User talk:Mjharrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]


Hello, Mjharrison, 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:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!} . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back on this. You've done the right thing in being bold and in explaining what you're doing in the edit summaries (though checking the "minor edit" box should only be done for small spelling errors or the like). It's a touchy area and the edits were reverted – the next thing to do is to take the issue to the talk page, and make proposals or add draft changes there rather than keeping changing back, which would be "edit warring" and is strongly discouraged. Have a look at Talk:Level of support for evolution#Applications where your edits are being discussed – more later, thanks for your help, ... dave souza, talk 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, here are some pointers related to working on science articles. The five pillars link above leads into all the basics, including the community stuff. When contributing to articles, the first thing is to cite a verifiable source for both facts and assessments or opinions of these facts so as to avoid original research. The Neutral point of view policy (which shows and balances viewpoints rather than adopting one idealised viewpoint) requires avoiding giving undue weight to minority positions amongst experts on the subject, and specific policy provisions for dealing with science vs. pseudoscience are shown in WP:NPOV/FAQ. Hope these pointers are useful, I appreciate that it's a lot to take in. Don't hesitate to ask if anything needs explaining, though I'm still learning all the time and may have to look it up! .. dave souza, talk 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits on World of Warcraft[edit]

Hi there, I noticed your recent edits on the World of Warcraft article regarding PVP criticism. Unfortunately in this case they have been removed as they are unreferenced original research. While your edits are welcome, it is important to ensure that you reference reliable sources when making claims that are likely to be challenged. In this case, reliable sources would include third party magazine articles or similar. Forums, threads and so on are not considered reliable sources in this case. Should you have reliable sources, please feel free to re-introduce your edit including information on these sources where appropriate.

If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a shout. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games for more information on this subject area. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First up, please reply on talk pages (such as this one), rather than user pages, as the former can be considered vandalism. WP also alerts the user when their talk page has been edited, making it easier to spot.
Secondly, unreferenced claims always run the risk of being removed completely, especially in articles that are regularly edited/updated. As it is, your section makes several claims while only citing two sources, one of which is a forum topic that is not permissible under policy. It likely that another editor will take a similar course of action. As articles are managed by concensus, it may be an idea to discuss the topic on the article's talk page before introducing it.
Thirdly, inline links are discouraged per the manual of style. It is much better to use the External Links section at the bottom of the article or use a reference or citation tag.
Hope this clears things up. Gazimoff (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving PVP Criticism[edit]

As per the discussion on Talk: World of Warcraft, I'm going to move the bulk of the PVP Criticisms to Criticism of World of Warcraft along with some other sections, although I'm going to keep the summary info there. This is being done as a general cleanup of the article to improve sourcing and readability as well as slimming it down to keep it concise. I'm going to be working on the article in my sandbox before putting it in place and your input will be appreciated, so please let me know your thoughts on the article talk page. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to the Warcraft Taskforce[edit]

Just a small note to say that we're starting up a new taskforce to cleanup many of the Warcraft articles, and I'd like to invite you to join us. The taskforce covers everything Warcraft related from books and other media through to the games themselves. Whatever your thoughts and opinions are, it would be great to have them as part of a centralised discussion. So please, take a look at the Warcraft Taskforce page and if you feel it's something you'd like to help with then sign up. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online first-person shooter[edit]

Hi Mjharrison; since the inclusion of Darkfall was previously contested in this list, perhaps you can provide some reliable sources that place it in this genre (perhaps a magazine review or a publisher's description.) If no such source have described it as such, then neither should we. If they do then consider filling out a citation template or let me know and I can. Marasmusine (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be silly[edit]

Re: [1]. Don't do it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? cause what I see is someone being censored for a perfectly reasonable comment. If there is mitigating information I am not aware of, please let me know.
No, I'm not going to explain why. If you can't work that out for yourself, you need to find some other topics to discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It was absolutely uncalled for and you know it. The talk pages are for making constructive suggestions for improving the article, not for taking potshots at your fellow editors. I repeat WMC's suggestion that you do not continue to edit like this, or you will risk being blocked for disruption. Auntie E (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Quite frankly I don't know what's going on here. I saw what I thought was unreasonable censorship of another's opinion which was on-topic and civil. I don't agree with censoring a seemingly on-topic, worthwhile comment on a talk page. If you 2 have issues with that particular IP poster then fine, it's got nothing to do with me. As for "potshots" - I think you are confusing me with someone else. Mjharrison (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah woe, William and Auntie it seems to me that you need to assume good faith, and give a bit more explanation of a somewhat confusing situation. As far as I can see, the IP's edit was rightly deleted because it completely misrepresented what William was saying. After the tongue in cheek comment on the list, William correctly gave a link to the standard set in the lead section of the article, "Inclusion is based on specific, attributable statements in the individual's own words, and not on listings in petitions or surveys." Thus the proposal to include individuals as signatories to some chain letter fails, regardless of their affiliations, unless I've misunderstood something. The IP's contribution failed WP:TALK, as well as opening potential for new offtopic discussion about other editors, and so removing it was not "censorship". Hope that helps, . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Df backstab.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Df backstab.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Please see WP:ANI for a discussion of your behavior. Calidum Talk To Me 17:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)