're somehow trying to claim 'good faith' on your part when you've never addressed anything I've said genuinely. I've given you enough time to provide a decent response and you come up with this? Are you intellectually dishonest? Is your defensiveness clouding your sense of honesty? I've repeatedly told you -- over and over again -- you know jack about the series. You know jack about the argument. You know nothing about the situation. Stop pretending like you do. Your only purpose was to discuss policies. Nothing else, and I've made that brutally clear. Are you going to answer any of my points or are you going to shamefully cover up your sense of honesty with a giant rambling about nothing?

I'll say it again, this time in bold and caps because you being called out and disproven, rightfully so, is clouding your reading. STOP COMMENTING ABOUT THE SERIES, ABOUT WHO WAS RIGHT AND WRONG, AND WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING WAS UNDUE. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A POLICY. YOU BROUGHT UP A POLICY OUT OF YOUR ASS, I'M CALLING YOU OUT ON IT AND YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO USE A RED HERRING TO NOT BACK UP YOUR COMMENT.

I'm going to address your red-herring points anyway, even though they're completely misdirecting our discussion of your policy pulled out of your ass.

The only source I see is obviously NOT undue since it is ridiculous to claim the only source a minority.

The very definition of minority is 1 source -- no sources backing up anything that source says. That's minority. You c-a-n n-o-t p-r-o-v-e a d-o-u-b-l-e n-e-g-a-t-i-v-e. I've said this over and over again, I'm not claiming anything is a majority view. You are. You introduce that that single, unverfiable source is majority view and I'm disputing that. You have to support that assertion or it's not majority, simple as that. Do some reading on burden of proof.

You do not understand, or try to understand the situation here, you displayed no other sources, there is no slightest chance that you can convince ANYONE that the one and only source being a minority view. Why should I believe in you just because YOU claim it to be a minority view? Why should I believe in your word, when you cannot display ANY sources to SUPPORT your view?

Once again. I'm not claiming it's a minority view, nor am I claiming it's any view at all. You're the one claiming it's a majority view so you have to support that. I'm disputing that it's a majority view, I'm not claiming at ALL that it's a minority, big difference. You can not disprove that it's a minority view, this is plain common sense. Think of it like this, there's a yes no question "is this source a majority view?" You say yes it is, I don't believe you and ask for evidence that it is. For you to say it is, you have to support that claim with more evidence. If you can't, you don't get to claim and insert the fact that it is until you bring more evidence that your assertion is true and that it is indeed a majority source. That does NOT mean it's a minority view, it can be everything except a majority view. Get it?

I have repeatedly told you that you need more sources to convince me the single source is undue simply because even if I assumed good faith, I need you to have some prove, not your empty words.

No, you need to prove that it's not FRINGE by supporting your single-source assertion with other sources.

So here's the deal. You can continue bickering about that very issue, or you can answer my questions on the policies you brought up. You explained false policies, I came here to ask about those policies, I didn't come here to discuss who was right or wrong on the page, and you're trying desperately to change the subject into who was right or wrong.

Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue.

Of course if you could find multiple reliable sources stating similar reviews(giving the series pretty much the same comment), you could try to claim the incorrect one undue.

I've told you many times to discuss this issue. I brought up Letterman and the facts about FRINGE opinions being undue. You came back and told me multiple times that the amount of information on the page determines what is UNDUE and what is not. Thus, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue. I've asked you from the start to tell me where you're getting this from? I'd like an answer, and not some non-formatted, red-herring about whether or not that specific article was UNDUE or not. I'm talking one policy you introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've repeatedly told you that what you THINK is NOT important, you CLAIMING a source being fringe and undue is by no way convincing since it is the only source at that page. I have also repeatedly stated this over and over, but you seem to be trying to keep claiming the source to be undue and base solely on that point that I did something wrong. I am getting this from your claim being unjustified by sources. I do not seek any understanding from you, because you are VERY OBVIOUSLY trying your best to avoid the obvious point I am stating and tried to cover up your own failure in providing any source by whatever you are trying to claim here. You claim the source to be undue, I do not see it that way and asked you to provide prove of it, you CANNOT provide ANY, but insist it is undue. The source used is from a known reliable source of the wiki project page, and thus you claiming it to be undue must be backed up by reasonable and justifiable evidence to convince others, or others are NOT going to agree to your point of it being undue. If you are just going to repeat yourself, don't bother to even reply, I have nothing more to say and I am not going to say anything more to justify my own actions since I have already explain it over and over again, which you kept ignoring. You do not seem to understand what I am saying at all, or you simply cannot admit the fact that you did not bring up anything reasonable to justify you claim. Stop bothering me and go bother someone else, that someone can be anyone who agrees with you, you will be much more happier that way, since you cannot understand anything said that opposes your view and you cannot comprehend that your actions are not justified. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even after I quoted in bold and caps not to comment on whether that particular series is undue or not, or discussing anything about that issue, you go ahead and make another paragraph talking only about whether it was FRINGE or UNDUE or not. I'm not interested in your opinion about whether or not it was a FRINGE article. I'm tempted to rebut your false assertion that 1 source is NOT fringe, but I did not come here to discuss that.

Okay let's try this again. What I came here to ask you about (from which you keep redirecting to your red-herring as you just did again).

Per undue, this article currently is lacking in content and obviously anything related is not undue.

Of course if you could find multiple reliable sources stating similar reviews(giving the series pretty much the same comment), you could try to claim the incorrect one undue.

HERE is what you said. You claimed the article is lacking in content, more content is needed to claim FRINGE. Show me where exactly it says that in the policy. Please don't respond with another red-herring such as "regardless! you have to post an article to claim 1 source as fringe otherwise it's not fringe!!" Jonhan (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are specific on THIS CASE and thus you kept trying to disregard the situation on THIS CASE is totally irrational. All of these 3 sentences I have said is on THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, you try to disconnect the two is very improperble. 1) The article is lacking in contents and thus obviously you cannot convince others that only source is undue, 2) per WP:UNDUE, it ask to have sources covering the relevant amount of article, and not be totally removed, unless it is a minority view that does not warrant a mention. Both of these points are TOTALLY VALID since that article only got little source(at the moment when I said those, 1 and only 1) on that topic, so I do not see why you can keep trying to bother me on this with no sources or point that support your view at all. The situation here is on this series, STOP trying to disregard this The issue of undue and fringe is about how many sources(RS and V) are covered and how minor is that specific point. In this situation, and any other situation where you only have one source that is deemed reliable in an article, and you cannot show any other sources to counter that view, you DO NOT have ANY rationale claiming that source is undue. Period, I have addressed this repeatedly and before YOU can bring out what you said is adhering to the policies, do NOT come back to bother me saying I am not talking about the policy. You are obviously NOT trying to do things according to the policy, none of you actions are trying to cope with the policies in the situation, including and especially on your claim of the single source in the article undue and YOU are trying to say that I did something wrong? Get real, you are not convincing at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 04:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When there's 1 source on a subject, and it can't be backed up with other sources, it does not make it the majority view period. That goes back to your only stale argument of the amount of information on the page. Your last reply is about the same argument dodging, point evading you've been doing through this whole time.

1) The article is lacking in contents and thus obviously you cannot convince others that only source is undue, 2) per WP:UNDUE, it ask to have sources covering the relevant amount of article, and not be totally removed, unless it is a minority view that does not warrant a mention. Both of these points are TOTALLY VALID since that article only got little source(at the moment when I said those, 1 and only 1) on that topic

Yeah, we know you can assert these things, you've been asserting these things out of your ass this WHOLE time and I've been continually asking you to quote me exactly from which policy you're deriving. Point in case: "Valid because 'only got little source.'" I'll wait for a proper reply if you're going to rehash the same tired assertions over and over with no evidence or quotes from anywhere. The fact that you've continually made block paragraphs trying to confuse any readers, when I've continually asked you to address my specific points, demonstrates a sense of dishonesty. I can wait for your answers on my questions that you can support with quotes in policies like I've asked, if not I'm going to conclude that you're either intellectually dishonest or got called-out and are too stubborn. Jonhan (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

Here's a direct quote for 'ya. From 1 source = 1 person's opinion = an extremely small minority, YOU have to demonstrate that that 1 source is more than just an extreme minority with other sources supporting that viewpoint period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are totally only being disruptive here now, if there is only one source, i.e. no other sources, no one has to prove it being a minority because there is no other view present. This is the whole point, you cannot prove a minority since there are no other view points. It might mean the topic being extremely not notable, or there are no other view points. The burden of proof is always on the one questioning the one and single source in the whole article being minor. Others have no way to tell if it is minor or not if there are no other sources. Your logic is totally faulty, I guess you kept thinking that one cannot prove that something does not exist so the burden of proof is on others to proof more exist. However, that is exactly my point, there is one source displayed, I have no way of proving other sources does not exist, and I have no will of proving it being a minority view since I do not know about the topic. It is your burden to prove that other sources exist to show the source is indeed a minority. If you do not understand this, think of it as a court case. The jury has to maintain a neutral point of view, thus any evidence brought up will not be viewed as not credible unless it is proven to be so. It is the side who questioned the evidence that will need to provide proof to prove it being not credible. This include the defense has to prove the prosecustions evidences to be faulty, or the prosecuation has to prove the defense guilty. If the only evidence in court is an alibi of the defendant, of course the defendant does not have to do anything to prove the alibi to be credible. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown a fundamental lack of understanding of burden of proof.

Your logic is totally faulty, I guess you kept thinking that one cannot prove that something does not exist so the burden of proof is on others to proof more exist.

That's what you're doing. If you are bringing a source, and asserting it's not a minority view, the burden of proof is always on you to demonstrate that it's not a minority view. If you bring 1 source, it's a minority view period. Think of it like this, if 1 person gives his opinion, it's a minority view. How does he demonstrate it's not a minority view? By demonstrating that more people agree with him. Exactly the same case with the sources. If you bring 1 source with a viewpoint, it's a minority view until demonstrated otherwise. It's impossible to prove it IS a minority view, the person asserting it's not a minority view has to demonstrate it's not -- and you haven't done that.

On top of that, you've completely dodged my point again (not surprised) that claiming DUE weight and FRINGE is contingent on the amount of information on the page. You've asserted many times, I'm still waiting for your sources. I'll wait for them. Somehow I get the feeling you'll continue asserting without posting any sources.

Let me clear this up. I came here asking you for evidence about your quote on a policy, that DUE weight is contingent on the amount of information on the page hence David Letterman. I came here genuinely wanting to know. I expected to receive an answer. And all you've given me so far is the same assertion, a defensive off-topic tirade about that specific article, and NOW I've discovered that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of burden of proof. I'm starting to think you're either, hate to say it, genuinely incompentent or have no evidence at all to support the policies you pulled out of your toosh. Jonhan (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I answered it already, you dodged the fact and it is in the policy that said specifically that by undue, you can have the source stating the equivalent amount of the majority of the view presented in sources by weight. The source is the single source on the issue, thus per undue, I do not find the source being a minority and carry undue weight for having its own paragraph in the article. End of story. It is written in the policy, I have quoted it to you mjany times and all you are doing here is disrupting wikipedia, right now, on my page, with personal attacks, and you are lucky that I did not report you to WP:AIV yet. You use in bad language and failure to give your own proof and it is NOT my fault. I have asserted MANY times that I have NO knowledge in the article and thus I can only judge by what is presented there. My position here is like a jury in court and you do NOT ask the jury to present evidence in court to show an evidence to be credible, the burden of proof is NEVER on the jury, but always on the one questioning the credibility of the evidence. You CANNOT say that because there is only one evidence stating the defendant is not guilty and no evidence is presented by the prosecution but the defendant cannot present more evidences, the sole evidence is not credible. This is NOT how things work. You are not the judge, you are the prosecution in this case, since you accused the source being undue. I quoted the policy stating sources should carry its own weight in the article and I see no other sources to decrease the weight of this source, I asked you to present more sources to support your claim, you cannot. The policy is here: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. I see the prevalence in reliable sources, one and single, 100% of reliable sources are the one presented and is against your claim, your claim is regarded as your own prevalence and thus I find your point being not credible. You are misunderstanding the whole situation here, you are NOT the one to judge, others are, since you are the one accusing the source being undue, and your verdict is not important, you need to show to the jury that the source is undue, so the burden of proof is on you, not the jury. End of Story, stop bothering me. This is my last warning, if you keep on disregarding what I am saying here, and keep on using bad languages, I will not tolerate this. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bothering you at all, I asked a simple question and you've repeatedly dodged it. You just claimed you posted the exact quote in the policy that supports your assertion that UNDUE and FRINGE is contingent on the amount of information on the page, not on the reliability of the sources. I didn't see ANY of that out of your block paragraphs. So post it to me right now. I'm calling you out on it.

Here's a few things you've done so far:

• Repeatedly responded in block paragraphs when I've asked you not to.
• Dodged every single on of my points (even your last paragraph dodged everything I've said) by making long paragraphs of rants.
• Deflecting the subject from the initial questions I've asked.
• Not provided any evidence for any of the assertions you've continually made.

I just want to make sure you didn't have any evidence from any of the policies to back up any of the assertions you've continually made. If you won't do so in your next responses, I'll assume you're intellectually dishonest and deliberately dodging my points. I apologize if my comments sounds like 'bad language' to you, my response tends to sound that way when I'm responding to someone who dodges all my points, continually responds in block paragraphs that addresses nothing I've said, and tries to continually change the subject by talking about whether a certain article is undue when I'm not interested at ALL whether that article is undue -- I'm only interested in a discussion of policies. The discussion of that article being UNDUE was your argument. Jonhan (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I see no point in using your requested way of response, especially when you are not making sense. 2) I have replied everything you asked, yet you keep ignoring them. 3) You are deflecting the points about how you fail to present sources, and tried to put the blame on others. 4) I have the quotations of the policies bold in the above, and you kept ignoring them while keep asserting I did not answer you.

All of your actions are totally disruptive and annoying. I mentioned undue to tell you that the single source is not undue, you remove it, and you removed the notability of the article. Meaning if you question the source, you are also questioning the notability of that article since there are no other sources. You cannot provide any, and you ignored that point about sources all along. You tried your best to avoid that point, and it is the very fundamental reason of my comment, but you cannot stand that since it is very simple that if you agreed on that, you are agreeing that you are not following policies, so you kept turning a blind eye on that issue and ignore all my reasoning. I do not see your sources, I do not see ANY other sources, so I do not agree with you that the source is undue, and thus I am cooping with the policy of undue very well. You do not ask for the jury for evidence, it is totally irresponsible. You are bothering me since I have repeatedly told you to stop. You are replying on my talk page, where it will automatically notify me of your edits. I have answered your questions, you do not agree with them, it is this simple, it does not mean that I have dodged your questions, only that you do not agree with my points, and I do not agree with yours. I have followed the policies to all extents on my grounds and reasoning, and you are not listening to them. That is your problem and not mine. I am not going to say anything different because I am sure that I did the correct thing. You assumed that I have to provide sources, I don't think so and repeatedly told you so. (It is not a double negative BTW, you claimed a source minor, I only said I do not agree since the article only have one source and thus it does not make sense to call it minor, only when you have a lot of sources you can call a source minor. Minority means it is a small portion of the total number of sources, it does not mean the single source being minor. For example, we have multiple sources confirming the Earth is round, thus the sources claiming the Earth is flat is minor. Another example will be if we only have one reliable source on a person, and that source claimed the person to be a male, we have no other reliable sources, you do not claim that single source to be minor.) I asked you to seek consensus about the source, you did not. I asked you not to bother me any more, you kept using your own reasoning, failing to comply with the fact that I do not want you to do so anymore. This is 100% bothering, disturbing and annoying me in all senses. You even used bad languages including ass. BTW, I am a court interpreter, I know very well what burden of proof means, and you are accusing something and asking a jury to provide proof to show innocence on that while you cannot present any proof to prove you claim of accusation, very funny. The judge will have to say There is no case to answer, dismiss. I have asserted why I am at a jury position more than once, I am not repeating it now. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another response without any evidence or quotes supporting your policy assertions that I called you out on and specifically asked you to post in my last reply. Yet another response dodging every single one of my points. Yet another response with a block paragraph addressing nothing I've specifically said. I just wanted to confirm and make sure you didn't have any evidence or quotes supporting your policy assertions. Anytime you want to support your assertions with quotes I'll give you a chance and will even wait for them, feel free, I'm led to believe they don't exist because you made them up.Jonhan (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed you questions and I have given you all the specific guidelines and policies quoatations in either bold or italic, you failure in reading them is NOT my problem, it is yours. And your failure to comply with them is also your problem, not mine. You do not agree with my interpretation on the policies, that is also your problem, not mine.

If you really need them to be listed out point by point before you can read them, that is also your problem, not mine. It only means that you have problems in comprehanding what others are saying. Fine, I will give you all the quotes again.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

• This is the first quote I have used in this page. It is from WP:UNDUE, the very first paragraph.

I have also quoted the WP:V in the original talk page and your talk page on my reply, your ignorance of it is not my problem also. You claiming a source being not true or it is a minority is not supported by me, others or any policy, thus I do not have to listen to your assertion of it not being a policy supporting my view. You can go and claim every other sources in any article to be not true or are minority views like the fringe theorists, your view on the source is not the concern here, you cannot prove the source to be a minority(distinct minority) by providing other sources to support your view, that is what you have failed to do. People with no knowledge in the topic who only went to give comments are not going to listen to your assertion of the single source in the article being not true, especially the source is from a reliable source known to the community with consensus.

Also, you are the one using the undue argument stating the section is undue, not me,

So you are the one needing to bring in sources, since you are the one claiming an accepted source to be a minority, thus the one making the accusation, the accused source is not provided by me, and I am only there to comment on it. I see that the one accusing the source being minor is you, yet you cannot provide other soruces to show a majority view. Yes, one cannot prove a double negative, so I cannot prove that you have no source showing a majority view, the only thing I can do is to judge from the existing sources and decide whether it is major or not, and I am not the expert on the subject, I was there only for comment, thus I have no way of finding sources related. The source is taking up 100% of all the sources that existed(other than release info) thus I do not see it being a minority view. If it is a minority view, then it should be very easy to find majority view sources without and problem.

And Yes, I understand fully that if you only have one person and one source viewing things that way, it might well be a minority, since no other sources could be found, however, a minority view is a comparitive term, if you do not have a majority view, then you do not have a minority view. If the whole world only have one person concerning the topic, his/her view is the majority since nobody else have their own views on it.(This would make the article a non notable article and highly possible to fail in keeping it in AfDs, yet this is another issue)

So I am not asking you to give a double negative here, I am asking you to present a majority view or any other views to show that the quoted source is a minority. Since it should be fairly simple to find major view points if you accuse the one used is minor, it is a reasonable request. Like when someone accused the Flat Earth society to be a minority view, s/he would be able to present majority views to show that the Earth is round.

In that articles talk page, it was even said that the minority part asserted by the source was not inculded in the article, Seeing that the reviewer's comment about genetic sexual attraction was/is not mentioned in the previous or new version of the Reception section of this article, I really now am not seeing Jonhan's point about not including this review. per Flyer22. So I do not see why the source used is kept being asserted to be undue. It was used to support the notability of the article, which the article was lacking at that point of time.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. Also in WP:UNDUE

It is obvious that you are trying to use your own view to claim a minority, thus I also quoted this. undue is a weighting problem, meaning articles should be written with sources weighted, again, there is only one source present, so it is given its weight in the article.

I quoted the policies to this particular situation, the source is covering 100% of the article on reviews at that particular moment, in any situation similar to this, I will also use the same reasoning, that when the article did not show any other views, and the view is from a reliable source, the policy undue cannot be used on it unless the article itself is a fork minority article and people claiming undue can find actual major view sources for their argument.

If there are no other view points, there is no way one can say the single view point is minor.

—Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used a tiny amount of paragraphing this time, that's atleast a small improvement. But you make it plainly obvious that you aren't addressing my points specifically by making a huge wall of text, not addressing what I've been saying. Your whole post is trying to drag this discussion off topic yet again on that specific article. This isn't about that specific topic, pretend like I never even heard about that topic. You're still hiding behind a giant wall of a non-response to my question, let me break it down.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

This is the first policy you quoted. This is completely off topic and supports what you said in no way at all. Read that second line: it should not give minority views. I was claiming it was a minority view, it was not a reliable source. Your claim was that claiming UNDUE is contingent on the amount of information on the page. That quote does not support that in any way at all, and that is obvious. I wonder why you didn't make the connection?

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Here's quote #2. The translation in this quote is that reliable sources > editor. I already knew this, this supports nothing at ALL what you've been saying; that UNDUE is contingent on the amount of information on the page.

What's humorous is that you even asserted again that it's contingent in your body paragraph rant, then proceed to give 2 quotes that support that in no way at all.

you cannot prove the source to be a minority(distinct minority) by providing other sources to support your view.

EXACTLY. From your own freakin' words. If I brought another source, IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THAT SOURCE IS A MINORITY. Are you starting to get it? YOU NEED TO BRING OTHER SUPPORTING SOURCES IF YOU ARE INTRODUCING THAT UNRELIABLE SOURCE TO THE PAGE AND CLAIMING IT IS NOT A MINORITY. This is what I've been saying all along. When you introduce a source that is questioned, you have to support that source with a reliable source otherwise it doesn't get to be on the page. No one else has to do anything if you haven't proven that source belongs on the page.

Which is why you said it's dependent on the amount of information on the page; no where in the policy does it say that, you made that up and have not produced a quote that supports that in any shape or form at all.

So you are the one needing to bring in sources, since you are the one claiming an accepted source to be a minority, thus the one making the accusation, the accused source is not provided by me, and I am only there to comment on it. I see that the one accusing the source being minor is you, yet you cannot provide other soruces to show a majority view.

HUGE flaw in your argument here, you basically supported my position. Do you know why? Because if _I_ brought in a source, it does not demonstrate your source is a minority. Your 1 source is miniority by default, 1 opinion is always minority. Nothing I bring in can show it's a minority, the onus is on YOU to prove it is not a minority when questioned.

Yes, one cannot prove a double negative, so I cannot prove that you have no source showing a majority view, the only thing I can do is to judge from the existing sources and decide whether it is major or not, and I am not the expert on the subject, I was there only for comment, thus I have no way of finding sources related.

Why do you have to prove I have no source showing a majority view? You don't at all. Judging the existing source is not the only thing you can do. What you have to do is support your 1 unreliable source with another supporting source. That's why the burden of proof is on you. That's why you have to demonstrate your 1 source is not a minority. If you haven't demonstrated your 1 opinion is not minority, it's a minority until you provide supporting sources. Is this starting to make sense? If you actually address my points you know, then you won't sound like a broken recorder that's dodging all my points. Address the relevant ones, one at a time.

Jonhan (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do notice the inconvinience of using paragraphs with wikipedia's coding, right? Also, it is not an improvement, I do not intend to do anything upon your order, I have no obligation in working in your way under your request. If you are not going to try to read this, so be it, it is not my fault. It is on the other hand you fault to not be able to comply with the request I made here, on my talk page, that I do not want you to bother me anymore, and failed to understand the comments I made. If you are failing to comply with my request, why should I try to comply with yours? The world does not run around you, and you are not always right, I hope at least you have this knowledge. Obviously, you are wrong this time, and if you wanted to accuse someone else, you are not going to have it your way. I will give you an example, back in the days when people have not much knowledge, when a person came out and said the world is flat, it is the majority view. Others do not have to write their own assertion on the view to make the view major. It is not the truth and you are probably not going to find a lot of documents in the early days when people simply believed what they were told.(slight differences could be found in different mythological versions throughout the whole world) That single view point was not minor at the time, yet you do not have other sources supporting them.(publication were scarce in those days as well.) This is a very good example of why a single source is not necessarily a minority view. If people agreed to it, they will not bother to write more on the topic. Therefore, if one is claiming a present view point being minor, the best way to prove it is always bringing up the major view point s/he claims, which you failed to do. You might not agree with this, and I am aware of it, you do not have to answer this, you only need to know that I do not agree with your view point, and you are not going to get anything different here. You can stay in your own private and comfort zone and THINK ALL YOU WANT that I did not answer your questions, and I cannot do anything about it since I am very sure that I have addressed everything you asked me, it is simply that you do not agree with my view points and we have no grounds of compromises and consensus. You do NOT have to address that either, as I have told you earlier, all of these discussion are only your problem of not understanding the world does not revolve around you and others can well be opposing your view point and they do not have to follow your instructions. You do not have to reply to any of these, as long as you understand I have replied your questions and you do NOT agree with my points, while the fact is that I do not agree with you and if you keep repeating the same thing, even if you are only stating I did not reply your points, you are bothering me, on my talk page, drawing unnecessary attention of me since there will be a new message alert whenever I login, and I will have nothing you will ever accept since I have answered your questions, you never accept it and I am not going to change my position since I do not see anything I did wrong. It is fully understandable that you are in the same view as I do, your position is opposite of mine, thus you will not admit what I said is correct since that will put you in a position saying your actions are wrong. I will further put it to you that your actions are not supported by others as well, so you may want to think over the matter and reconsider it thoroughly, yet that is not my request nor is it my concern that you will do it or not, I do not see any chance of you doing that and as long as you understand fully that I do not concern if you do it or not as long as you stop bothering me with your own view on things, unless you have changed your view point. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You using paragraphs isn't for my sake, it's for your sake. You've been consistently, deliberately dodging every single one of my points with that giant wall of text, when you could have addressed everything I've said point-by-point. Your giant wall of text addressed nothing I've said, which is exactly why I understand you chose to use it. On the contrary, you've been desperately trying to change the topic to that red-herring specific article -- I've said it again and again, this is a policy discussion, it has nothing to do with that article.

I've asked you clearly to show me where it says that claiming UNDUE is contingent on the amount of information on the page you claimed in response to my David Letterman example where something was claimed UNDUE. I've asked you. I've asked you again. You finally responded at the end with 2 quotes that did not address it in any way. That's some dishonesty you have going there.

That single view point was not minor at the time, yet you do not have other sources supporting them.(publication were scarce in those days as well.) This is a very good example of why a single source is not necessarily a minority view.

That single point of view WAS minor at the time. It wasn't factually wrong given the knowledge we have now, but at that time it was a minor point of view and people wanted to kill him for it because it was considered heresy. Look at that, you can't even come up with 1 example where 1, and only 1, opinion is not a minority. 1 opinion is always a minority until supported by others and demonstrated otherwise.

I actually prefer if you didn't respond with your lousy assertions, your defensive ramblings about the article which I don't care about and never had in this topic, and your opinions about anything. I wanted to discuss direct evidence from a policy that supported your assertion, per my first question, not your feelings about the article or you trying to justify your false logic.

I just wanted to make sure that that policy did not exist and that you made it up -- that you pulled it out of your ass. I even expected you to post something on my first reply until you nervously responded with a giant wall of text asserting it again. Anytime you want to simply post real evidence and not giant ramblings, I'll always be available to hear them, but I'm led to believe they don't exist and you made them up. Jonhan (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have serious problem reading my replies, I said the view point of the Earth is Flat is not a minority at that time, you are mysteriously reading it as saying the Earth is round is a minority at the time. Yes, the Earth is NOT Flat, so it is a factually wrong view point, but there are no other view points at the time, so you do not claim it a minority until you have overwhelming evidence. Read my replies again and I am 100% SURE that you are not reading my above replies that have SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED YOU QUESTIONS and did not dodge them AT ALL, just like this particular time. Obviously you have problem in reading and it is not my problem. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dodging response on the fact that your whole example was refuted.

No, you claimed there were no sources on opinions for the world being flat, EVERYONE believed the world was flat, we have multiple documented sources where everyone supported the view that the world was flat -- we don't actually have a time-machine you know. We have documents that the Egyptians believed the world was flat. We have documents that show the Sumerians claimed the world was flat. We have documents that show that during Christopher Columbus' time, they thought the world was flat and that you would fall off the face of the earth if you were to sail to the edge. All our historical information comes from documented sources. When 1 opinion occurred that the world was round, it was a minority view, period.

Here's a lesson for you: Wikipedia works with published sources, not with original research. You need sources to demonstrate if something is not a minority view, nothing else matters if it's not in a published report. You brought 1 opinion. 1 opinion is a minority view. The 1 person who thought the world was round was a minority view. To make it a non-minority view, he needed more people to agree with him. He could not. Thus it was a minority view. You needed more sources to agree with your source. You could not. Thus it is a minority view. Any questions? This is the fundamental basics, I can't believe I have to explain this to you lol. :D

Anyway, like I said, I'm waiting for in which policy exactly with a quote it says claiming UNDUE is contingent on the information on the page. It's not hard to grab the a quote from the policy if it actually existed. I'd prefer you not clutter with a column full of garbage-post, but I can see why you would choose to make a huge wall of rant because your assertion doesn't actually exist. I just wanted to make sure of it, that's all. Jonhan (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point, everyone believed it, and this is what you or me cannot prove otherwise, and it is the SINGLE VIEW POINT at the time. Thus IF YOU CANNOT PROVE THERE ARE OTHER VIEW POINTS, you CANNOT PROVE THE SINGLE VIEW POINT being minor. You are right, Wikipedia works with published sources, not with original research. You need sources to demonstrate if something is not a minority view, nothing else matters if it's not in a published report. and thus we work on this principle and deemed the only source brought up is reliable and could be used, you are the one stubbornly thinks that it is minor, and not adhering to WP:RS and try to look at things with your own WP:OR. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 08:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously this dumb?? If it is 1 opinion, it's by default minor. This is not hard to understand.

I think I've waited long enough and you've dodged long enough. All I wanted was 1 quote from where it says claiming UNDUE is contingent on the amount of information on the page, I think it's safe to say you pulled that out of your ass. Of course you can post it any time you dear want, but then you would have done that already. I just wanted to make sure you made that up. Jonhan (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have resolved to use personal attack, and you cannot comprehend the fact that it should be easy to understand that if you only have 1 opinion shown, all you can do is either believe it or not. You cannot claim it minor since minor is a comparative term. You must have other views to claim a view minor, if you have no other view, it does not automatically become a minor view point. If you are a prosecutor in court, and you have no evidence, yet you accuse the defense to be guilty, and the defense have 1 witness evidence showing the defendant not guilty, and the witness is deemed credible by pass court history, this will be all the court asked for, the defendant is not guilty by default unless the prosecution can provide evidence. You are not going to win the court case by saying the witness made a mistake this time and claim you do not have to bring any evidence to prove the defense guilty of charge since the only view point brought up is by default minor. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 05:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've resorted to telling it how it is. You still don't get it, and it appears as if you'll never get it. You couldn't even give 1 example where 1 opinion is considered majority, with no supporting sources backing up that 1 opinion. Why? Because 1 opinion is by definition minority. Your court case is a false analogy too because YOU'RE the prosecutor. You're the one making the assertion. You're the one bringing the evidence in because you're the one trying to enter that minority-opinion into the article. I'm not the one asserting "it should not belong there" out of nowhere, I'm responding to your claim that that source should be on the article with my response: "you don't have sufficient evidence to place the source into the article", which is the defense, in which case you have to provide the supporting sources or your prosecution fails and you don't win the court case. Likewise, you don't get to put the source into the article. You fundamentally do not understand how court cases work. When you make an argument for the inclusion of a source, you become the prosecutor and need evidence to support your case. The defense questions your source if it's not compelling enough, in which case you have to make it more convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. You haven't done that.

For example, if you're asserting a giant monster named Umacron exists and are placing it in the article with an unreliable source, you're the prosecutor and you're trying to make the insertion with unreliable evidence. I'm the defense because I'm the one questioning your evidence. Your evidence fails, thus your prosecution fails. If you bring in convincing evidence, I have to believe you. But you don't bring in convincing evidence, so you lose the court case. Here's what you're doing. You're asserting a giant monster name Umacron exists without sufficient evidence, then you're telling me to provide evidence that Umacron does NOT exist. If I bring a flower does that prove that Umacron does not exist? No. You are the only one that has to prove he exists. Similarly, you're asserting that source should be placed in the article without sufficient supporting sources, then telling me to provide sources that it should not belong there. If I bring another source does that prove that your source does not belong? No. You have to prove that your source is legitimate by providing supporting sources. Logic does not work that way.

Back on topic: I've asked every time and I'll continue to do so, even though you'll continue to dodge. My initial request, the only reason I came here, was to find out if you didn't pull out of thin air a fake policy. You can go ahead and post a quote whenever you feel like it, you would have done so already. I only came to make sure you made it up and have nothing. Jonhan (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeated told you that if you, who start the accusing, cannot bring up anything to prove the minorityness of what you are accusing, you have no grounds in calling it minor. You cannot even address your accusation with logical prove, all you are doing is using your supportless ranting saying the source is minor. You can do that to EVERYTHING and you can prove nothing as minor with that kind of logic. Like I said, minor is a comparative term, if there is only one human standing in front of you, and that human is black, s/he is not by default a minority group of human. You have to have sources showing there is indeed a majority group, say, white, to prove the minorness of that black person. And I am saying sources in general will work, since if there are hundreds of sources on the particular topic, and nothing is the same as the one displayed, it will be sufficient to show it being minor, in that situation, you do need some other sources supporting it to make it not minor. However, when you don't even have other sources on that topic, either the topic is a non notable topic and does not warrant an article, or it is such a major view that no one bothered to write more on that topic. It is not undue and very simple, you do not have other things to add to the article, the article will have no content if the source is removed due to the fact that you do not have sources supporting the contents, and all you can do is add in unsourced OR in the article if we work your way, which is 100% against policy and that is why supporting the keeping of the single source saying it is not undue is 100% cooping with the policy. Either way, you are missing the most important point that I am not the one to find sources, I am there to give my comment, while all the sources displayed before me are all I can use to judge if they are reliable and due. I saw 1 source, if it is removed, the article has no notability, and will face an AfD, I asked if there are other sources, you cannot provide any.

You are asking to remove the only source in the article per undue, and add in your own OR into the article without sources. How is that cooping with ANY policy? Answer this very question I have asked before you accuse me of not following the policy. I have quoted the policies about you not keeping up with it, and it is very obvious that YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING the WP:OR and WP:NPOV in any sense other than your claim of undue. Once you removed that source, what contents are you going to add to that article? You are trying to create a sourceless article and how is THAT cooping with the policy?

I have quoted multiple policies which YOU have IGNORED and keep ranting that I dodged your question. You can just shut up and go away, you are VERY ANNOYING and you can LIVE IN YOUR OWN WORLD and TRY YOUR BEST TO KEEP IGNORING ME. If you are only going to do so, SHUT UP AND LEAVE. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 13:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Half your response is a junk rant.

Let me give an example and let me show you how it translates into your acts.

• Let's say you are accusing a man named John of being a murderer -- You are trying to introduce a source into an article.
• I ask you to show supporting evidence that he killed someone -- I ask you to show supporting sources that it should be included as a majority.
• The burden of proof is on you to prove he is a murderer when questioned -- the burden of proof is on you to prove that the source should be included when questioned.
• Rather than fulfill your burden of proof, you instead tell ME to show proof that he is not a murderer, it makes no sense and is illogical -- Rather than fulfill your burden of proof, you tell ME to show supporting sources on why it is not a majority, it makes no sense and is illogical.

You are asking to remove the only source in the article per undue, and add in your own OR into the article without sources. How is that cooping with ANY policy? Answer this very question I have asked before you accuse me of not following the policy.

No, I'm not including any source at all. That's the difference, you included the source and I'm questioning the credibility of the source. That's why the burden of proof is on you when questioned. That's the answer to your question.

I have quoted multiple policies which YOU have IGNORED and keep ranting that I dodged your question.

You quoted two policies and both of them had nothing to do with your initial assertion that claiming UNDUE is contingent on the information on the page -- the initial question that I asked you to prove. In fact, it shows the opposite in that it does NOT say claiming UNDUE is contingent on the information on the page. I've asked you every single time, every single paragraph and you've repeatedly tried to change the subject (which for some intellectually honest reason I'm responding to.) I said it before, I came here to make sure you made it completely up, that's it. Jonhan (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to get the idea of WP:OR. If you are removing a source, it is very obvious that the article will become an OR since it is the only source, thus you are trying to make an article to not follow the policy of WP:RS and WP:OR. This is the difference, if you have no sources, the article shows no notability, so unless you are trying to get rid of the article, you do not remove the only secondary reliable source, unless you have more sources.

If you are questioning the credibility of the source, it is also very obvious that the questioner should prove prima facie that it is at least a case to hear. You have nothing backing you up about the source being not notable, and it is proven that the source is a reliable one by pass consensus. Thus the case is already very clear, you ignored the given credibility of a reliable source, and claimed it to be not credible. So to counter this point, you have the burden of proof since you are questioning a reliable source. Being a reliable source, it is proven credible by default since it is deemed so by consensus. It is also the consensus at that article's talk page that it is still credible. All of the evidences are shown before you that you are the one needing to find evidence to support your case, since all you are relying on is your own words with no evidence.

Both of the quotes I have given are talking about including all points of view unless it is undue, and you cannot prove the source to be undue, all you can do is accuse it to be, against multiple policies including WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. You kept trying to ignore these by inserting your own view point of the WP:RS being undue, and put the blame on me saying I have ignored your question. I have not, you are the one ignoring all facts and used your own assertion on the issue with nothing backing you up. You made the presumption of the source being undue without presenting anything to support you view point, and ignore the fact that minority only comes in comparison and no one can prove that the only view point on Earth is major or minor if there are no other view points. If I have a new invention called A, the length of it is 10 metres, you cannot call it long since you have nothing to compare with. A more real life example would be carbon nano tubing. Is 18mm of carbon nano tubing long? It sounds rather minorly short when you want to use it for a space elevator, which you need 36000km+ of it. Yet, it is the current world record(18mm) so it is rather majorly long nowadays. You do not call it short just because you think so, you need to have other comparable evidence before you can say something is minor or major. If you claim it to be undue, you have to at least bring up another view point, so as to it is possible to compare the two.

It is never the one being question to bring proof if the question itself is not credible. You have ignored the very basic. The question itself must have credibility in it, or you can go around and ask the same question to everyone, if they are male or female, and claim that their gender shown on their ID is not credible since it is the only evidence they could give. When you are questioning something that have built up credibility, you need to have evidence supporting your question, you have none.

You would be a very bad judge or prosecutor. I have no idea which country you are from, but before a man is convicted to be guilty, s/he should be assumed to be innocent, especially when the man is a credible one from past history. When you put charge to that person, you will have to bring evidence to make it a prima facie case, before the accused need to bring out his/her side's evidence.(unless, of course, the man pleaded guilty before all these, which is not the current case) You do not keep asking the accused to give evidence before you can give the basic evidence to proof that there is at least some doubt that the defendant might be guilty. In a court case, if the prosecutor offer no evidence, the defendant would be acquitted. What you are doing here is first believe the accused is guilty, then asked the accused to prove him/herself to be not, it is the reverse of any civil legal system, the common law system(United Kingdom and related commonwealth countries), the civil law system(Major system in the world) and the federal law system(USA). Even in academic fields, if you need to prove a view is minor or incorrect, you will need to proof at least it got doubts by logically deducing the problems and show inconsistencies or give counter examples with evidences. You do not come up with no evidence and ask for the defense to give evidence in any case. This is not how things work, unless you are in an uncivil setting where hearsay can be evidence.(In which you are trying your best to demonstrate here that you think what you say is the most powerful evidence and everyone has to heed.) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 15:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to comment at this deletion discussion. -- œ^™ 00:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

totally forgot

but uh, how does a japanese name become the commonly used english name when the english name is something else, I don't get it Elm-39 - T/C/N 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my only problem with that is that the convention says "reliable sources", other than that it makes perfect sense

I just don't see why, since this is supposed to be encyclopedic, we forgo the official english title for a japanese title; this isn't like the megadrive where that is the official name used around the world, though do note that the megadrive issue specifically goes against fanbases 75.177.21.40 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is clearly written in English in reliable sources that it is called Super Robot Wars. These sources include the official site, and the box covers. There are way more releases than the English title and thus it makes sense to use the original English name. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 18:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mythsearcher! I noticed your edits on Japanese sword and figured that you know something about Japanese swords. I would like to complete the List of National Treasures of Japan by creating the list of all swords. See here for a basic Japanese draft version. Eventually the list should look like the other lists in Category:Lists of National Treasures of Japan and provide some additional information besides the name of the sword and the place it is located at. Since I don't know much about swords (they look all the same to me) it would be great if you had some suggestions on what information could go into the list (size, material,...?). Of course if you feel like helping with generating the list that would be even better. Cheers bamse (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Help:Diff#Linking to a diff may prove helpful.- Sinneed 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GP00.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 01:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nu Gundam. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu Gundam. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Universal Century mobile armours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Universal Century mobile weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Farix (t | c) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're fluent in Chinese and near-fluent in English would you mind doing a few Chinese translations for the Anime and Manga wikiproject? Extremepro (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by look over my translations of publishing companies Sharp Point Press and Ever Glory Publishing from their respective Chinese pages. Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do that edit...and i cannot create an account for some reason. 194.72.80.15 (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might have been someone else...then...??? 194.72.80.15 (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mythsearcher;

I moved the article so that it better fits with the rest of Wikipedia's aircraft coverage, where articles are scoped to a particular, specific type. Occasionally, articles also include material about prototypes where not enough material is available to split them off on their own; the Ilyushin Il-2 is an example of a famous aircraft that springs readily to mind.

According to the OpenSky Q&A page, the M-01 and M-02 are basically the same airframe, so describing them together like this is consistent with how we treat other aircraft and their prototypes.

The Möwe 1/2 is quite a different aircraft, and it would be more unusual (although not unprecedented, especially when it was sub-scale) to group it together with the others. It's not really a problem yet because as things stand, the article does not describe it to any significant degree.

I hope that this allays some of your misgivings! Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - Have you seen this core policy, WP:OR? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keeps adding false information to Animage] claiming it comes from the Japanese Wikipedia. Animage's actual website shows their edits are wrong. An extra set of eyes on the article would be appreciated. Edward321 (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed the addition I made for popular culture "In popular culture: it is a waffle and NOT a dorayaki.", but the image I was referring to was the one of the dorayaki (mistakenly referred to as a pancake) and not the waffle. For examples, see http://bunnywithapancakeonitshead.blogspot.com/ or do a image engine search for the string "I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head." Do you have objections to me putting it back? For one, I had actually never seen the waffle image and only the "pancake" image - so I believe it is common enough to warrant it. Zak.estrada (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for lack of sources. Could you tell me exactly in which article I dod this so I can add relevant sources. Kangaroopowah (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snce you've talk to the person (somewhat), I thought I should let you know that IP Address 71.195.10.41 removed a reference link on G.I. Joe: Renegades[2].108.82.5.113 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Otaku, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. θvξrmagξ ^contribs 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In re the criticism section that references the 3mm skin thickness. *sigh* I did the calculations myself, assuming Eglin steel. I supposed that makes them original research, but the math was so easy... Oh well. Feel free to remove them. Ray Van De Walker 18:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In response, to your comment on my talk page: The useful criticism does not turn on my calculations (who cares, besides me?). It's whether resources for habitats will be scarce, and therefore priced in a market. If so, use of resources will be minimized, and Island 3 is very unlikely to be built. A less expensive alternative that was known to O'Neil is a scheme he wrote about, a "crystal palace" (after the minimalist British Exposition building), described in the NASA studies O'Neil supervised (They used to be available in PDFs at the NSS document server). These are less expensive per square meter, because they are composites of small habitats. The small habitats have smaller hoop stresses and and therefore thinner skins, because they have a much smaller pressurized cross section (e.g.5m vs 2Km). The calculations are merely my poor attempt to estimate such a structure. The general form I was calculating is an island-3-sized cylindrical net supporting habitat "beads." Inside the ~5m habitat cylinders, floors are supported by trusses that attach directly to the exterior net, so the thin skin is not involved. The skin only holds the air in, so it's sized for a 5x safety factor for the hoop stress of a 5m-diameter cylinder holding in air at 40% of STP (using O'Neil's special habitat mix). It's not 3mm; I seem to recall it being thinner. Ray Van De Walker 22:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Im not trying to target the gundam articles because I dont like them, I respect gundam and think it was a big breakthough in anime however... I want you to take a look at all of them and in your honest opinion tell which ones should be deleted. I wont nom the ones with references just all the unsourced plot info fancruft filled lists and articles as they arent helping. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

謝謝。我會講中文但日語不太好 :-) 記得差不多1999年的網站經常說city，也許同樣誤會了日語的意思。Silas S. Brown (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zeon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails per WP:NOTDIR, also removed entries that are already mentioned in the plot section of the main article and on the seperate article pages of the notable mobile units.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ mobile weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You commented directly to the editor Robsinden about his undiscussed moves; the venue is at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") and there is Talk:Li (surname) ‎Merger proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gundam-Century.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:AE logo.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mobile weapons is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile weapons until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gundam firefighting.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AE logo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zaku, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaku until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VX2 (Gundam).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]