User talk:Spike Danton

Spike Danton, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Spike Danton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BURDEN. If you want to make changes to Wikipedia, then you need to provide the sources. None of this complaining about others not doing the work for you that you keep alluding to in your edit summaries. That's not how Wikipedia works, that's not a valid complaint here.

Please read up on WP:BRD. The short version is, you're free to make a bold edit and go and make a change to an article, but as soon as another editor challenges the change, you need to stop making the change, discuss on the talk page, and only make the change if there is WP:CONSENSUS to do so. You've violated this across a few pages now too.

Its great that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but you need to keep in mind that, when writing here, you need to adhere to our rules in regards to sourcing all content and working collaboratively with others. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, if you KNOW that there's a source for the number and you still remove the whole edit, you are only making it harder to work together to fix, often very minimal, errors. For example, you reverting that CD-I sales number when you KNOW we have the source for the number, does nothing but cause issues. This is supposed to be a site where people work together to make articles more accurate and support eachother. If you didn't know we had the source or I just made up the number and there was no reference anywhere, then you would have a point, but that didn't happen, you DID know we had the source, so there was a pointless reversion for no reason, and that was for a small edit.

Heck i would have taken some communication reminding me to add a source instead you reverted the edit and posted this topic on my profile page. At least then i could have seen that the source I thought I added didn't appear and fixed the issue. I mean it's nice to mention that people here are supposed to collaborate, but it makes sense when you know, you don't follow your own rule. Spike Danton (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the rules, you're just confusing the two things I'm warning you about. The comment about collaboration is in relation to following WP:BRD - something you're still not doing, as you've since made this edit a third time, despite 2 separate editor opposing it and having no consensus for your edit yet. Collaboration is in reference to not edit warring - which is what you're currently doing by continually reverting editors like you are. The fact that I didn't dig up sources for the edit you made is not part of Wikipedia's stance on collaboration - I have no requirement to do that for you. You can "disagree" all you want, but WP:BURDEN is the rule on this website, not your personal take on how things should be handled. Its especially baffling that you keep complaining about "knowing the source was elsewhere". It not my job to go dig through other articles to find sources you didn't bother to add. But if you were so certain about knowing the ref was already present elsewhere, why didn't you just add it yourself? Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, it works that way in other parts of this website. Given your standing on the site you should be encouraging people to help eachother instead helping make it so "edit warring" is common. On other page here you purposefully reverting while knowing the content was correct would bring you negative feedback. there seems to be many things the game section of wikipedia thinks they can get away with that doesn't happen as often or at all elsewhere.

I also said that I did believe I added the source, which now presents a new problem, you are selectively reading. Which you know an apparent "admin" shouldn't really do if he wants to try and "help" a user understand the rules. Also, again, you could have communicated the ref was needed instead of reverting and posting this on my front page. This shows you seem to have no interest in developing this part of the site and only help out when you feel it more convenient for yourself which doesn't help with the the whole 'community" aspect.

Also you are inconsistent about the "rules" you are complaining to me about. You can't go after me for no references (which was an accident I thought it was added) in one article and then revert an edit in a different article that has no references. Example, the SMS edit. The section I removed has no "Source" despite you saying it was a "sourced" section in your edit summary. it would be as if I made an article about Nintendo causing famine and all the references didn't even talk about Nintendo. Yeah that's an extreme example but perfectly sums up my point. You can't have a section called "console wars" and then have not one source mention the console "wars" and have only 1 reference in that whole section referencing the SMS by name. Which also tells me you have no issue reverting changes without even looking to see what changes were made. I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure claims or/and deceptive edits that have nothing to back them up and no references is not following the rules. You site WP:Burden but aren't even consistent with it. Spike Danton (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot wrong here to counter, but lets start with your first confusing accusation. At what point did I knowingly remove content I knew was correct? What are you referring to, and on what grounds do you know that I knew it to be correct, but removed it anyways? Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

Your recent editing history 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.

Stop making that same edit to the Dreamcast page. You've made the change 4 times, and 3 editors object to it. Discuss. On. The. Talk. Page. And source every change you make on a particularly article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

You being an editor is disputable.

Also explain the behavior behind putting periods after everywhere when you said "on the talk page"? Because that seems to imply something that I'm fairly certain and admin shouldn't be doing. Spike Danton (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It implies strongly stressing a simple point to someone. What in the world do you interpret it to mean? Regardless, you can try to make this about me all you want, but continually reverting across many pages never ends well for any editors. As per the warning above, it’ll eventually lead to a block. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is reportable which is why i mentioned it. Spike Danton (talk)

I don’t follow at all. What did I do and what policy did it break? Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames[edit]

Have you previously edited under any other usernames? Like “Jakandsig”? Sergecross73 msg me 23:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23[edit]

Hello, @Bbb23: I noticed that a block was recently placed on my account and it seems you're the user that implemented it. I believe there's a mistake, I haven't even logged in for the last several days. Perhaps there was a mix-up? Especially since I have on occasion edited with public connections. Spike Danton (talk)