User talk:73.70.13.107

October 2020
Please note that retail sites such as Amazon should not be used in citations as their information is often not vetted enough to meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

It would appear as though you're getting into quite a few content dispute scrapes - specifically concerning the Alien franchise. To clear things up for you, 20th Century Studios specifically refers to the franchise as constituting the "Original Series" (the first four releases) and the "Prequel Series" (Prometheus and Alien: Covenant). I know the chronology has some question marks here and there, but we're going off of what the studio and filmmakers have described.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 19:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * No disputes, just corrections. I didn't check back on those pages to see if anyone undid my edits. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello, I'm Bongwarrior. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Song of the hoe have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Gotham City, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, material obtained through personal knowledge, or which constitutes the an analysis or interpretation by the editor that is not found in cited sources. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. With regard to material about the content of narrative works that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and it must explicitly mention the information in relation to the work in question. Relying instead on personal observation or interpretation is original research, and using primary sources to form conclusions not explicitly in those sources is synthesis, which is a form of original research.

The fact that the statue seen in Batman Forever, is a variation of the Statue of Liberty (as you yourself called it), means that we do not know if it is intended to be the original. As another example, the fact that one scene in The Dark Knight Rises was filmed at the New York Stock Exchange does not mean that it was intended to be that location within the film. In fact, if you read the final sentence of the article's Lead section, you'll see that locations used for filming that film and others in that trilogy include Chicago, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, New York City, Newark, New Jersey, London and Glasgow, and quite a few observations were made about how familiar Chicago landmarks and its skyline were used for the films. But that does not mean that Gotham is supposed Chicago, or any of those other cities in the films.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Lord of the Rings and at Orc, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Please do not make it appear that something you added to an article comes from a source when it does not; this is deceptive, and wastes other editors' time checking the sources. Please study and absorb WP:V and WP:CITE as these are essential for all editing here.'' Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Orcs have been in Magic the Gathering since it began 1993. You don't need a citation for that. It's common knowledge among everyone who is even vaguely familiar with fantasy gaming. The very first orcs printed were Ironclaw Orcs and Orcish Artillery. There are now 71 orcs in the game (https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&type=+[%22Creature%22]&subtype=+[%22Orc%22]), not counting orc-related spells like Orcish Oriflamme, also printed in the game's very first set in 1993. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your view, but what you may think obvious is not verifiable as other editors can't read minds. Policy calls that Original Research and Misuse of Sources, and repeated attempts to force it into articles as Editwarring and ultimately Disruptive Editing, for which you can be blocked. If you have reliable independent sources (i.e. not the games themselves) then cite them properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is neither original research nor misuse of sources. Listings of every card in the game were printed in every issue of Inquest magazine and Scrye magazine back when there were few enough cards for such a thing to be feasible, and a complete list of Fourth Edition cards, which included Ironclaw Orcs, Orcish Artillery, and Orcish Oriflamme, could be found in Prima's Unauthorized Strategy Guide (https://www.amazon.com/Unauthorized-Strategy-Guide-Magic-Gathering/dp/0761502602). And as I've already pointed out, there's the "Gatherer" tool. The existence of Orcs in MtG is a ridiculously well-documented thing.
 * Maybe. Leaving aside that you've added very weak sources (for instance, we never use Amazon), the key point here is that The Lord of the Rings is a top-level article with *many* levels of articles (each level containing dozens of articles, such as Orc) attached to it in a fully-developed hierarchy. It is *not* the place for a listing of games - there are literally hundreds - and we have whole articles for things influenced by Tolkien. All that is needed in the top-level article is a brief statement, as already exists, that the book influenced other books, films, and games. That's all that is desirable in a top-level article, I'd have thought that would be easy to see?


 * Anyway, you are repeatedly trying to add your particular game, which is certainly disruptive, and certainly in edit-warring style, which is not allowed. Please feel free to add and cite the game in other game and list articles, but be aware that it is simply not appropriate in The Lord of the Rings, as dozens and dozens of other games have a similar, indeed a better claim to be mentioned, and we simply are not aiming to create an embedded list there; as I've already said, lists are elsewhere already. You have a slightly better case for Orc, but you have used primary sources which are not suitable; I've added a secondary source in the body of that article for you (I don't believe it's justified in the lead, where again, the article *briefly* mentions 3 major games, it is *not a list*, the body text mentions many more already). I do hope this is clear.


 * The other thing is, you seem extremely attached to this game. If you have any Conflict of Interest you should be aware of Wikipedia's strict policy on editors with commercial or business interests in a product. If this is your situation then you should declare it, and take extreme care not to favour products or businesses that you have any connection with. I merely mention this as a possibility. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? It is not "my" game. I don't play it and I'm not familiar with its history beyond its first ten years. I'm adding MtG because (1) LotR influenced game genres beyond just strategy and role-playing games, and MTG is an example of a non-strategy, non-role-playing game that was influenced by LotR; and (2) MtG is, or has been for most of its history, more popular than some of the other examples given, particularly Warhammer, which most laypeople haven't heard of. It makes no sense to include the less famous games and exclude the more famous one. I also never used Amazon as a source. I linked to Amazon on a TALK page to demonstrate the BOOK that I was referring to.


 * Thanks for discussing. You are spending a lot of effort on self-justification, but have been editing really quite disruptively. Please read WP:BRD: while a discussion is in progress, repeatedly reinserting the material is not acceptable. I am glad you have no COI as your behaviour possibly indicated, it was entirely feasible that you had a business connection to the game, it often happens on Wikipedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Read it yourself. It says "Consider reverting only when necessary". Wikipedia also has a policy of adding "citation needed" tags to any uncited information that you find questionable but don't know for sure is wrong, and only deleting the offending material if significant time passes with no citation being added, rather than immediately starting an edit war over it. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Rudeness will get you nowhere. You began edit-warring with your second edit, when you should have begun a discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. I was and remain certain that your addition to Lord of the Rings was misplaced, for multiple reasons. Your addition to Orc also contained multiple problems which I've resolved by moving the edit, avoiding the creation of a list, and adding a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Lying will get YOU nowhere. YOU began the edit war with your first revert instead of adding a Citation Needed tag.


 * That's simply incorrect, not to mention persistently rude and accusatory. The usual cycle is WP:BRD, BOLD-REVERT-DISCUSS. A reversion of something considered incorrect is normal and in order. Your not moving to discussion after that, however, certainly was in edit-warring style. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * But you DIDN'T revert something incorrect. You reverted something that was factual, verifiable, and relevant. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello, I'm Bobherry. An edit you recently made to FreeCol seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (Did a search and confirmed its bonuses.)  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I did a search and confirmed this mess of suffixes, where the nominative plural form is either "boni", "bonae", or "bona" depending on gender: http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/adjective:bonus 73.70.13.107 (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: according to some random people on the Internet who claim to know German, "boni" is the plural form of "bonus" in German too (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/its-bonuses-not-boni.1046478). Last time I checked, English was a Germanic language. It looks like "bonuses" only came into common English use recently as a result of people just not knowing the correct form and then dictionaries following suit after they switched from prescriptivism to descriptivism.

June 2022
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I already started a discussion on the talk page months ago and you chose to ignore it and blindly revert without reason. Don't tell me to use the talk page when I'm using it and you're not. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One unsigned comment in the middle of a long talk page does not justify blanket reverts. MrOllie (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It does when it presents rock-solid reasons for the change and goes unchallenged for over half a year. If you want to engage in blanket reversions, present at least something vaguely resembling a reason for them, or at least act like you're even discussing the issue.73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Check the diffs - you're the one who is throwing away newer edits by reverting to an old version with very poorly explained reasoning. MrOllie (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I'm actually reverting to a newer version, with extremely well-explained reasoning. I'll see if I can find my original edit. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're deleting a whole paragraph about battle royale games, amongst other changes. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think battle royales are important enough to deserve explicit mention in the "history" section despite not being associated with any particular time period, then go ahead and re-add that particular section, but don't just blanket revert to an entire previous organization scheme that made no sense.
 * I've found my original edit, almost exactly one year ago, proving that you are reverting to an older way of organizing the section, and that my way of organizing it is the newer one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First-person_shooter&type=revision&diff=1030990563&oldid=1028981144
 * Anyway, please take this to the article's talk page like you're supposed to instead of wasting space on my personal page. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did, about a half hour ago. Please check your facts before starting in with accusations and personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did check. I just didn't check every half hour.73.70.13.107 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)