User talk:TheTechLich

Welcome!

Hi TheTechLich! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I have looked at the edits you recently made to Gary's Mod and I have a few suggestions. As a new editor, you will have a lot of questions. The information below can help.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

The first two guidelines that will aid editing Gary's Mod are

Wikipedia Reliable Sources
Verifiability.
Wikipedia Reliable Sources explains what sources are considered reliable enough to Verify information added to Wikipedia articles so that users can check the contents. (Click on the blue links above to display the guidelines.
Your edits added material and did a very good job of formatting the sources. The content seems to be important to add to the article. However,
the sources used do not meet the requirements of reliability
and thus
do not verify the information you added.

Also, in Wikipedia, when there is a disagreement among editors, discussion on talk article talk pages are how a consensus develops. For example, editor one adds material—that is a Bold edit—editor two reverts that edit—that is a Revert. At that point best practice is for editor one open a discussion on the article talk page. Both editors begin to discuss to reach a consensus (additional editors may join in). There are additional steps if the editors do not reach an agreement. This is the way over six million articles have been written on the English Wikipedia. If this process of Bold edit, Revert, Discuss breaks down, Wikipedia breaks down. To avoid this break-down, it is important to avoid Edit warring. If editor one and editor two revert each other more than once each, they are Edit warring and may receive a warning. If one of the editor reverts the other three times in succession that editor will likely get reported to the Edit warring noticeboard. Experienced administrators will discuss the report with the editors involved (any other editors can join in. A very new editor will get off with a warning and get help in understanding Wikipedia's policies. Some editors can not seem to learn this slow method of settling disputes, but that is really necessary for an editor who enjoys working here. If you want some help, you may place a message on my talk page at — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 12:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garry's Mod, sources, and original research

Before this drags out in the edit history, please note that this sources comes from the Steam forums, specifically the discussion board for Hogwarts Legacy. All posts there are user-authored and, therefore, unreliable. This is what I pointed out. The other Steam source, which I previously did not comment on, is an official announcement that is completely unrelated to the foregone discussion. The YouTube video falls under being a self-published source, and it does not come from an outlet already considered reliable. Kotaku is indeed on the list of reliable sources and remains in use, in addition to another source from Ars Technica. However, in the content you added, you also wrote up details that appear nowhere in the sources linked, whether reliable or unreliable. This is called original research and should be avoided. I boiled down the content to what is verifiable, i.e. appears as-is in reliable sources, which is the ban on sexual violence and Nazi content. This remains in the article and is thoroughly sourced. I am aware of the situation around Hogwarts RP, but since it is mentioned in not one reliable secondary source, we have no grounds for its inclusion, much less through unreliable sources. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of films considered the best, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTechLich! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at List of films considered the best that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

semantics TheTechLich (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Far from being an issue of semantics. It is advisable that you read Help:Minor edit in its entirety if this is a concept you need help understanding. Ask for help either here or at The Teahouse if you need it, because failure to comply over time will be seen as a form of disruptive editing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent activity at List of films considered the best indicate that you are engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, despite facing disagreement from other editors. Users are expected to collaborate and work toward reaching a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Continue to use the article talk page to discuss the issue, as you have recently done, or seek additional help at an appropriate noticeboard or through dispute resolution.

Be aware of the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While violating this rule often leads to a loss of editing privileges, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest not trying to dictate to me. TheTechLich (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of films considered the best. Wait until a consensus has been reached in the active talk page discussion, or seek an alternative form of assistance as described above. Continuing to reinstate your preferred version without consensus to do so will lead to disciplinary action. GoneIn60 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree and it isn't edit warring. I conceded that one addition is insufficient. The other is adequately sourced and I have welcomed people to correct me if mistaken. Ultimately, I don't answer to random people trying to dictate to me. TheTechLich (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are being given some leeway as a newer editor, so I'll kindly explain this one last time...

Others have challenged your edits – all of them – and are actively discussing those edits on the article talk page. That's where the activity moving forward needs to take place until some sort of agreement or compromise is reached, a process we call achieving consensus through discussion. When that doesn't work out, you have other options at your disposal. One option you don't have, however, is to continue ramming edits into the article that you know other editors disagree with, despite modifying those edits in different ways. You can read the list of exemptions to get a better understanding of what kind of behavior is exempt from the edit-warring policy.

We are making a good faith attempt to educate and warn you before any hard lines are crossed. If you choose to ignore this, that's certainly your prerogative. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games considered the best, you may be blocked from editing. Please read the article's talk page FAQ and understand what a legitimate source means. WP:VG/RS may be helpful. Also please refrain from making threats to other editors (like you did here). Carlinal (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what wrath? A slipper is hardly a threat, we need to touch grass a little mayhaps TheTechLich (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to David Cameron—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]