User talk:Omnifarious
Link spammer
[edit]Agreed. I'd normally revert spam like this, but most of the links are quite innocuous, and a few (e.g. [1] listed at Router) are arguably helpful. As long as the links are encyclopedic and don't single out a particular commercial vendor, then I'm ok leaving them intact. --Diberri | Talk 17:27, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
DeBeers
[edit]Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to De Beers. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Dgies 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please explain to me what is false or nonsensical about the bit I added. Personally, I feel that the wordy and obtuse paragraph needed a concise summary. Just because the concise summary was inspired by a statement in a webcomic doesn't mean it isn't true. Omnifarious 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're about the 10th person so far who thinks they're being witty by copying a joke from QC. If you honestly have verifiable evidence of your claims, then we can talk, otherwise you're just another vandal. --Dgies 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I admit that it is funny, but I fail to see how it lacks verification. As I said, it seems to me to be a perfectly logical summary that follows directly from the other statements in the paragraph. Counting the number of people who agree with me doesn't help your cause. Can you tell me what additional evidence is required other than DeBeers purposely trying to link engagement (and therefore marraige, sex and child rearing) to diamonds? Thanks. Omnifarious 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you actually read WP:V? A mob of anonymous copycat vandals is not verifiability. You need to cite a reputable source (and no, QC, a work of fiction, is not a reputable source in this context). --Dgies 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- So, an article may not contain statements that are summaries of other verified sources? It seems to me that DeBeers attempt to link various common mating rituals (like declaring engagement) to diamonds is well known, so the thing I added is a good summary of the ultimate purpose of the ad compaigns they run. Omnifarious 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Did you actually read WP:V? A mob of anonymous copycat vandals is not verifiability. You need to cite a reputable source (and no, QC, a work of fiction, is not a reputable source in this context). --Dgies 06:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dgies – WP:FAITH. It may be an attempt to be funny by copying from QC, but it could also be seen as a reasonable summary of the paragraph. In any case, it's certainly not vandalism. 129.97.134.13 06:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- WP:FAITH is a good idea, but for the 10th person inserting the same text from a comic talking about vandalizing the article, I've gotta call it like I see it. --Dgies 16:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I admit that it is funny, but I fail to see how it lacks verification. As I said, it seems to me to be a perfectly logical summary that follows directly from the other statements in the paragraph. Counting the number of people who agree with me doesn't help your cause. Can you tell me what additional evidence is required other than DeBeers purposely trying to link engagement (and therefore marraige, sex and child rearing) to diamonds? Thanks. Omnifarious 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You're about the 10th person so far who thinks they're being witty by copying a joke from QC. If you honestly have verifiable evidence of your claims, then we can talk, otherwise you're just another vandal. --Dgies 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)