User talk:84.192.112.171

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tiberium Wars

I added retrieval dates as I fixed the comments, the date is there to do one thing - show that the page was accessible on that date. If you had formatted the references correctly in the first place I would not have had to add the dates. If you wish to change the dates, please do. Also remember that you do not own anything on this site. Also, assume good faith as I am simply trying to improve the article. Thanks. (PS. I appreciate the huge amount of work you have put into the page! It is great stuff!) Localzuk^(talk) 22:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the ones I could spot that you had added, and added more detail to each one.

Also, please take a read of WP:MOSDATE regarding the linking of dates. Only full dates should be linked (in order to facilitate the preferences feature of registered users) and not partial dates or years. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You already acknowledged that my primary concern ulitmately is the quality and the factual accuracy of the articles that I involve myself with. Thus you only need to aim this same realization to the retrieval dates issue, and you should be able to conclude that I above all else simply want the article to be an accurate reflection of reality in all its aspects. Indeed, always assume good faith Localzuk. As it was, the retrieval dates as you originally left them were not an acurate reflection of reality however and thus I wanted them fixed. I'll agree it's a minor issue at the end of the day, though. And thank you for the praise on my edits by the way. I'm a (very) long-time fan of the Command & Conquer series, and I feel Wikipedia gives me a unique opportunity to finally return something to these games and their fan communites for the countless hours of fun I've had with both of these things over the many years. And I'll continue to do my best to make these articles something that we can all be proud of as C&C fan(atic)s. 84.192.112.171 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits are just edits. I do not need to go and request permission for every edit - see WP:BOLD. Now, for each of your points:

1. There was no source - so I removed it per WP:CITE and at the time WP:OR.
2. Again, no source - removed for same reason as above.
3. We do not insert material saying 'we don't know if it is called this' as it is completely rediculous - I could say 'We don't know if there will be a unit that costs 20000 credits and can wipe out everyone in a single shot'. We can write 'there has been some conjecture (provide cite) about whether the race has been designated as 'The Scrin' but it has not been officially announced.' Otherwise it is just a pointless statement. I will re-remove it pending some sort of evidence to show that it has been discussed - the onus is on you to provide a source if you want it in there, not me.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the evidence cannot be from a forum - as this is not a reliable source. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 13:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, please read our policies! You state 'you were lacking proof that this same information was incorrect and invalid' which is utter nonsense! I do not have to disprove anything, you have to prove it! These are snippets from those policies All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. and Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.. I have challenged the information as I believed it to be original research or POV - therefore you have to provide sources for its inclusion.

I will admit, I have no interest in the material surrounding the game and do not like articles which 'tell the future' - so I use the rules to ensure that unsourced information is not added.

So, to conclude, I urge you to read our policies - if you do not, I seriously doubt that your ability to edit will improve articles to a great extent as you will continually end up in arguments with editors who have been here longer than you and understand the rules better - and understand why the rules are there.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you still misunderstand the purpose of this site. If a 'fact' is original research it should be deleted and only re-inserted if it has a citation. I am going to request some form of mediation on this matter as you seem to be refusing to abide by our core policies regarding original research and verifiability.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You just re-inserted a line which you marked as original research - this is refusing to abide by a core policy. Also, I have posted a request on the talk page of WP:OR to request editors of the policy to have a look. If nothing comes of that I will start an WP:RFC in the next few days.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am intrigued as to what you believe is the source of this problem? My only problem is that you are pushing to include original research. If that were removed I would say that our editing has been fruitful and worthwhile - as my deletions have resulted in more referenced material being added. I do not hold grudges, I do not think negatively of editors because they hold opposing views to me, I try my best to not attack people or be uncivil and I do not hold anything against you. I simply am here to improve this site and try and, as part of that task, remove uncited material and original research.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]