On 31 May 2006, at 00:44, Anittas Hatti wrote:

The recent days have been very confusing to me. I'll keep it short. User:Zoe demanded a certain part of the article to be sourced. That part of the article was sourced, but had no footnotes attached to it. Zoe asked what the sources were, and I gave them the two souces: one was a book and another was a Doc-file. These sources had been included in the article.

Zoe claimed that they didn't have the book and that the Doc-file could not be accessible for all people. After much discussion, Zoe agreed to restore the part of the article, until it was found that the text was plagiarized from another site and was again removed. All was fine.

Meanwhile, I went to a few articles started by two other users and removed the unsourced material. I was reverted and warned for being disruptive. After some negotiations, I started instead to discuss the issue, as Zoe said that I should do. I went to ANI to ask questions about the Wiki policy on sources. I didn't care about the text that was removed due to plagiarization, as I deemed the decission to be a correct one. I went to ANI to ask whether an article about a comicbook could use that same comic as a source. I then asked if an article about a movie could use the same movie as a source. I thought it was original research, because the author of the article needs to interpret the art by himself and then write about it. No-one gave me any answer to the topic; instead, Zoe blocked me for disruption and trolling.

I'm sure that most admins will agree with Zoe's decission, even tho I was being polite the whole time and even tho I was ultimately blocked for asking questions on ANI (which ironically, saw a couple of admins contradict themselves) by an admin who was involved in the dispute. That's fine with me: you can agree with Zoe and everyone else that disagreed with me. Perhaps I was being disruptive by asking too many questions. But I would still like to know if an article about a movie can use the movie as a source; and if an article about a comicbook can use that same comicbook as a source. If the answer is no, can any action be taken against such articles? And where can this info be found?

I havent looked at all your links, but I do think User:Zoe was being rather odd. I would footnote if people get that peculiar. I think you were perhaps less polite than you could have been perhaps, but not sure that blocking was the right answer.

However when your block expires, just bear in mind that lots of wikipedia is unsourced at present. Its usually best to just request sources on the talk page if you cant find them, and give people plenty of time. If you have reason to believe something is false or misleading or POV say, remove it and add the removed text and a note to the talk page. And show how to do things by example, by always giving good references by example. [Note these are not meant to be criticisms of you, just suggestions].

In terms of what is original research, plot summaries etc and generally not OR - summarising anything is what encyclopaedias do, whether it is a primary or secondary source ("Napoleon was a pig"). If you start to give opinions or interpretations ("Animal Farm is a satire of the Soviet Union") then you should be citing secondary sources.

Justinc