User:Soetermans/Conflicts
Below are past discussions of conflicts between other Wikipedians and myself. I documented these, for myself and others, to remind us that not everybody here is suitable for Wikipedia.
It all started with the article on Age of Empires: The Age of Kings, a video game for the Nintendo DS. I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the section on Technical issues, which was unreferenced. Some guy undid my edits, claiming that it is vital information. I redid my edits, citing Wikipedia guidelines. I tried to find sources online, but I couldn't find any. Some guy eventually did add the citations, but he ended up calling me a pompus douchebag (see the article history).
After his attack, I left a message on his talk page. Keeping reading!
Watch your mouth, dude
[edit]What's with the tone, Some guy? I oughta report you for violating a standard guideline, calling me a "pompus douchebag" and claiming that I, and I quote: "obviously you don't know how to do a web search". I don't know why you're getting so worked up about it, you did looked up the refs and could've just added them to the article in the first place, but you decided to put them on the talk page instead. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- It was extremely easy to find valid information on Google by searching '"age of empires" ds glitch'. I don't know how you managed not to be able to find anything. I'm sure there are search terms that won't provide obvious results but it sure wasn't difficult to think of terms that did give results. Anyway, the sources I gave on the talk page were from forums and a blog and therefore not usable under the Wikipedia rules you apparently prize so highly (if I had added them, would you have deleted them and added a "citation needed" tag to the other two?). Aside from you ignoring the talk page, I was pissed that you added an "original research" tag the second time, since the information clearly had some basis and I'd already explained that the source was no longer available. It's not my goddamn fault that Majesco only acknowledged the glitch in their forums and then deleted their forums (which also are not archived on Wayback, unfortunately). You start throwing up unsourced and original research tags, people assume the information is falsified, it gets deleted, and then consumers who purchase the game lose an important source of information about a problem that can permanently break the game. Some guy (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I may butt in (which I most certainly may) I'd like to point out that, according to WP:OR, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It's not as important for Wikipedia to have a lot of valuable information as it is for it to have verifiable and properly sourced information. That's as far into this as I want to get. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I don't care about the rules, its just that your ranting was completely uncalled for. As long as there is no source given, a tag should be added, its as simple as that. You seem to care about this game and its apparent malfunctions, which is great, but there is still no reason to go calling names. This is Wikipedia, not a contest. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- You don't care about the rules? Okay, now you're just babbling. Just forget about it. Some guy (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Some guy, I'm not "just babbling" and I won't forget it. You don't come up with any arguments for your rude words, let alone an excuse! You don't show any civility at all and the least you've could assumed that I was trying to improve the article. Looking at the welcome message here, you've been here for 3 years now, give or take. Still you can't take a step back and look at your ways to see you just might be wrong here? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're still quoting the rules you don't care about. I provided argument and excuse but if you're just going to ignore all that, you're still demonstrating that you're not worth talking to. Saying "you must consider you might be wrong" is a totally pointless and invalid statement since I could repeat the same to you, and it wouldn't go anywhere. In conclusion, stop trying to perpetuate a fight so you gan go all high and mighty and tattle-tale on me.Some guy (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* It is as talking to a wall here. Still, I'm content. You are ignorant, rude and arrogant. Maybe you will listen to another when that person points out your flaws. I'm positive that you eventually run into yourself, maybe here on Wikipedia or in the real world. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're still quoting the rules you don't care about. I provided argument and excuse but if you're just going to ignore all that, you're still demonstrating that you're not worth talking to. Saying "you must consider you might be wrong" is a totally pointless and invalid statement since I could repeat the same to you, and it wouldn't go anywhere. In conclusion, stop trying to perpetuate a fight so you gan go all high and mighty and tattle-tale on me.Some guy (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Some guy, I'm not "just babbling" and I won't forget it. You don't come up with any arguments for your rude words, let alone an excuse! You don't show any civility at all and the least you've could assumed that I was trying to improve the article. Looking at the welcome message here, you've been here for 3 years now, give or take. Still you can't take a step back and look at your ways to see you just might be wrong here? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 08:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- You don't care about the rules? Okay, now you're just babbling. Just forget about it. Some guy (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I don't care about the rules, its just that your ranting was completely uncalled for. As long as there is no source given, a tag should be added, its as simple as that. You seem to care about this game and its apparent malfunctions, which is great, but there is still no reason to go calling names. This is Wikipedia, not a contest. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- If I may butt in (which I most certainly may) I'd like to point out that, according to WP:OR, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It's not as important for Wikipedia to have a lot of valuable information as it is for it to have verifiable and properly sourced information. That's as far into this as I want to get. DaRkAgE7[Talk] 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)