User talk:Arathald/Archives/2015/June

Please comment on Talk:Genetically modified food
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genetically modified food. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Steve Jobs
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Steve Jobs. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vivint
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vivint. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Aviation lists
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Aviation lists. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Mexican English
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Mexican English. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Contra Adventure RFC
I had to make the RFC on the Contra Adventure because the sorry excuse of an editor, Verdy_p, kept changing the article content to claim that the real title is simply "The Contra Adventure". You wouldn't be getting anything more than one side to the story because Verdy_p has openly refused to discuss the matter; instead, he chooses to keep on editing the article to his liking, providing no sources except for his own conjecture. More than that, there's really nothing to provide for the "other side", since nothing supports it. Yet, Verdy's false edits keep getting accepted and he arrogantly claims that others are wrong on the matter of the game's title. The question that is being asked is right in the RFC: what is the official title that should be put in the articles? And now, that has been answered. But this still doesn't solve the issue that he keeps changing it to his opinion.

I've been trying to prevent the Contra games' articles from being edited by him because he keeps changing the title of the game; and nobody seems to care about that. Yeah, this is therefore a behavioral problem, but there's absolutely nothing to report. I've tried that already and all the admins and other volunteers seem to care more about is call me out on my crap behavior. Granted, they're not wrong; but that's not what my report pertains to. And my volatile comments towards him does not absolve his persistent false modifications to the articles that negatively affect wikipedia's credibility. So the administrators and fellow editors decide to pay full attention to my etiquette issue and willingly turn a blind eye to his non-constructive edits of the Contra games pages. Yeah, those may just be a niche category, but who knows what other articles he's applying his mentality to. I've already tried reporting him, but it's clear that wikipedia staff want to pay more attention to user behavior rather than worrying about the content of their site being edited such that their credibility is shot. I guarantee you that if Verdy reverts any more of the Contra pages to change the official title, I will simply bring the matter to discussion once again. However, it will not be through the ANI since, as I've already said, any legitimate complaints by me will be ignored by them as they already have been.206.47.138.163 (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. Back a month ago when I brought up the issue with the administrators BEFORE my hostility even began (yes, I did bring up the issue beforehand), the administrators still chose to side with Verdy_p because they didn't even bother to read the issue at hand; instead, they wanted to hot-tag in and side with fellow "volunteers" the first chance they get. And it's sad that you consider something as major as a game/movie/media title to be "minor" when it comes to said items's own article. So yeah, it's pretty clear that wikipedia cares less about the quality of their articles based on how their "priorities" are straight, since they don't care about minor inaccuracies (even just the fact that they're inaccuracies), especially if said inaccuracies will begin to turn widespread in several pages. And you certainly subscribe to their low standards.


 * Funny you say that my behavior is doing more damage to the wikipedia community's reputation; all the while, all of those "minor" inaccurate edits done by the people you excuse are doing a splendid job on wikipedia's credibility and reputation OUTSIDE its own community. The consensus on this site, from public opinion, that it's an informational garbage landfill under dictatorship couldn't be truer; equally true is how the heavy daily traffic to such a mediocre information source makes it the online compendium equivalent of McDonald's. It's really no surprise that using Wikipedia as a source of information is highly discouraged and even disallowed at college-level schools. And if the site's policies about editing pages remain the way they are now (ie, promoting misinformation), hopefully that standard remains and even expands to more schools.70.26.207.59 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's continue with that analogy, then, shall we? Now, let's look at your valuable employee who constantly gets orders wrong, such as your lettuce scenario. Which is being more harmful? I'd say the incompetent sap working on food preparation is being more harmful to the company. He doesn't just get that order wrong, but several of them; and he insists that HE is always correct. He gives everyone the impression that the restaurant always gets the orders wrong, doesn't care about it and their employees are excused for it. Who would want to eat there? Business would decline, as a result. Likewise, your valuable editor here who is adding false information to articles is damaging the credibility of wikipedia.


 * It's really hard to take your comments seriously about wikipedia being "a valuable resource for learning about topics and finding a wealth of information" when edits WITHOUT citations, such as those by your valuable editor, are not at all frowned upon. Your boy edited the article on that video game, and several related to it, changing the real title of the game to something that was HIS opinion, even though every bit of evidence points against it; and he didn't provide a single reputable source. If you look at his one and only citation, it was to a comment that HE made about logogram nonsense that is entirely his own speculation. The burden of proof on him, which he completely disregarded and this is seen as OK by wikipedia. Valuable resource? Hardly, when people can go around and make obviously false edits like that with no citations. Perhaps because they have special privileges. I do agree that this is a wealth of information, but not the good kind. No, I'd say my McDonald's analogy as far as the poor content of this site goes is right on target.206.47.138.163 (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So you have nothing valid regarding the matter, so you turn to 2 way cards as a last resort to end the discussion. Perfectly fine with me.206.47.138.163 (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:H:IPA
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:H:IPA. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E-meter
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E-meter. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ask.com
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ask.com. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)