User talk:Unnamed101

Welcome!
Hello, Unnamed101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Diablo III reviews
Hey there. I saw that you tried adding reviews from Amazon and Metacritic to the Diablo III article. You should take a look at the FAQ at the top of Talk:Diablo III for an explanation of why directly sourcing those reviews can't be done. I encourage you to add reliably sourced content to the article, however. Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 18:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert you addition of those sources. I was just trying to help explain why they were removed.  The problem is that we can't source directly to Amazon and Metacritic (user reviews portion), as they don't constitute reliable sources.  Please do read that link to get an understanding of the very specific Wikipedia meaning of that phrase.  We can, however, use RSes that talk about those reviews, as has been done in the article.  I'm really just trying to help you get a better understanding of how things work, as we can always use more editors, especially enthusiastic ones, and I know established editors have a tendency to seem almost rude because we're all so familiar with the rules and throw around terminology without explaining what it means.  Please feel free to ask me any questions you want, as I really would like to help you to add well-sourced content. —Torchiest talkedits 01:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand why you insist on adding those sources back. I am not going to edit war over it, but I promise the next regular editor who see that is going to undo you again. If you add them back again, you'll have violated WP:3RR. Please, just try reading the pages explaining why we don't use those two as sources. —Torchiest talkedits 05:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's bull. If we're going to even include the article we're not going do it half assed and leave the vague statement "reviews" that's unprofessional and unacceptable, being clear about what the article entail and citing those sources is not only helpful but necessary to grasp the core of what the author is saying, and I will keep it the way it is, regardless of how many people think they can leave information vague like that.Unnamed101 (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * People can look up those sources without having to have them linked from here, and those sources are not acceptable per our reliable sources guidelines, which I don't think you've read. You said, " Unless you can cite a reason as to why we can't source information cite in an article, I will keep the page the way it is." The reason are explained in the links we keep giving you. Specifically, look at the top of Talk:Diablo III.  There is a section called Frequently Asked Questions.  It explicitly answers the question we've been going back and forth over, and has links to three different pages explaining things in detail. —Torchiest talkedits 05:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * questionable sourcesSome sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinionUnnamed101 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this has been worked out, but I hope you'll see that discussing the issue is much more productive than edit warring. It may not have been clear, but linking directly to Amazon and Metacritic was the only thing I was trying to tell you was against policy.  Changing the phrasing slightly to specify where the negative reviews were coming from, and which is already supported by the source in the article, was no big deal.  Hope you'll hang around and find more contributions to make.  Cheers. —Torchiest talkedits 18:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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.—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 05:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

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. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)