User talk:GalahadFLT

Welcome!
Hello, GalahadFLT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Starquake (video game) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Your recent editing history at Starquake (video game) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Then stop being obtuse.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Theres no "edit warring" at all, i'm simply correcting information that is incorrect. Now I appreciate that there are people that want to vandalise pages on wikipedia, thats a given, but it makes no sense whatsoever for me to come onto wikipedia to edit something fairly benign, and then have it rejected so out of hand.

"Provide your source".... so I did, which was then countered with

"but thats not notable".... says who? Who gets to be the arbiter of what is "notable" or not? Its a page for a 30 year old video game granted, but its supposed to be informative, otherwise whats the point in the page even existing in the first place if you're happy to see something incorrect listed?

It wouldn't have been so bad, but the original guy that reverted the page did so based on his "opinion"?!?!

And then to compound his error, then wrote "I'm not very familiar with the game", which SHOULD to a right thinking person, exclude him from making a revision decision if he doesn't actually know.

Surely people can agree with that?

So I edited originally anonymously, and then ended up having to make an account to try and get the edit accepted. Thats a lot of effort just to correct one page.... is this what vandals normally do? Maybe over a Kanye West or Donald Trump page, probably not a 30 year old video game i'm thinking.

I find it ridiculous that you accept that I might well be the author of the Amiga version on nothing but my say so, but when I provide physical evidence to show that David McLachlan is the graphics artist, excuses are made of why that isn't proof he did the graphics, oh, and by the way thats not notable!

Theres pretty much NO point asking for proof of a claim, if you're simply going to say "well its not notable" anyway.

Wikipedia is either interested in being as informative as it can be, or is arbitrarily applying the rules as it likes to the content it provides with no real care to its veracity.

I think when someone goes to the trouble to make an account, provides graphical proof, and links to websites to show he's editing in good faith, you should err on the side of caution, but you didn't.

Being so combative doesn't lend to new users bothering, and yeah, I got stroppy with you and others, because you kept on making new excuses for why the edit couldn't stay.

Thats not fair on anyone.


 * At least you're now discussing,

If you had tried that yourself, we wouldn't be at this impasse.


 * but I'm also going to revert back to the original version,

And I will revert it back with additional information to do with the Amiga release after 7pm, I will make it impossible for you to simply revert it without editing it.
 * as per WP:BRD - bold, revert, discuss. Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopedia.  Existence of a thing does not equate to notability.  Millions of things exist, but are not worthy of inclusion - you can get Starquake T-shirts on Amazon and eBay, but we don't mention them for this very reason.

A T shirt isn't notable? You sure? The Wikipedia entry for Shadow of the Beast says otherwise: "Shadow of the Beast was released in 1989 by Psygnosis. It was initially retailed for £35, and was included with a T-shirt.[7]"

But sure, a t-shirt isn't really notable, hence why no-one is talking of a t-shirt except you, but someone connected to the development of the actual game the wiki is dedicated to. That IS notable, because Wikipedia evens back me up, and not you.

Why else have have in the blurb box on the right hand margin a line saying who the programmer is or the designer? It would appear that details pertaining to the games creation ARE notable, so i'm afraid you're being very inflexible with regards to applying the "rules".


 * In order to be included you need to prove notability. This is done by finding third party sources and references that discuss your topic.  This is covered by WP:RELIABLE."

You've completely and utterly ignored the crux of the problem in the first place. That it has been incorrectly reported for 30 YEARS as to who the graphics artist was on the title in question, finding 3rd party sources doesn't help in this case, hence using the title screen from the actual game with the guys name on it needs to suffice. You've also NOT acknowledged that the signature he used on the title screen is easily misinterpreted as "MC Lothlorien", I get the distinct impression you haven't even looked at it.


 * Additionally, nobody is "making new excuses for why the edit couldn't stay" - there are simply multiple reasons why it can't stay:
 * You as the author are advertising your wares on the encyclopedia"

No i'm not. I'm simply referencing that I wrote the Amiga conversion, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not trying to sell anything that goes on FREE download for the world to enjoy later on today. I had no choice but to bring up my involvement with the game because I was being doubted as to whether the information I was providing was sound or not. I also wrote the Amiga and CD32 versions of Where Time Stood Still, you'll note that my name isn't mentioned, because I didn't have to go through this circus when I edited that in!!


 * There is no evidence that your port is notable - do you have any coverage in Retro Gamer for example?

Why would there be coverage ahead of time? Why is "Retro Gamer" "notable"? You'll find plenty of sites after 7pm will be featuring the game and its conversion.

But as for your claim that what i've done isn't notable.... lets test that theory then:

Talks about a fan conversion to C64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_the_Beholder_(video_game)

Mentions the 25 year delayed conversion to Amiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Moves

Talks about the 23 year delayed release on Amiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putty_Squad

Talk of the 27 year delayed release on the Amiga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oids

I think i've proved my point. It turns out that long delayed conversions of games from the Atari ST to Commodore Amiga nearly 30 years later ARE notable, enough that theres 4 links showing it to be so.


 * The existence of a name on a loading screen is not the same as an actual design credit for a game - all you are doing is showing that the title screen was designed by a given person

You clearly don't have much of an appreciation for how the games industry worked on the Atari ST and Commodore Amiga in the 1980's and 90's, that much is self evident. Rarely was it the case of getting in a separate artist to do a title screen and ingame graphics, the teams of people were usually very small. The guy doing the titlescreen puts his name there, because its a the ONLY place he can physically put it without it clashing with the ingame graphics just incase the programmer for whatever reason, doesn't do an ingame credits screen, which in this case is fortuitous, as thats exactly what appears to have happened.

Certainly the existence of the KNOWN in house graphics artist for Mandarin Software (Publishers of the game on the Atari ST) being on the titlescreen is more an indication that he did the graphics than the completely unconnected MC Lothlorien who are only associated because the artists credit looks similar on a blurry old television!!!


 * People do not need to be familiar with a topic, all they need to be familiar with is the way Wikipedia works, and that guides them through inclusion - and exclusion

So you're inflexible and are at odds with the spirit of Wikipedia is my only conclusion from that then. Because if you were familiar as you claim, you'd retract a lot of what you've written based on what i've shown you. I suppose you could just go and vandalise all those other pages to remove the Amiga information if you felt that strongly about this situation.


 * You said "What [are you] going to do? Send me to bed with no cookies and milk?" - I responded as per guidelines, but as a show of good faith I'll strike that now that you're discussing, pending responses

Lets be honest, probably not the very worst thing thats been said to you ;)


 * I appreciate that you consider people here to be combative, but you have behaved in exactly the same manner right from the outset. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well you'll find people more receptive if you goto the trouble of discussing with them the problems, but lets do a recap here.

1). You were not the original reverter of my information, someone else was. 2). The reasons for that guy reverting what I wrote simply wasn't good enough, especially as he used his opinion and then admitted "I'm not familiar with the game" (his words, not mine). 3). He kept conflating "graphics artist" with "designer" when they can be two separate entities, especially when doing conversion work from a pre-existing game to another format.

Can you not see how this can irritate someone? His opinion and not even knowing the game.... thats not a recipe for happy discussion is it?
 * I've tried, but I now suspect this is just going to turn into a session of not listening. I'm simply trying to tell you how Wikipedia works.  The fact that it doesn't match your expectations or hopes is something you need to come to terms with - and if that means leaving, then so be it - we shall not miss you.  If you decide to take all of this on board and become a constructive editor then we shall welcome you.
 * Please read up on the following articles to better further your understanding of how things work here - otherwise you're simply heading for a block.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF - this explains that the existence of something in article "A" does not mean that it must be included, or has relevance in article "B"
 * WP:RELIABLE - this explains what you can (and can't) use as reliable sources to back up claims that have been challenged
 * Edit warring - as you may expect this explains about edit warring and what it means. Note that being right" is not a valid reason to continue reverting.  As per this guideline for example, I will be making no more changes to the article to prevent the impression that I am going against the very rules I'm espousing.  Note that this does not mean you can simply revert and consider yourself safe and that the info will stay there.
 * Verifiability Your claims need to be verified in reliable sources, and as a tangent - No original research which again is self explanatory as a title.
 * I also left a welcome template on your page right at the top there - it contains info on the Five Pillars - I suggest you read this as well.
 * Ok, you're frustrated, but you're also ignoring advice that is intended to help and allow your contributions to pass muster, which so far they don't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

GalahadFLT, can you please sign your comments? You can do that by typing &tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde; right after your comment. It's hard to keep track of the discussion when it's unclear to whom a comment belongs. Also, don't edit or erase the comments from other editors, and don't insert your own observations in the middle of them. If you feel the need to quote someone, quote it in your own comment, just like a forum thread, to make it clear your reply isn't part of the other editor's comment. See WP:AVOIDABUSE, WP:INDCRIT WP:Politeness for details. Thanks.

Now, to the reasons you gave for reverting: No, the decision wasn't taken based on "my opinion", but on guidelines. See the research, verifiability and source articles already linked above. Here's a handy list of all policies and guidelines in case you have any questions: WP:POLICYLIST

I see that you're aggravated over my lack of familiarity with this particular game. Yes, I'm not familiar with the game. See the Five Pillars article linked above and WP:ABOUT if you have any questions about who is allowed or not to contribute. The short version is that no one is required to be an expert to contribute. Instead of it, you may cite impartial, third-party sources. Even being an expert, you must cite sources for information likely to be challenged (WP:CHALLENGE), and as you made clear in your contribution, this information was already challenged in external sites. Bear in mind that the contribution was made anonymously, needed more work on the wording and format, and was flagged as low quality or possible vandalism by Wikipedia's automated filter.

Given that your first contribution to the article: 1. Was unsourced; 2. Can't be verified easily due the lack of third-party sources; 3. Was made anonymously, making a discussion and resolution on the Talk page more unlikely; 4. Needs reformatting to fit Wikipedia's templates and some work to be understood clearly, source or unsourced; it was reversed with the proper edit summary and talk page discussion instead of receiving just Citation Needed markers, because even with the markers alone it wasn't clear enough. Your repeated contributions, on the other hand, lack neutral and reliable sources. By reliable, among other things we mean "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. ". We're not interested in being right or winning anything, we're interested in making sure the information included is accurate and verifiable. So far, the sources provided don't make it verifiable. — Radnyr  ( talk ) 15:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Starquake (video game). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I have no dog in this fight. If you listen to yourself, you are mad that someone edited an article. It's not a 3 edit rule. It is an attitude. No one likes to be edited. No need for a response and feel free to ignor my comment. Eschoryii (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

No, not mad that I was edited (although its never great), but its the inconsistency I don't appreciate and gets me more irritated than being edited. The reasons used to edit are being applied inconsistently, I can find example everywhere on Wikipedia where what i've written is of a similar nature to other entries, but only on Starquake am I meeting such resistance.

It puts off new contributors, which surely cannot be the end goal here.

GalahadFLT (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Starquake (video game)
You've been warned per the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you again try to add David McLachlan's name to the article unless you have got a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

To User:Chaheel Riens, I note on the Starquake (Video game) page you wrote this, in fact its the final thing you wrote:

"the game itself can be considered a valid primary source for these sections"

Can you give me a reasonable excuse as to why it is you won't allow David McLachlans name to be credited for the graphics for the Atari ST and Amiga versions when in the game, on the titlescreen his name is written?

It is beyond irksome that this is still contested.