User talk:Phanos012

Welcome!

Hello, Phanos012, 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 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Also, about the San Andreas myths

To tell you the truth, a lot of users come to the page (mainly IP users) add "bullshit" to the page. I think maybe 90% of the edits that befall the page are blatant lies sounding similar to your edits; I'm sure they probably are true (I've played SA plenty, but I don't go myth hunting like some players), but just because something is true doesn't mean it can be added. Those edits also consist of a large amout of original thought, that is, you thought it up as opposed to finding a source that details this. I'll also apologize for my edit summary; I really wasn't trying to be an butthole, but, because most of the editors are anonymous, I was confident they weren't even going to attempt to look at the page history, let alone know how. I'm kinda dealing with a lot of Wikipedia BS with other users at the moment as well, although, lucky for me, it's calmed down a bit. Once again, I apologize. I also hope you will read the links I provided you with to learn a little more about why I removed your edits. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you either refuse to read the links to the pages I provided or you couldn't understand them. Look when you make claims such as "fans say..." or "searches in this area have been fruitless" or other similar claims, you have to source these claims with sources, or references, to verify these claims, or it constitutes as original research. I highly recommend reading the relevant parts of the pages I provided before replying again; I told you I've been dealing with enough stress as it is here, and I'd really like to prevent more BS from happening, so please read the links. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm confident that some of that information should be removed, as well; I also don't feel that more un-sourcable information should be added into the article, either. It's already skating on thin ice as it is. Also, some of that information is sourcable, but hasn't been sourced yet, and, if it's determined that it can't be sourced, then it will be removed as originaal research. Now, about your paragraph: the claims you made would be impossible to source; I'm sure it's safe to say that you thought those up on your own, as opposed to seeing that in some sort of notable source. Now, I'll give you this other link to look at, which might give a simpler and more understandable definition of original research and if you don't get it at this point, I don't know what else to tell you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research isn't "making stuff up." It is original research: stuff you found out yourself. If what you said is published somewhere in verifiable source, then that's different. I still don't think you read the "original research" article that well; what I just told you is asserted by the very first paragraph in it. I understand that a lot of the article looks like that; does it need more of it? I also understand the fact that some of this info is sourcable, which, in light of recent events, will, quite possibly be taken care of (the page doesn't see too much activity, outside of IP editors and a few other users, so it may take a good while). ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RPA and maybe a bit of WP:NPA, as well; what I did is justified by a policy. Also, excuse me if I'm incorrect, but I can't help but sense a small bit of hostility in your response; I've apologized for the way I carried out the "San Andreas myth" reverts and, at the same time, justified my actions, so I'd very much appreciate it if we could minimize as much conflict as we can. Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]