User talk:GalahadFLT: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:59, 15 November 2018

Welcome!

Hello, GalahadFLT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Starquake (video game) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Starquake (video game) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop being obtuse.

Edit warring

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no "edit warring" at all, i'm simply correcting information that is incorrect. Now I appreciate that there are people that want to vandalise pages on wikipedia, thats a given, but it makes no sense whatsoever for me to come onto wikipedia to edit something fairly benign, and then have it rejected so out of hand.

"Provide your source".... so I did, which was then countered with

"but thats not notable".... says who? Who gets to be the arbiter of what is "notable" or not? Its a page for a 30 year old video game granted, but its supposed to be informative, otherwise whats the point in the page even existing in the first place if you're happy to see something incorrect listed?

It wouldn't have been so bad, but the original guy that reverted the page did so based on his "opinion"?!?!

And then to compound his error, then wrote "I'm not very familiar with the game", which SHOULD to a right thinking person, exclude him from making a revision decision if he doesn't actually know.

Surely people can agree with that?

So I edited originally anonymously, and then ended up having to make an account to try and get the edit accepted. Thats a lot of effort just to correct one page.... is this what vandals normally do? Maybe over a Kanye West or Donald Trump page, probably not a 30 year old video game i'm thinking.

I find it ridiculous that you accept that I might well be the author of the Amiga version on nothing but my say so, but when I provide physical evidence to show that David McLachlan is the graphics artist, excuses are made of why that isn't proof he did the graphics, oh, and by the way thats not notable!

Theres pretty much NO point asking for proof of a claim, if you're simply going to say "well its not notable" anyway.

Wikipedia is either interested in being as informative as it can be, or is arbitrarily applying the rules as it likes to the content it provides with no real care to its veracity.

I think when someone goes to the trouble to make an account, provides graphical proof, and links to websites to show he's editing in good faith, you should err on the side of caution, but you didn't.

Being so combative doesn't lend to new users bothering, and yeah, I got stroppy with you and others, because you kept on making new excuses for why the edit couldn't stay.

Thats not fair on anyone.