How is this not the definition of OR? Go to talk. It's attached to a recently-deleted hoax page, that webpage is a redirect to a page that says almost nothing factual and is not a reliable source. Ogress _smash! 23:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR only applies to things where no reliable sources exist, while that might not be a reliable source, it does not mean that none exist. HillMountain (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Son. Wikipedia disagrees with you very specifically: "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." They have not done that. At all. Ogress _smash! 23:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the edit. HillMountain (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I won't revert your change due to I want to avoid edit wars, but be sure to condense it per Wikipedia's policy.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]