User talk:Sara Prueitt

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Western Wildland Environmental Threat

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Western Wildland Environmental Threat, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://arcfuels.org/index_files/wwetac.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Age appropriateness

Your edits at Five Nights at Freddy's (series) and Five Nights at Freddy's have been reverted by Famous Hobo, NekoKatsun and me.

As a general rule, when you boldly make a change to an article and someone reverts you, it is a good idea to discuss the issue. Simply ignoring the other editor(s) and restoring your edit is seen as disruptive and rarely solves the problem. Further information can be found at WP:BRD.

In the present case, this type of material is widely discouraged on Wikipedia. Across all types of media (films, TV shows, video games, books, etc.), we generally do not include parental guidance ratings (e.g. MPAA film ratings in the U.S. and similar ratings schemes) as the ratings are culture specific and subject to interpretation. Content considered perfectly acceptable in one culture/country is seen as offensive or questionable in others. One rare exception is when the ratings themselves attack attention from independent reliable sources (e.g. when a film's rating is discussed as a key reason for the creation of a new rating (such as PG-13 in the U.S.) it might warrant some discussion in the article). Common Sense Media's rating of the game does not seem to have been a topic of discussion in independent reliable sources. IMDb's parental guide material is generated by users of the site and is not suitable for inclusion in any case. Please see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for more information.

The youtube videos you linked to are worthless and your description of them as "helping children recover" is hard to take seriously. Do not add them again.

If, for some reason, you disagree with any of this, please discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages before restoring the material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, I do disagree with some of what you've said. Additionally, to coin a phrase from Cyphoidbomb, I find some of your comments are somewhat attacky and not helpful - demanding that I not do something, and telling me that something I thought was relevant and important is "worthless" was not helpful.

First, I don’t think it was a bold change to the article. I merely added a sentence after some of the other reviews. The parental reviews I added indicated that the game was not appropriate for children. I didn’t find any parental reviews that said “sure this is great for kids” – or I would have added that too. All reviews indicated that the games was probably not appropriate for 12-and-under. I cited 3 of the more thoughtful reviews.

I'm not sure what you mean by: "Across all types of media (films, TV shows, video games, books, etc.), we generally do not include parental guidance ratings." I don't know who "we" refers to. Also, if that's a law of the land, I don't agree with it. The other reviews weren't parental - is that the difference? And why would being a parent negate a review? I think especially in cases where someone is targeting kids with content that is not appropriate, a parental review is informative. I know you think that my personal story isn't relevant, but the only reason I tripped across this page is because of my personal story: I turned to Wikipedia for more information about something that my kid was deeply disturbed by. I contributed the information because I value what Wikipedia is able to offer and thought others would want to know what I found out after some digging: that parental reviews are generally in agreement that this is not a game children should be exposed to. I cited my observation, and as with all citations it is up to the reader to evaluate their authority.

I placed the information that you deleted back into the page because I thought it had been mistakenly deleted. What I posted wasn’t controversial. I usually add to botanical sites on Wikipedia, where information is often convoluted and edited by many folks who aren’t Wiki-savvy. And I’m not savvy. I’m gathering from your communications that I’ve stepped into a very different world with Freddy. When I get into a disagreement with a botanist, it's merely a citation war (who's authority is most accepted). I'd welcome your input into those sites! You seem quite confident about what is accepted or is not (the misapplication of Solanum americanum drives me nuts).

"The parental reviews I added..." Individual site users' reviews are individual opinions, subject to virtually no review of any kind. Such self-published sources are not usable on Wikipedia. If they were, tens of thousands of articles would quickly devolve into endless, worthless lists of such opinions informing readers that some random person thinks broccoli is "yucky" while another feels Pong is the "most bestest video game EVRRRRRRRRR!!!"

"...not appropriate for children." While the current game is apparently a fairly extreme example, Wikipedia generally does not include parental guidance opinions for TV shows, movies, books, video games, songs, etc. Wikipedia is an international site. Opinions of what is "appropriate" vary from culture to culture. In the U.S., such concerns tend to focus on heavily on sexuality, nudity (as defined in the U.S.), use of alcohol and drugs that are illegal in the U.S. and "graphic" violence. The current film Pan has a startlingly high body count. Humans and human-like creatures are killed by the dozens. There's virtually no sexual content, though, so Common Sense Media says it is appropriate for 9-year-olds. I don't recall much language. Other potentially "offensive" content in the film includes: the existence of fairies and magic, slavery, suicide, women with uncovered heads/faces/legs/etc., references to gods other than YHVH/Allah/various supreme beings in various versions of Hinduism/etc., children challenging the authority of adults, etc. Wikipedia does not -- cannot -- select one system over others. Wikipedia cannot cover all of them either. Common Sense Media and other sites are resources in their own right. Wikipedia will never be a complete resource for all needs.

"I didn’t find... All reviews indicated... " I do not doubt that you are reporting what you found. You are, however, combining material from several sources (unreliable ones at that) to state something that the individual sources do not say. Wikipedia calls that "synthesis".

"I cited 3 of the more thoughtful reviews." You cited the reviews you feel are more thoughtful.

"I don't know who 'we' refers to." On Wikipedia, when editors use an unreferenced "we" to say what is or is not done, it generally refers to the whole project. "We do not allow personal attacks" means "Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia".

"Also, if that's a law of the land, I don't agree with it." That's fine. When you disagree with a policy or guideline on Wikipedia, you have a number of options. You can accept it "as-is" with little to no thought and move on. You can ask for clarification and links to relevant guidelines to see if you come to agree with the reason for the policy/guideline. You can start a discussion aimed at changing the policy/guideline. In some cases (I don't think this would be one of them) you can build a consensus for an exception to the policy that applies only to the current issue. Heck, you can even copy the Wiki software and some/all of Wikipedia's content over to your own site and establish your own policies and guidelines (see, for example, Conservapedia and Memory Alpha).

"The other reviews weren't parental - is that the difference? And why would being a parent negate a review?" This isn't about parents/non-parents/etc. This is about independent reliable sources, the basis of every article on Wikipedia. Imagine we are working on George W. Bush, The Catcher in the Rye, the Bible, aspartame or some other more polarizing issue. Can we find internet forums where people give their opinions of these topics? Obviously. Which of those opinions do we report? All of them? None of them? Rather than packing the articles full of opinions from random commenters on the internet, we've developed guidelines. We prefer review aggregator sites to individual reviewers. For individual reviewers, we stick with professional critics. We generally don't use sources with a narrow focus.

"I know you think that my personal story isn't relevant..." Your personal story is relevant to you and anyone who would care to listen to you or read a blog. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, not a blog, soapbox, etc.

"...it is up to the reader to evaluate their authority." Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. WP:V

"I placed the information that you deleted back into the page because I thought it had been mistakenly deleted. What I posted wasn’t controversial." This is why I pointed you in the direction of WP:BRD. Sometimes, edit summaries in the article's history will give you an idea why someone did something. Other times, you might receive a message on your talk page or find discussion on the article's talk page. Some editors ae better than others at explaining their reasoning.

"I usually add to botanical sites on Wikipedia, where information is often convoluted and edited by many folks who aren’t Wiki-savvy. And I’m not savvy. I’m gathering from your communications that I’ve stepped into a very different world with Freddy. When I get into a disagreement with a botanist, it's merely a citation war (who's authority is most accepted). I'd welcome your input into those sites! You seem quite confident about what is accepted or is not (the misapplication of Solanum americanum drives me nuts)." You might want to check in at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants where involved editors work on issues and relevant guidelines are developed and discussed. If you are interested in help learning how to work with Wikipedia, you might consider Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, where a more experienced editor can show you the ropes. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize you were an official Wiki editor. As is Cyphoidbomb, I take it. I thought you were just someone who contributed to the Five nights at Freddy's page and didn't like what I had to say.

So, what I can do is publish some opinion pieces about Five nights at Freddy's and then cite them on Wikipedia. It's completely doable, and much easier than trying to post something relevant on Wikipedia. I've written and published far more difficult and technical pieces. The reviews that were already cited on the Wiki page for Five nights at Freddy's seemed personal to me, but I guess the only difference was that they were published? The Common Sense Media IS a collective parental review (45 at last count collectively reviewed the game). If you are worried about cultural sensitivity you can merely add that "English-speaking parent reviews do not recommend this game for children 12 and under". And cite it. I still don't agree with you. But I guess you have the power to delete a contribution as someone who is appointed as an editor.

As for the botanical authorities, it doesn't matter what Wiki editors think - it's the botanical societies that come up with the authorities, and on an international level there isn't agreement. And frankly, after this experience, I think I'm done contributing to Wikipedia pages. Let the Wiki editors fight amongst themselves!

Sara Prueitt signing out - but look for my published pieces about Five nights at Freddy's in family magazines and newsletters! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.154.114 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you giving up. There is no such thing as an official Wikipedia editor, it's a free-for-all in here (there are administrators, but they have a very different function, to resolve disputes generally without any knowledge of the content of the articles). It's just a convention that the system calls us users, and we call ourselves editors. We are all just volunteers. It is entirely understandable that you would decide to give up. Most of us have decided at one time or another to give up, but I hope that you'll reconsider. I heartily endorse the suggestion to look in at WT:PLANTS: a large number of knowledgeable people contribute there, and botanical matters are generally very sagely dealt with (tiny pun there). Best wishes for whatever you choose. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Your recent editing history at Five Nights at Freddy's 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding serious citations

Just wanted to say that it is refreshing to see your addition at Solanum ptychanthum -- real information about botanical taxonomy, a rare treat in the modern world! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]