User talk:RobotEthanMars

Talkback
Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

David Cage edits
The reason your edits are being reverted at David Cage is that you're attempting to imply connections between material using your own opinions. Yes, the quote itself is sourced, however the use of game over sequences in the list of games you included is not sourced. You also are adding your own analysis in the second paragraph (beginning with "The irony of this"). This is original research and WP:SYNTH. If there is a notable discrepancy between David Cage's published statements and his work that is discussed in reliable sources, then it can be covered within reason. You cannot draw the connections yourself.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe my attempted edit where I gave several reliable sources to represent this shouldn't have been blocked. And it's hardly implying connections, considering that I literally proved his hypocrisy by, in my original edit, giving a record of every possible game-over in one of his games, and then adding a quote, from him, from the last few weeks, within which he stated that "game overs... are more a failure of the game designer". That's not my opinion, that's HIS quote. Those are things that he has created. I didn't give my opinion, I pointed out only things he's done.
 * The point is that you should not be attempting to "literally prove" anything. You are attempting to add negative information to an article based on your own personal beliefs through the synthesis of published material; that is you are making it look like the sources say something they do not. This is contrary to multiple Wikipedia policies, which is why it was removed. You are welcome to post your opinions on various online gaming blogs, but you cannot use Wikipedia to attempt to label a biography subject as a hypocrite.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "proving my opinion", I'm actually presenting a quote that HE MADE, that contradicts what HE SAID, by presenting things that HE CREATED. That's not opinion, that's fact. Honestly, I question whether you aren't taking personal offense, considering the way you're talking. Numerous articles have criticism of their topics, very few as kindly written as mine on this topic. You're consciously preventing legitimate information about a subject from appearing here, which I thought was the opposite of Wikipedia's goal.
 * Wikipedia presents only what is verifiable through the inclusion of reliable sources, not an individual's interpretation of the sources based on their own knowledge or experience. What you are attempting to add violates several policies and that is why it continues (and will continue to be) removed. I cannot explain it to you in any simpler terms - do not restore disputed material containing your own interpretation of material to biography articles. And using multiple accounts to do so is block-worthy.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)