I see you keep on making certain edits over and over again, despite my instructions saying they are not appropriate for wikipedia. Perhaps discussing them in more detail will help. Below are some examples, and why they're not appropriate:
- It was originally released in late 2006 on the Xbox 360, but was released early 2007 on the Playstation 3 due to critical ire.
- This sentence is awkward for a number of reasons. First, "ire" isn't really an appropriate word to use in this situation. The definition to "ire" is Great anger; wrath, fury . Reception is usually measured in a positive to negative type scale, not "degrees of rage", so that word choice isn't the best. "Very negative" is sufficient. "Ire" also violates the WP:NPOV policy.
- Sonic game and the first to not appeal to ages due to it's immense fantasy violence
- Unless you provide a source for this, it is original research, and not acceptable. You need a source to back this up, as it doesn't seem to be especially mature compared to other Sonic games.
- Despite this, it was the most negatively received in the series with just 49% on GameRankings.com.
- This is too detailed to be in the intro. It already says reception was negative, more detailed examples go in the Reception section. (And it's already in the reception section.) Additionally, it's awkward because only 1 of the 2 versions received this percentage.
- The game was originally slated for release in February 2007; however Microsoft, Sony, and the public started complaining as they wanted it closer to the release of their consoles. So Sega started rushing the game, only to leave out numerous points of data (see Reception).
- Not true, and that's not what the reception section says either. It didn't have a set release date, and then moved it up to meet pressure, the PS3 version was delayed because that version took longer to make. Secondly, "the public" rushing Sega is not sourced or mentioned anywhere, and articles aren't supposed to have little notes like "(See reception)" either.
- Sonic 2K6 (a parody of some 2K games), and even Sonic Adventure 3
- You need sources for such claims. I've never seen anyone call it that as a parody, or for those reasons.
- Today, the game is one of the least known games in the series;
- Needs a source. Violates WP:OR as it is. Seems pretty well known to me, it's on current gen of video games systems, and I've seen it in many stores.
- however, Sega has been much more cautious with the series ever since...and Sonic shall not have such an influence with humans.
- Needs a source. Violates WP:OR as it is.
- The reason for the relationship was for game's primary goal: to make Sonic interact with humans.
- Needs a source. Violates WP:OR as it is.
- the only Sonic game on the Xbox 360 and/or PlayStation 3 being Sonic Free Riders.
- This doesn't make any sense considering the existence of Sonic Generations.
Second warning; stop these sorts of edits. This edit has multiple issues, like your prior one, including lack of reliable sources, inserting original research, and general factual innaccuracies. (As you can see, Sonic Free Riders was only release for Xbox 360, so saying it's the only game for "both consoles" can't be right no matter what systems you were referring to. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Third warning. Do not blindly revert without discussion, like you did here If this continues, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Again, please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "letting you finish", there are fundamental issues with virtually all of the information you're trying to add to Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), as I've written on your talk page and my edit summaries. Please read WP:VERIFY - it's not a matter of the stuff "you know", you need to provide sources for this information when you add it, not sometime later. And this isn't addressing the fundamental errors in your information either. (Your Sonic Free Riders trivia isn't true in any respect, due to the existence of Sonic Generations being on for PS3 and 360, for instance.)
And who are you do declare this game a failure at an anniversary celebration, but to call Generations a success. You need sources, and criteria descriptions, (sales? reviews scores?) to make such statements. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Your addition to List of FoxTrot characters has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Salvidrim! 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you do not know how to cite your claims like this one I've reverted, at least insert just the url so another editor can fix it. Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You Need Guidance
I seen through your list of Contributions and I am quite disappointed with your actions. This is NOT how Wikipedia works. In every single Page in Wikipedia, there should be at least 2 Source to help verify its notability, otherwise it can be a fraud. I strongly suggest you to clearly read WP:REFB and WP:FAKE, including every single detail that is necessary for you to create a proper Reference with a trusted Source. I assure you that they will make your Contribution a Success, but you need to gain the agreement of the majority first once you have your Reference ready.--Bumblezellio (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted one of your recent edits to Stan Lee because I believe it contained trivial information. Please be aware that Wikipedia is selective about its content. A page about Stan Lee should avoid too much detail about the works he was in: for instance, you can briefly describe Lee's role in X-Men but you shouldn't explain the storyline for X-Men: that's why there's a link to the film in the article for Stan Lee. I think that the quotes and excessive descriptions you were adding did not belong in the article.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The New 52, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earth 2. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Star Wars books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Naruto characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prodigy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.