Pseudooracle

Welcome!

Hello, Pseudooracle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Just the facts

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not a place for editors to express their opinions and views about a subject, as in your edits to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and Wicked Witch of the West. It is our role to report what others have said about the subject, not to introduce our own original insights. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure this is how one goes about replying, but I'm sure I'll be corrected here, too.

I'll grant you that I used my own adjectives describing the quality of the screenplay writing. And if the consensus of the unwashed public generally is that it's a Wonderful Work Of Art, regardless of the facts, I'm uncertain how to proceed in presenting a factual response. Surely facts trump popular opinion, and the guts of my observation was factual: At the movie's end, Toto is still a dead dog walking. To pretend otherwise in the article is simply too Stephen Colbert....

Now, I'm sure I wasn't deleted by MGM's cover-their-butts police. Clearly I've violated some sort of entry protocol. I'll read the recommendations and have another go. Toto has fans, too, and this is an issue the World Must Know About.... Pseudooracle (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What you've violated is Wikipedia's requirement that we only report verifiable facts, not opinions. See the "five pillars" page for more depth about that. You did more than use your own adjectives; you presented your own analysis, and more to the point: you used a Wikipedia article to promote it. It may be "an issue the World Must Know About", but Wikipedia is not the place for you to get the word out. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Good points -- all but the verifiable-facts issue. In court, testimony is limited to what the witness has seen and heard personally. Anyone who's sat through the movie has personally seen and heard Toto condemned, escape, and, at the conclusion, nothing has been seen or heard to change it. Apparently I'm the only theatergoer who's been sufficiently obsessive/compulsive to notice. Mind you, I'm merely arguing for argument's sake; I understand your position.Pseudooracle (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)