User talk:JustBerry/EasingFrustration

WP:Verifiability
I am very sorry that my revert or others' reverts may have made you feel this way. Since I see that USER reverted your edit [DIFF here], I will let them chime in on the discussion too. Not to be too technical about the words you used to express your anger above, but I think it might be helpful to understand why editors revert edits in general. By the end of this somewhat lengthy message, I certainly want to explore what I can personally do to help you to have a more enjoyable experience in editing Wikipedia (and feel free to make suggestions). The reason why we may seem ADJECTIVE is because Wikipedia is compromised of a body of users that are consistently and primarily screening for edits that may appear vandalistic, editing tests, disruptive, promotional/advertising, etc. Please do NOT get me wrong: your edit was none of those. Sometimes, during this "patrolling," editors may revert edits because they feel as though they are not verifiable, which ties into your characterization of reverting as bureaucratic. As you already know, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, in that it's constantly being modified by users globally. Without guidelines such as WP:Verifiability, then, how can fellow editors or readers readily verify the credibility of those facts? My reverting had less to do with your intentions on Wikipedia and more to do with making sure that when you (or anyone else) reads something on Wikipedia, you can see that the information is credible (editors' own observations, commentary, or opinions classify as WP:Original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia, as it directly counters WP:Verifiability). Please don't be offended or upset, but do you see how the phrases PHRASE 1 and PHRASE 2 may raise the eyebrows of passing editors or so-called "patrollers"? For all other people might know, this may be a user that was truly frustrated or thrilled after watching the game and decided to add such information, even though those phrases are not true because they are exaggerated (again, this may not be the case with you--your contribution may be completely factual--but I'm trying to offer you a perspective on the larger process). Do you understand what I'm saying? If not, please feel free to respond here and ask me questions and continue expressing your concerns and comments. To start off in helping you make the contribution you had intended to make, do you know of any independent news sources that support the contribution you tried to make? Please know that I am absolutely willing to help you any time you need (just reach out), even if you just want to reach out to express your frustration about any other aspect of Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to offer an open ear and help you step through any challenges--whether technical or content-based--that may arise in your editing. After writing this message, I hope you can see that we are ready and willing to help out. My apologies on behalf of those that may have frustrated you. I hope you have a great day!