User talk:TA79Bandit

Galaga
The high-score tournament play section is not properly written and uses a lot of unreliable sources, which need to be either replaced or removed entirely. So no, it is not "fine for now" as your edit summary puts it. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think something is reliable, take it to WikiProject Video games. I don't decide what is notable or not. Stop acting so hostile and accusing me of intentionally removing content because you don't understand protocol. Thank you. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For a list of reliable and unreliable sources that can be used for video game pages, please see WikiProject Video games/Sources. Thanks again. Namcokid47 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And other sources are allowed based on reason and common sense - which that met. Stop removing valuable content from gaming pages.

Galaga edit war
TA79Bandit,  I can see why you are being reverted. Your sources don't appear to conform to WP:RS. Just read the information from the link provided, and you will get a better idea what I am talking about.--Asher196 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

They aren't "my" sources. It wasn't something of mine that he deleted. You're missing the point. The point is that the information was definitely accurate and the sources were reliable.

"Articles related to video games need reliable sources like any other Wikipedia article—content must be verifiable. Due to the nature of video game journalism, however, editors writing articles within the scope of this project may encounter problems finding or citing sources. This guideline aims to discuss some of the most common problem areas. None of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense when citing sources.

Because the fields of video game journalism, research, criticism, and commentary are relatively new compared to similar coverage of traditional media, traditional means of sourcing can be somewhat rare. In addition, the simultaneous development and expansion of Internet-based sources alongside the modern video-game scene has led to a much higher degree of exclusive online coverage than is the case with other media. These factors make the determination of reliable video-game sources a complex issue. To address this problem, this guideline provides a few general rules of thumb and presents the current consensus regarding the reliability and usability of specific video game-related sources. Any questions regarding specific sources not covered in this guideline may be directed to the talk page. Remember to search the talk page archives before starting a new topic. New sources should not be added to this page until the talk page discussion has been archived."

It seems everyone is overlooking the "None of the following directions apply in every single instance so always use reason and common sense" part.
 * Facebook is not reliable, and neither is a YouTube video and some random person's Wordpress forum. You're failing to understand the point. I removed the content as it was unreliable, not because I didn't want the information here. That's something you're failing to grasp. Also, why aren't you using the article talk page to sort this out? Edit warring is just gonna get you blocked. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If the information is accurate (and true), it's reliable. Period. Use reason and common sense. Again, everyone is ignoring that part. It's not some random person's Wordpress forum. These are the recognized authorities for this. Just because you may be unaware of that doesn't change it. Again, reason and common sense. Those of us that "know" know it's accurate AND reliable. Twin Galaxies has gone a completely different direction (as is listed in the reliable sources information). Galaga Forum was created by (and staffed by) some of the best and most knowledgeable Galaga players in the world in March of 2018 to create the sort of thing Twin Galaxies "used to be" or "should have been", it's not just a random site. It is, however, a newer site - and wouldn't be on that list, as such.....but again, reason and common sense.
 * If the information is present in reliable sources, then it can be added. If not, then it should be removed. Simply saying that you *think* it's true means absolutely nothing if it can't be verified. Please read WikiProject Video games/sources like I've told you several times in order to see what is considered reliable and unreliable. Quite wasting my damn time. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You're the one wasting people's time. I don't "think" it's true, it IS true. That's the WHOLE point. That's your problem, you have no clue. It is verified by those who HAVE documented it.
 * You added unreliable information. I've removed it per policy, and I've told you why it's not reliable. And somehow is this of my wrongdoing? Namcokid47 (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Because you don't know the definition of "reliable". Information that is accurate/true is reliable. This information was accurate. You are wrong because you are removing accurate information. People are tired of you doing it - not just a few.
 * I'm not the one who decides what is reliable. The people at WP:VG do. Take your sources there if you think they're reliable, like I've told you half a dozen times already. I myself would also like to see the "other" people you're talking about, too. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I've seen many people complain about you all over social media. You respond to a lot of them, so you have seen them. That's not the point. Again, you seem to THINK you determine what is reliable. Read the instructions. Use reason and common sense. You aren't using either with your edits. The sources ARE reliable. You completely ignore the opening paragraphs on that page. Beyond that, things that are COMMON KNOWLEDGE shouldn't even NEED to be cited - as this information is, at least to those in the Galaga community....which is the subject matter. You are obviously not part of that community so you wouldn't know what is or isn't reliable or what is even considered common knowledge. The people updating this information aren't a bunch of kids, they are people actually involved with the community and are presenting factual information.
 * I'm a pretty big fan of the Galaxian franchise, so I do in fact go out in search of sources — even for the most obscure of subjects. If information is not sourced by a reliable place, it is gonna get removed whether you think it's "common knowledge" or not. I have better things to do than to be berated by somebody that refuses to follow policy and will likely receive a block for edit warring. Consider this my last reply here. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You are the one not following policy. Use reason and common sense. These are the reliable sources for that information. You seem unable to comprehend this simple fact. Stating fact is not berating someone. In feeling berated, you acknowledge I am correct. I am only pointing out your mistake. The instructions for reliable sources SPECIFY that the sources listed aren't the only reliable sources and to use reason and common sense. You seem to have neither, as you aren't using either. YOU do not dictate the reliability of something. The accuracy of it does. The information provided was accurate. Your assessment is not. Also, we're talking about GALAGA, not Galaxian. This information is more than readily available. Going out and searching, as you said you have done, would have led you to that.
 * If you bothered to read the link I provided, you would see that you are wrong. This is not a "the sky is blue" situation.--Asher196 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it was....but if you bothered to use REASON and common sense, you'd KNOW that the information is accurate. It's not in question by ANYONE who actually knows anything about it. That's the problem, you (and the other two) are editing things you know nothing about. THAT is what's wrong.
 * If I knew nothing about Galaga I wouldn't have been able to expand the page to what it is now. Namcokid47 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I was talking to Asher - or are you the same person? Secondly, you know nothing about the content you removed. That is a FACT. Others do - and the person who posted that is an expert in that area. You, however, are not - or you would realize it was reliable AND accurate. You seem to think you should be the one to determine how things are interpreted. I interpret reason and common sense as exactly that - reason and common sense. BOTH of those things would agree with the information that was added (that you have removed). As stated before, you are wrong. By the way, you didn't "expand it to what it is now", you removed valuable content. Anyone can read generic material all over the internet to gather basic information that everyone is already familiar with.