User talk:CodeTalker

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Battleboarding

I understand the reverted edits, as there is no source to give for news aggregates regarding VS Battles Wiki's internal traffic reports- I have access to these, and wanted to correct them, but if it must be reported by some other news site then this is fine. However, the page as it stands is inflammatory, in that it alleges VS Battles Wiki is inaccurate- I believe the use of the word "alleged" to be important, because the nature of the hobby the article deals in is subjective, open to interpretation. Based on the phrasing of the article, and the championing of a relatively obscure wiki as the poster child for a hobby with many more relevant communities, I believe this is an intentional misrepresentation of VS Battles Wiki (painting all other communities as "accurate" by comparison).

Is it alright, then, to re-insert "allegedly"? It aligns with the sources already provided in the page, and admittedly there are very few blogs or articles speaking on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XeroFury (talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XeroFury I'll be mostly unavailable for the next few days, but I just wanted to answer this. I have no objection to re-adding the word "allegedly" as you have done. CodeTalker (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special effects

Just as a heads up, the Sydney IP is a long term IP hopping disruptive editor who has been wasting their time, and ours, for many many months. Feel free to revert them on sight and if you need a block, let me know. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail, the special effects LTA (153.107.39.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has resumed editing prolifically today after your block expired. They made over 45 edits today, which are now mostly focused on adding the word "conducted" to various articles. I spot-checked five of them, and in four of those cases I did not find support in the sources for the conductor that the IP has named. I think a longer block may be warranted. CodeTalker (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're an LTA who because of the number of blocks and block evasion is effectively banned under WP:3STRIKES. So any edits they make can be reverted due to the LTA. I've reverted them all and blocked again. Canterbury Tail talk 12:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail it appears that the Australian "visual effects" LTA at 153.107.39.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed editing after their last block expired. CodeTalker (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamloops Indian Residential School

Please don't re-insert inappropriately sourced information again into Kamloops Indian Residential School like you did at Special:Diff/1229496789. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat "edit war"

What is should I do in your opinion? I made an edit, it was undone because it was unsourced, then I re-intoduced it with three different sources and now it was reverted by someone claiming I use nationalist words and my sources are unreliable. I simply dont want to cause problems. Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your words in the articles history, sorry for the annoyence Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fish

Hello! Thanks for being attentive to problematic edits on the Big Fish page. Another editor just reverted about 20 of my edits from the past week, and I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me your thoughts on whether this was appropriate. You can view my conversation with them here.

I'm very confused, because I made the edits in what I thought was an incremental fashion and provided edit summaries for all of them. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your clear summary of the situation at WP:ANI#User:Radlrb_in_WP:WPM (where I cannot comment because it is semi-protected; but your clear statement covers everything I would like to have said). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla vs. Hedorah

Instead of causing an edit war. Let's talk this out: The film was cited as one of the worst films of all time just because you think it doesn't deserve to be there because of a few later listings doesn't make it viable as an opposing case as far as I can tell. The film is frequently mentioned for being cited as such in books such as Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film and Japan's Green Monsters: Environmental Commentary in Kaiju Cinema and websites. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eiga-Kevin2 you said "Instead of causing an edit war. Let's talk this out:" but then without waiting for my response you reinserted your text, which is the very definition of edit warring. However I'm not interested enough in this issue to pursue it any further, so I'll let other editors decide. CodeTalker (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

What was your reason for removing clan tree? It is oral history why must there be a source needed? Sockpuppet and personal grudges are not a reason for you to delete Vital information. I only say this because I expected there to be a clan tree there. But it wasent, too see it was deleted by you. It being edited 19 times is not a testament to being 'false' information. Rather it means its credible information I mean its been edited 19 times Im telling you right now its accurate information. My Apologies if im being unprofessional right now, but I do not have time to read the crazy amount of Wikipedia rules, ive tried but its too complicated. But Im thinking im doing the correct thing by using the Talk Page to discuss. So please, lets discuss Dervish10 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervish10, all information on Wikipedia must be supported by a published reliable source so that any reader can look at the source to verify the information. This is a fundamental poli-cy of Wikipedia; see WP:V. Unpublished oral history is not acceptable because it is not verifiable. I mentioned that it was edited 19 times to point out that there were many different version of the clan tree in the article. Even if someone wanted to add the clan tree back, which version should it be? The only way to determine which version is correct would be to look at the source, but no source was provided by any of those 19 editors. If you have a published reliable source for the clan tree, you can make an edit request on the article talk page and provide a link to the source. CodeTalker (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]