Wiki Maintainer
August 2022
edit
Hello, I'm Winner 42. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. W42 16:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
edit
Your recent editing history at Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. W42 16:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Winner 42. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, looking through your short editing history on Wikipedia, I'm going to go farther and tell you that any more personal attacks on other editors will result in a block, completely apart from the edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
To User:Winner_42: Here is my response to the crap you left behind
editHow rude of you to leave this kind of condescending garbage on my page without considering these basic facts:
User:Ludoyo removed entire section on Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance without seeking consensus on the talk page, without explaining to anyone why it benefits Wikipedia and everyone by going against common sense and remove the entire community support section. Then he repeated the removal citing requirements of "Significant coverage", which only apply to full articles instead of sub-sections within an article. He initiated the removal without consensus, then repeated the removal after attempts to restore, I don't see you leaving this kind of on his page, why? Biased?
I already left a response on your page, knowing you'll delete it I am keeping a copy here for eternity:
- To (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42):
- You two kept citing the same rules over and over, but none of you have cited one of the five pillars of Wikipedia:
"Wikipedia has no firm rules"
- Nor two of the most important fundamental principles of Wikipedia:
"Use common sense"
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
- I'll apply patient and spell it out to both of you, again.
- This is where all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines begin:
- Click on it to find this right at the top:
"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"
"Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."
- Scroll down to the Role section:
"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"
"Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow."
"Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
"Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more."
- Scroll down to the Adherence section:
"Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; Rules have occasional exceptions."
- Now go to the Use common sense section of What Ignore all rules means:
- Read:
"Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules"
"Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing."
"Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"
"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."
"The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both."
- Then read:
Q: Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy?
A: It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.
- Then read the diagram and flowchart of ignore all rules:
Suppose you have an idea…
- Are you sure that your idea is a good one by common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia?
- No: DON'T DO IT
- Yes:
- Does it break the rules?
- No: DO IT
- Yes:
- Is that because the rules are wrong?
- No: Ignore the rules and DO IT
- Yes: Change the rules and DO IT
Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means#Diagram_and_flowchart
- Take note that "common sense" and "that it improves the encyclopedia" are the ultimate considerations above all else.
- Now go to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR:
- Read:
Two important implications of this policy are:
- "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are."
- "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way."
- Now go to the "Wikipedia:WIARM" version of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means:
- Read:
"Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind."
"Rules are for fools."
"By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist."
"The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling."
"Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum."
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
- Then read:
"You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating."
"Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below)."
"Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus)."
"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles)."
"Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you."
- Now go to "The rules are principles":
- Read:
"Wikipedia rules are principles, not laws. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles."
"They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some common sense and discretion."
- Then read "Purpose of the principles":
"The principles, and accompanying rules, on Wikipedia are solely intended towards creating and distributing a free, quality encyclopedia to everyone. The requirements of verifiability, reliable sourcing and other content rules seem the "most obvious" to many contributors. However, all the principles are equally central to this goal. The principle underlying the behavioral rules allows us to work towards a healthy collaborative environment for contributors. The principle underlying our non-free content criteria is intended to ensure we protect the mission of a free encyclopedia. The rules exist to support Wikipedia's mission and should be interpreted in that context."
Wikipedia:The_rules_are_principles#Purpose_of_the_principles
- Then read "Context is everything":
"Each individual case will have its own context. While the rules are useful for the most common circumstances, often there is no hard and fast rule that can be applied. For example, whether a small press publication can be considered a reliable source depends on a number of factors. Does the publishing house have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is the author a notable or respected expert in relation to the subject of the work? There are many other factors that could be considered. We cannot absolutely determine whether such small publishers (as a single group) are reliable or unreliable, so it is unlikely that the rules will specifically address such a group. Context and editorial discretion are essential in such judgments."
- Then read "Ignore all rules":
"Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia. In those cases, we should be bold and do what is best. In the same spirit, the letter of policy will always fall short of completely encompassing the spirit of policy. We should feel free to do whatever is most faithful to the spirit of the policy, whether or not the specific circumstance is spelled out in the policy. Nobody owns articles, so if you see a problem you can fix, do so."
- Now repeat after me:
Principles of common sense and the interests of the encyclopedia > specific rules and policies.
- Are we clear?
- If not, read everything above again, I'll wait.
- It is important that you actually read and understand what the Wikipedia's principles are about before continuing, or you may keep swinging the same rules over and over again like they are the only things that matter in the universe, not realizing that's not what Wikipedia is about.
- Moving on, here is an existing Wikipedia article in similar context, the "The Settlers II" article:
- Read the Legacy section:
"Return to the Roots (originally Settlers 2.5), also written primarily in C++, is an attempt to recreate the original Settlers II, whilst introducing elements not found in the original game, such as online multiplayer..."
- Take note that "Return to the Roots" has no reference to any reliable source (video games).
- How the Settlers_II article is similar to the Supreme_Commander:_Forged_Alliance article:
- Both are games released over a decade ago.
- Both have become classics in their own genres.
- Both still have very dedicated followings today.
- Both have community created, free and open-sourced improvement of the original game.
- Both have Wikipedia articles.
- Both articles have a section which mentions the open-sourced continuation, with no reference to reliable source (video games) (at least for "Return to the Roots").
- Both sections have remained for years informing readers where the modern community continuation of the game is today.
- You two (User:Ludoyo and User:Winner_42) are now advised to:
- Stop swinging that rule book around like nothing else matters and learn why the rules were created in the first place (read above).
- Stop leaving garbage and threats in my talk page, I am not interested in what you think or what you want people to do, until you've demonstrated basic etiquette and that you actually know what you are doing, for example show me you've actually read and understood the basic principles of Wikipedia (read above), not just a specific rule somewhere.
- Show basic etiquette and respect towards others, use the talk page to state your intentions and ask for opinions before making big moves such as removing entire sections that have been around for years. Work towards reaching consensus and mutual understanding, instead of seeking immediate control over everything and everyone. Things would have been very different if you two have simply chosen to post here first and ask for a second opinion.
- Understand the fact that in life, if you walk around repeatedly hitting people in the head with the rule book that don't even apply, eventually someone will call you out. Don't then turn around and complain about being treated with the same level of disrespect you've been dishing out. Try to appreciate the fact that someone, despite disagreeing with your decisions and your methods, actually had the patient to think in your point of view, identified the flaws in your thinking, and then spelled it out to you. Like it or not, it took time to write, and these chances don't come often, you always have the choice to double down, or use this chance to transform into a better version of yourself.
- Know that this is a game article, consider letting people have fun and enjoy a bit of nostalgia, live and let live. The fact that people are still writing review and making video of these game mods so many years later, should be a strong enough indication of their relevance to the original game.
- Understand that, even if you really don't like the section, or at this moment you truly believe a few select rules are the only things that matters, or someone or something somewhere have hurt you and made you feel powerless, and now you need some control back in your life, whatever your reasons are, only you will truly know, but removing an entire section of Wikipedia talking about an old game, and then insisting it stay removed, does not really help you or anybody, think outside the box, explore different perspectives, start by asking yourself why are you really removing the sections, what made you decide that a single rule is more important than the whole, and what made others think otherwise.
- The sections you two repeatedly removed aren't of some random mod someone created and then abandoned within a month, they have been around for a decade and are still actively being developed, they are actually carrying the torch for the original game. People are still making videos and writing reviews and blogs for these mods (referenced in the sections). It would not be fair, based on Wikipedia principles, to discriminate against them for no longer being relevant enough to draw the attention of "video game reliable sources". Some people visit this article for the nostalgia of the original game, it may interest them to know that not only are there still communities around the game all these years later, but people have actually created open-sourced improvements of the original game, and they may want to check them out. Remember, "common sense" and "that it improves the encyclopedia" are the ultimate considerations above all else. "Legacy" sections (or their equivalents) are common amongst classics, having "reliable source" or not.
- Understand that I've already made multiple edits to improve the "community support" section as close to the policies as possible, and have explained in the talk page why the section is beneficial for Wikipedia and its readers, while all you two have done are, 1) Ignore them 2) kept swinging a few rules around as if nothing else mattered, and 3) removed entire section(s) while showing no regards for the basic principles of Wikipedia, and the negative impacts your actions will have on others.
- Understand that this article is not your own backyard, don't remove entire sections that have been around for years without seeking consensus, and stop your tit-for-tat section removal, until you can explain why, based on common sense Wikipedia principles, it is more beneficial to Wikipedia and its readers to have the entire "community support"/FAF/LOUD section removed, instead of keeping it around.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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. W42 02:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)- In addition, see my note above concerning personal attacks on other editors. This must stop. Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)