User talk:TheIdealStatus

Speedy deletion of Big stinky

A tag has been placed on Big stinky, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion G1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.east.718 at 21:15, 10/28/2007 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to ignore our policies by introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Big stinky, you will be blocked. Toddst1 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

January 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Amazon.com. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Gwernol 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is verifiable by simply going to Amazon.com and looking at ANY product for ANY page. Anyone who is familiar with Amazon.com knows this. I do not know why one would need to cite this. Please explain this to me.

All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Please read that policy to understand the implications of it. What you tried to add was original research and is not allowed. It is not obvious that what you said is true - have you done a full study of how Amazon reviews have changed over time and across the full range of Amazon products? Unless you have, and that study has been published in an independent, reliable source, you cannot add it to Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 22:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. You've come across one of the three key policies of Wikipedia: verifiability. It is crucial that all information in Wikipedia articles can be verified by readers from independent, published sources. Otherwise we're just a blog. Verifiability really is the key to why this is an encyclopedia.

While it may be obvious to you that "Amazon.com has increasingly featured reviews that rate products higher." it isn't obvious to me and you would need detailed, long term data to show this was true. Even if its true today, how do we know whether this will be true tomorrow. Someone might be reading the Wikipedia article 10 years from now (or in 100 years) and Amazon might be very different. If you cite an external source you solve both those problems: the publisher of the information is now responsible for its accuracy and the source has a date so the reader knows when this was the case.

Your following sentence: "Questions about this practice have been raised, as this may create a false idea about a product." is even more controversial. Who has raised these questions? Its entirely your supposition that this "creates a false idea of the product" you really need to provide a source for this or its just your personal opinion, and we certainly don't publish personal opinions on Wikiepdia: see WP:NPOV.

I agree this its a pain to provide sources, but its essential to making Wikipedia a useful source of information. Thanks, Gwernol 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Gwernol. The time you took is greatly appreciated.

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Craphonso Thorpe, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Craphonso Thorpe was changed by TheIdealStatus (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-06-01T18:11:24+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)