User talk:Sgt.McHale

August 2023

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kim Mai Guest, 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. Waxworker (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry if I messed up, I'm new to this. I didn't provide a reliable source because I'm not sure if game credits count. I found her name mentioned there and the game doesn't have that big of a female cast (3 or 2 actresses I'd say) so it wasn't that difficult to deduce she's behind the voice acting of Black Lotus. Sgt.McHale (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable sources discuss the role and the credits themselves don't specify a role, deducing the role played is WP:OR. Waxworker (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the IMDb? Black Lotus is listed there as a character she voiced. Sgt.McHale (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is an unreliable source per WP:IMDB as it is WP:USERGENERATED. Waxworker (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she did do voice acting for the game, her name is credited in the voice actors section. Can't you add it back but instead of Black Lotus, just write "Additional Voices" or "Unknown"? Sgt.McHale (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll add back what you removed, there's almost 20 roles in the video games section that don't cite a source. What makes my previous edit any different from them? Sgt.McHale (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

You reverted my last edit at Adventure Consultants and marked this edit as "minor". This message isn't about the spelling; it is about marking the edit as minor. Please note that Wikipedia has a special meaning of "minor edit" and you can read about it at Help:Minor edit. Your revert was the exact opposite of a minor edit. TL:DR – simply do not tick the minor edit box until you have read and understood the guidance on this matter. Schwede 66 00:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't remember reverting your last edit. I simply edited the newer iteration of the article.

According to Help:Minor, A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits.

That's why I ticked the Minor edit box, because A) I just changed a letter and B) I didn't revert your edit. If I did actually revert it, sorry. Sgt.McHale (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe you, I'm afraid. The reason I don't believe you is that you used the following edit summary with your edit, and that clearly tells me that you deliberately changed the spelling back to what you thought is right: I've read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling thingie, It's written as commercialization in the Oxford spelling. I'm not sure why did you undo my edit. I'm under the impression that the article title is the preferred spelling to be used, I could be wrong. Please don't lie when dealing with other editors. Schwede 66 22:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>The reason I don't believe you is that you used the following edit summary with your edit, and that clearly tells me that you deliberately changed the spelling back to what you thought is right

Believe what you will. And I'll say it again, I don't remember reverting your last edit. Besides, didn't you say your message wasn't about the spelling but rather marking the edit as minor? What does the spelling have to do me ticking the Minor Edit box? "Please don't lie when dealing with other editors" Sure, and please don't accuse them of lying because you don't want to believe them. Sgt.McHale (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting spelling is a minor edit. Reverting another editor, when it's clearly controversial as opposed to undoing vandalism, isn't a minor edit. Schwede 66 00:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thrice I said it, I don't remember reverting your last edit. And I already said it up there that "if I did actually revert it, sorry". What more do you want, kisses on the hand and begging for forgiveness? I think one sorry should suffice. Sgt.McHale (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to explain it more clearly. You said that you cannot remember that you reverted me. In the edit summary that refers to that revert, you explain why you changed the spelling back to "ize". Your two statements are in direct contrast to one another; only one of them can be true. But it's ok; I regard the issue as sorted. Schwede 66 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I said in the edit summary is irrelevant to whether or not I reverted your edit. I'll say it for the fourth time, I can't remember if I reverted you OR edited the latest version of the article instead. If it's the latter, then I think it DOES NOT go against the rules in Help:Minor edit, which is what this conversation is all about. Sgt.McHale (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Miami Vice, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officers Cracker and Butts do not appear outside the multiplayer mode because in multiplayer, all character models are drawn from the game's generic selection of pedestrians, that includes the undercover cops. They're simply reused for the multiplayer.

Source: The fucking game itself. Sgt.McHale (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS and WP:CITE, as well as WP:CIVIL. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please play the game. Sgt.McHale (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My playing the game has nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, otherwise you wouldn't add a "citation needed". This is something very obscure and niche, simply playing the game will show it is true. Now finding a source for it would be very difficult but if you want me to FUCKING RIP THE DATA FILES from the game then sure, I will. And it will be my source. Sgt.McHale (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - you're not paying attention. Neither your knowledge nor mine is of any consequence to the referencing requirements of Wikipedia. So - I am AGAIN, and for the last time - highly suggesting you read WP:CITE and WP:RS so you can understand how this works. This is not about me adding CN - this is about WP policies and guidelines. We will handle the incivility another way, since it seems you can't follow that one, either. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure having a basic understanding and knowledge of a subject is needed. You don't write about something you know nothing about. Also stop whining about WP:CITE & WP:RS. I've read them before.

And don't talk to me about incivility, I didn't insult you directly, you just want an excuse to lord over someone, If you're all riled up about it why don't you go and find a source yourself? Huh?. And I say it again how the fuck am I supposed to cite a citation for a (I say again) an obscure and niche function of the game. Are you paying attention? You're hearing what I say? An obscure and niche function in the game? There are guns in the game, do I need to cite a citation for that too?

And I'm pretty sure there was no citation tag before my edit, somehow it is now needed out of a sudden. Sgt.McHale (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Writing about something you do/don't know about" is not at all the point here. Even if you know everything about a subject - soup-to-nuts - you still need to have referenceable, reliable sources for that information (again, see: WP:RS) . Yours or anyone else's first-or-third-hand knowledge does not meet that criteria and actually constitutes original research (see: WP:OR), and crosses into opinion (see: WP:OPINION). Per all of those and (yes, yet again) WP:CITE - that does not meet the requirements per WP policies and guidelines. I don't know how else or how many more times I can explain this to you. You have had others point it out to you in your talk page above, and you see it endlessly in any other article you read on WP. Why are you flatly refusing to follow this practice for this one article?

You claim to have read the policies - but it is clear that you do not understand the very basic premise of them. It is your responsibility to ensure the material/statements of facts you add or edit to an article is referenced from a reliable source. It is not the responsibility of other editors or users to go out and research & verify your edits, statements and contributions. If you do not provide the necessary cites for such statements - it can be tagged as needing citation, or it can even be removed outright under the same CITE and RS policies listed above. Which would you prefer? You can avoid both by ensuring that you do it from the get-go. I might add that after a period of time with no citation being filled for things which are tagged - they are likely to be removed, often by bots. The CN tag was added after you added uncited content. The previous content was covered by previously added citations. There is a whole list of them at the bottom of the article - none of which support your added statements to the article.

As an example - I could add a statement in an article - or even on my user page, which states: Sgt.McHale is being a WP:DICK. Now - I might know it to be true, and surely you do - but unless I add a citation which links back to this thread - it is not referenced, and therefor has no support for such a claim for anyone else who might read that. As a result - such a statement would not meet the requirements of WP.

That being said - your responses are now getting to the point of annoying, and unnecessarily escalating in incivility. It is highly suggested you conduct an about-face on both of those tracks or there will be further escalations on my part and likely on that of others, and they will have repercussive results. Instead - please read the above linked policies and guidelines, understand them, and most of all - ensure you adhere to them. Just think of them as the UCMJ for WP. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ignoring everything I said on purpose makes you more of a dick than I am. Everything I wrote went down the drain, you're not even listening.

I'll repeat it again for the third time since you specifically seem to ignore the part where I said how am I supposed to find a source for some niche and obscure function in the game. Does extracting data from the game counts? I'd do that if it's all it takes.

If this is all about a source why don't you find one? I'm certain Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, editors help each other. So instead of having this petty conversation, why don't you find a source and be a hero? Perhaps this will feed your ego and make you sleep a lot more peacefully.

I'm not doing any original research here, I'm not offering my opinion. This is how it is in the game, 6 models in Vice City. Only two in Vice City Stories. And vice city stories happens to have a multiplayer mode where the playable characters are recycled from the existing stock of pedestrians. This is what I said in my previous replies which you continue to ignore.

I hope being like this makes you feel better and superior, shame on you for being this hostile. Look at yourself in the mirror, you'll know who's annoying, and who's a dick.

None of the other editors I talked to were as vile as you. All in all, I hope your ego got its daily nourishment from looking down on others. Sgt.McHale (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly - I want to thank you for your civility (mostly) in this most recent reply of yours. I do mean that sincerely - it is a shift away from the vehemence of your previous ones - at least until the last couple of sentences, and I do greatly appreciate it. I think this will help you in having more civil conversations going forward.

I actually have not ignored anything of what you have said. I have read it all and responded to pretty much all of it - less the personal jabs (which I will also ignore in this response, too. There is no place for that on WP - so stop).

As for how you are supposed to find a source for the content you add to articles (and this goes for anything in general - primary, niche or otherwise) - in a nutshell: Research.

There are a variety of search tools and methods both online and off which can lead to reliable sources which support the declarations and statements made in the articles. This would be very similar to the research and citation requirements for reports you had done in high school and college. Extractions from the game (such as a screenshot), or a reviewer's summary which are then published by a WP:RS is indeed a perfect example of proper citation... however citing yourself is not, and is actually falls under WP:COI, and yes WP:OR as you are not a WP:RS from the perspective of WP (read the content of the OR page to better understand).

As for why don't I find a source - that is not the point of the original notification I made here, to your talk page. I did not add the unreferenced content - you did. As I previously explained - it is the editor's responsibility to provide reliable sources for the content/statements which they contribute. As previously stated - this is explained very clearly in WP:CITE, WP:REF and WP:RS. You are right, however - WP is a collaborative effort. That is why the section was tagged with a CN vs. outright deletion - so that yourself and others (including me) can help to improve articles with the necessary citations. However, that is a separate item vs. the notification posted to your page about how you can avoid this situation in the future by providing sources for your contributions as you make them, in alignment with WP policy and guidelines. You have had other users post CITE notifications to your talk page in the past - and I might note that you responded quite differently than you did to mine. This "petty conversation" is a direct result of your response to my notification on your page about citing sources. Instead of reading the provided links to policies and guidelines to understand why this is necessary, and more importantly how to provide & cite sources - you instead opted to react with ire, incivility and wild abstracts. That is not in alignment with WP policies and guidelines, either. So I tried to better & re-explain and you reacted even less favorably. Now it seems you want to cap that all off by attempting to project yourself and gaslight me in your last couple of sentences above? C'mon, man - that is conduct unbecoming. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you lied about "the previous content" being covered by "previously added citations".

What citations? The whole paragraph about the undercover cops was devoid of any citations! You didn't check, because painting the other guy as being in the wrong is a lot easier for you.

This is the previous revision. Go check if there any citations for the undercover cops paragraph.

What a horrendous liar you are. Sgt.McHale (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And since there are no citations, I might as well delete the entirety of the undercover cops section. Sgt.McHale (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - I was referring to the first half of the paragraph, and this is why I added the CN maintenance tag - it applied to the whole section which you deleted. I'll be restoring that momentarily. Please do not remove maintenance tags or the sections they apply to until they have been met with resolution. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Picard's Facepalm. I noticed that you made a comment on your talk page that wasn't very civil towards another Wikipedia user. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Miami Vice. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Sgt.McHale. 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. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]