User talk:Jerrokun
Hi! I see you removed the category from List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes multiple times as inappropriate. If you remove categories, please find a better category. Otherwise, the list keeps coming back on one of the the Uncategorized pages lists, where an editor will find it and put the category right back. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see. That's unfortunate, because the Animated Series is not actually a television series. I may have to go to the discussion page, or perhaps you could explain what to do about this? If they keep claiming it is a television series when that is not actually true, perhaps it should remain uncategorized? Jerrokun (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ctrl+Alt+Del Criticism
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--Thrindel (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh hey dude. Yeah, that's cool and all, except you undid my edit despite the fact that all I did was reorganize the information that was already there. I know you're desperate to get rid of any mentioning of B^U, but it'd be nice if you actually looked through my edit instead of undoing the whole thing. Jerrokun (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, you've attempted to add quite a bit of language and information that was in present in none of the sources linked to, which is Original Research.--Thrindel (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- The only example that I can see you mistaking as original research is the second paragraph, which is directly related to the third. Prove me wrong, and regardless you shouldn't have undone the entire edit, you should have simply taken out the part that you saw as "original research", which is an incorrect assumption anyway. Jerrokun (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- 90% of the edit was Original Research, and what was leftover after that was taken out was poorly written and poorly constructed copy-editing. I don't know how much clearer I can explain WP:NOR for you. It doesn't matter what you know, as far as the article is concerned it only matters what you can show with reliable sources. And the opinion/criticism has to have been made by someone notable. "People think this" is not encyclopedic material.--Thrindel (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- The only example that I can see you mistaking as original research is the second paragraph, which is directly related to the third. Prove me wrong, and regardless you shouldn't have undone the entire edit, you should have simply taken out the part that you saw as "original research", which is an incorrect assumption anyway. Jerrokun (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, you've attempted to add quite a bit of language and information that was in present in none of the sources linked to, which is Original Research.--Thrindel (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)