User talk:SoilnRock

January 2024

Your recent editing history at Somerville (video game) 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; read about 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.
Please understand what is original research and neutral language. We don't write language like that in wikivoice, it must be sourced to a reliable source Masem (t) 00:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SoilnRock reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: ). Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I appreciate that you're a new user and so you might not be familiar with our rules here. The addition you're making to the Somerville article is considered original research. Ultimately the conclusion you're forming is speculation and isn't backed by a reliable source. Wikipedia can only include information that is adequately sourced and opinions, no matter how sure you might be, should be removed. I'd advise you to read the following guidelines:

I'd also recommend you don't revert further as you're already subject to a case at the edit warring noticeboard linked above. Thanks. — Czello ^(music) 12:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Somerville (video game). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SoilnRock, if you have something to say, you must log in to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did *NOT* start the edit war. Your comment doesn't apply to my actual edits. I added *ONE* sentence in parenthesis which perfectly explains why this fouth ending - which is a crucial information regarding the game - is considered the "best" ending as it is the only happy ending. How on earth should I come up with a source for this? Your pointers to guidelines simply don't apply to this case.

Why are there people like you who instead of appreciating users adding vital information to a page use your energy for reverting my edit over and over again? What are you trying to accomplish here? This is actually a horrible experience for someone who wants to contribute to the wikipedia and help other people with important information about the game. This is ridiculous and frustrating and I honestly wonder what kind of people you are that you behave in such a way.

What on earth makes you set your priorities in this way? Do you think the page is better now as it is missing the desciding info about that/how you can accomplish a "good" ending in the game? SoilnRock (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(repeating my earlier comment which was removed) If you can't come up with a source for it then that's a big clue that it shouldn't be in the article. I appreciate that you're new and you might not understand how Wikipedia works, but you have been linked to several guidelines that lay out how you should go about things like this – please see above. As for what we're trying to accomplish: it's to build an encyclopedia where all the content is verifiable. — Czello ^(music) 15:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to come up with a source for the claim that the only happy ending in the game could probably be considered the "best" ending? Are you serious? SoilnRock (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point – there wouldn't be a source because it's speculation, and we don't allow speculation on Wikipedia. The use of the word "probably" should give this away, really. — Czello ^(music) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you actually say that if there are four endings in a video game and only one is a happy ending that this one ending should not be considered to probably be the best ending? You actually flag this as a 'speculation'? Really? This is not common sense for you? You REALLY believe that this is the correct way to look at this and that your priority regarding this is constructive and leads to a better wikipedia? SoilnRock (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the matter is irrelevant – and that's the point. Yours is too, as is every other editor's. All that matters is what's determined by sources. If it's not in a source, no matter how sure you might be, it doesn't get included. — Czello ^(music) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While blocked editors are given some leeway to express their annoyance at being blocked, your rant I removed was just a jumble of personal attacks. I've modified your block to reflect such.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]