User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2:2.3 Wikipedia aspires to be a respected reference work, so the sigh-clone etymology must be left out until sources are provided
Isn't this always the case? However ridiculous the sigh-clone explanation may be, we must explain to the author the need for statements to be backed up by reliable sources. Until then, the statements should be removed. As to ZZ's statement, I've said much harsher things to people when I've needed to make a point, and that's exactly what ZZ was doing. --CrypticC62 · Talk 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the situation as described in the quiz question is particularly realistic, but if you want an answer, then certainly, the "sigh clone" etimilogy should be removed from the article and the user who tried to insert this info should be blocked for edit warring and repeated WP:V violations. User ZZ does not appear to have done anything worthy of administrative action or even a reprimand. Nsk92 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously. Conceivably there may be sources for the popular etymology, in which case it can be added as such. ZZ deserves praise, not a reprimand. The user in question should be blocked. DGG (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Bwrs (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Common sense sometimes really, REALLY needs to take precedent over Wikipedia's rules. The fact is, statements, such as the "sigh-clone" need to be sources properly before being included in the article. The editor ZZ, while making a rash statement, probably had enough of the back and forth bickering and looked to put it to an end. ZZ did nothing wrong in trying to stop the situation in it's tracks. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
