User talk:Huggums537

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Huggums537. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much! This is honestly the first extremely positive experience I've had since I became active. It's appreciated! Huggums537 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix Flash-games

Hello there, I see you are a new user here on Wikipedia, welcome! I have noticed though, that you are undergoing an edit war with me at the The Matrix (franchise) article. In this particular case, I asked you to prove to me how the "Flash-games" were in any way significant for the article, primarily by providing a reliable, secondary source that covers it, which the claim currently still lacks. Apart from the weird wording choice taken for the sentnce, the appendal that they can be played in the Wayback Machine is nowhere near important for anything on Wikipedia—it is an archive, logically archives include archived content, of what ever kind. Since I current don't want to take this any further on the article itself, I'd like to ask you again here, could you proivde me/us a reliable, secondary source the shows that these Adobe Flash-based browser games are notable and significant for inclusion in the article? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that, if you can't seem to gather the denoted notability indicators to underline your claim, I will be forced to revert your edit once again, though if you keep reverting from your side, I will also be forced to hand you a disruptive editing warning notice that could, in the end, lead to a block from enwiki. Lordtobi (✉) 13:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I will see if I can provide a secondary source. In the meantime, I can provide a precedent that has been set on a very similar article regarding a flash game called The Hunt For Riddick. The wording is similar and they were able to successfully post a whole paragraph in the "Hunt for Riddick" sub-section without any sources at all. Yet, you are demanding that I provide secondary sources in order to include a single sentence in the article after I have already included a reliable 3rd party source. Nevertheless, I will attempt to comply with your request even though this seems unduly excessive by comparison. Huggums537 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

An archived version of the subject's website is not a reliable 3rd party source, it is a nonclaim first-party source, just saved onto a different webserver for archival (it is called the "Internet Archive" for a reason). The article you linked is a bad shape also, but regardless other stuff exists, which are not suffice to confirm other statements. Also note that, except for the first of these games, all others were or are distributed commercially. Lordtobi (✉) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

However, your request for me to prove that the sentence I added to the article is notable enough for inclusion is respectfully denied per WP:NNC, which states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Huggums537 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The notability guidelines the NNC guideline refers to are WP:GNG, which define when an article should be or not, correctly of course. But what I am refering to is the relevance of a single claim to an article backed up by a reliable source, which there is none of. A reliable source defines by being a) from a secondary source (magazines, online journals, in some exceptions YouTube videos from reliable publications, that is e.g. by IGN or GameTrailers, though not by Xx__EpicMinecr4fter#1337__xX)—Note though that pages such as Wikis (which covers Wikia pages, as well as Wikipedia itself or other WikiMedia projects), as well as blogs, fanpages, etc. are considered tertiary sources and as such not reliable. Lordtobi (✉) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: Just saw that you inserted an as-stated unreliable third-party source to the article, I'm not going to edit war on this, but please try to find a better one (from a secondary source). Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 15:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest. That's the best secondary I could come up with and I couldn't find any other sources. I also agree with you about a subject's website/archive usually being considered a primary source. However, I think my original source might be an exception to this since WP:IRS#Overview states that, "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

   The piece of work itself (the article, book)
   The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
   The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)".

In this particular case, the website was the only publisher of the work, and the citation is a direct link to the piece of work itself. These two facts should give it sufficient merit to qualify as a reliable source even though one would not normally want use this type of source as a reference. You are right about the fact that the new source could be a much better one, but there are no others. I'm open to suggestions Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The overview states how you define a source, not a reliable or secondary source, I'm afraid. You could go from any random site, heck even Google, and would be able to state "Title: Google search for 'Matrix Flash Games', Publisher: Google, Author: Google", but that does not make a prosperous citation. I'll go ahead and rephrase the sentence and tag it with "citation needed", rather than removing it entirely, so maybe other contributors are able to spot a fitting source. As I'm writing this, I remembered that we have a custom Google search engine for reliable sources at the Video games WikiProject, maybe you'll find something there? Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice revoked by initial filer. Lordtobi (✉) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss. You "tried to fix my mistake" by introducing incorrect information which was not sourced. I responded by restoring my sourced content. Your edit is the one that does not appear constructive and serves no other purpose than to entice me into engaging the edit war with you so you can have an excuse to remove my sentence from the article. The evidence is all here: [[1]] and on this talk page. I'm going to seek assistance before further interaction with you. Huggums537 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither my nor your information was properly sourced in any way, and I presented above a possible approach to find a solution: Insert what we know, and tag for seeking citation instead of edit warring (reverting over and over) any further. The problem here is not that introduced information was unsourced, but that you tend to just revert other editors just because you think you are correct, even though you are not, and I stated multiply why. This was disregarded by, reverting me yet again (after proposed semi-solution to the case), reinstantiating poorly written, Wikia-sourced content. I can even see from that Wikia site that you actually edited it yourself, marking this a self-published source, though undebated and considered reasonably reliable from your side. I asked to discuss, rather than to edit war, and this notice above is the result of you boldly going over my recommendations of behaviour on a community-based encyclopedia. Saying that I used this as an excuse to remove the sentence is a false allegation, as I were to prevent a secondary edit war by restoring WP:STATUSQUO, which I definetly linked to you before (which was also disregarded by you before). By your logic, you would have rather had another back-and-forth about my edit in response to your edit? No thanks.

Now to come to a close on this, I actually took a few minutes myself to browse the web for a reliable source and found a 2004 IGN review of The Matrix Revolutions to state, in the shortest way you would think possible, what we were looking for, and the internet does not seem to hold anything alike for us to find, wherefore I took only that piece of information and actually went ahead to add a short, properly sourced sentence, which I hope can finally lead to the end of this discussion+edit war.

Please take in care in the future and avoid edit warring by all means, tend to discuss. The blame is always on the edit-adding contributor, rather than the initial reverter (contrary to your POV, as it seems) The only Case why edit warring is acceptable in, is when removing vandalism from IP and joke account editors, as for every malicious revert they undergo, they can receive a disruptive editing or vandalism notice, and be blocked from editing Wikipedia in a short time, seeing that they do not want to improve it. Lordtobi (✉) 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to be reasonable and thanks for your patience with me as a new user. I think we are very close to achieving a good compromise here. I accept your solution with the proposal of a minor edit change. I have restructured your sentence just a little bit and added one of my citations back in. We should now have a sentence which is acceptable to both of us, with your good citation being in the #1 slot and my debatable citation in the second place position. Does this seem like a fair resolution to you? Huggums537 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, having a primary source might not always be useful, but in this very case, the primary source is backed up by a secondary source, which makes the constellation ideal as the primary holds more information than the secondary does, yet they validate each other! We should always, though, refrain from tertiary sources (wikis, blogs, fanpages), which you gladly omitted the Matrix Wikia in your most recent edit, but also keep that in mind for your future projects. I, though, have to disagree with you about me having been patient—I wasn't, really. That was due to many things that went down that eveing, that I however do not want to disclose. I will now remove the above notice and reset the counter, so you are a "free Wikipedian" again, haha. Sorry for the inconvenice, but at least this is cleared up now. If you have any other questions in the future, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 21:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

All is forgiven. I'm just glad we could come to an agreement, and clear it up, as you said. Also, thanks for removing the notice. Huggums537 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tobi, forgive my sticking my nose in, but I just wanted to note that I think you misspoke there, when you said that wikis, blogs and fanpages are tertiary sources and thus not usable for purposes verification. I think what you meant to say was "non-WP:RS primary sources". WP:Tertiary sources are the class of citation involving such sources as encyclopedias and textbooks; anything which provides a high-level summary of both primary and secondary sources. As such, they are often very useful as sources. Wikis, blogs, and fanpages are a variety of WP:primary source that are (by and large) considered unusable as WP:RS (especially on their own), because they typically have little to nothing in terms of editorial controls, beyond the insights of their volunteers. Just didn't want Huggums becoming confused by a slip of the tongue (fingers?) as they move forward on the project! Snow ^{let's rap} 19:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Snow. Although, I knew what he meant and mostly understood what he was trying to say even if it wasn't technically correct. However, if there's one thing I do appreciate, it's being technically correct along with the added clarity. So, thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Was conscious of sticking my nose into a discussion that was resolved so civilly and productively, but figured it was worth noting. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Huggums537! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 13:46, Sunday, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

MOS:FILM modification re older films and aggregators

It looks like nobody's piped up on the proposed text changes for over a week, so I'd say you're good to roll the changes in if you'd like.

I'm still having trouble understanding your concern about needing to explain why aggregate scores for older films may be less accurate in the film articles themselves (to me it's "the film existed before the site was tracking reviews of it" logic, which seems pretty clear-cut but likely isn't explicitly documented), and I agree with Flyer that I don't think we're going to find sources that explain for a specific film why this would be a problem, which is why I can't support adding that stipulation to the text.

My suggestion, therefore, would be that we add the last round of text that seemed to meet with at least implicit approval, and if you want to argue for the inclusion of your explanatory text, that that be handled as a follow-up. This will at least get us moving in the right direction, IMO.

If you're not comfortable adding the text yourself under these conditions, please let me know and I'll be happy to do so myself.

Hope this works for you! DonIago (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, DonIago. I guess that sounds reasonable to me since nobody else has expressed an opinion about my concern. Did you happen to catch my follow up message explaining my rationale a little bit more here? If so, then I can agree to adding the current round of text under the above conditions, and will find time to do so later this evening or tomorrow. Thanks again for including me in the execution of this proposal! Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I did see it, but I'm afraid that didn't really clarify my understanding of your concern. Sorry about that! DonIago (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I went ahead and added the text. Huggums537 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

≠

Greetings Huggums537. This is to let you know that this character ≠ is at the bottom of the sandbox, along with about a dozen other similar and useful symbols. I saw something of yours where it would have made a statement/edit easier. If you already knew that, my bad. Regards Tapered (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware of the tools available in the source editor, but I did overlook that particular symbol. So, thanks for the tip. I assume you were referring to this edit? Huggums537 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

'at's it! (-: Tapered (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the administrative intervention. I honestly do appreciate it. Huggums537 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Huggums537. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Star Wars Holiday Special shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate 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. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've made three reverts in less than an hour, just a warning the next one would be a violation of the 3W rule. JesseRafe (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huggums537, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Huggums537 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Notability. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit warring is not welcome either Legacypac (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Legacypac, Sanctions against editors are intended to be preventative, not punitive.

I had already very clearly indicated my desire to assume good faith and leave the other editor alone long before you decided to come here with this cautionary warning. It's all evidenced here where I said each of the following things to indicate I had already dropped the stick:

"However, I think it's best to leave you alone now."

"We will call it beating a dead horse and quash it here..."

"I want to spare you any further indignities of having to come up with any more "explanations" for your behaviour."

"Let's just say that even though I shouldn't, and don't have to AGF, that I will do so anyway in favor of knowing that I don't have to prove anything to anybody..."

It should now be obvious to anyone that the stick was dropped at that point and this retroactive warning was absolutely NOT even needed at all since there is no need to prevent something that already came to an end on it's own.

In order to assume good faith, I'm willing accept that maybe in the heat of the moment, you accidentally overlooked all these indicators from me letting everyone know my intention was that I was done, and perhaps you jumped the gun with a hasty warning in your effort put a stop to something that was already done and over.

In light of this, I would kindly ask you to rescind the warning and remove it from my talk page since it was an honest mistake anyone could have made.

I would really like as few warnings as possible on my page, especially ones that were done in error. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

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 notice boards.
• 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 Wikipedia:Notability, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not restore disputed content against a clear consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll write this out in addition to the template: your editing is becoming disruptive. There is a clear consensus on the talk page to remove a minor line that has caused confusion. This does not require an RfC, and the consensus at this point is pretty clear even though there is some opposition. You've accused me of some pretty underhanded things, which, aren't true in the slightest.

One of the most important things for newer editors to understand is that a large part of how the English Wikipedia works is based on practice and convention. We don't usually hold formal RfCs to remove one sentence if the intent of that sentence is covered elsewhere: discussion on the talk page will do. It is also normal for experienced editors to make changes to policy and guideline pages as needed to reflect current practice, and for all intents and purposes, current practice on notability is defined by how it is applied at AfD, with the sum of all AfDs probably being a better measure of community feelings on the topic than a sentence in a guideline written 10 years ago which no one has bothered to update until now.

Additionally, accusations of bad faith, tag teaming, and the like are not going to win you any friends or do anything except make other editors take your positions less seriously. I've been around the block on policy reform discussions a few times, I know how they work, and I'm scrupulous about making sure things are done and documented correctly, and will typically self-revert if any bold change I made is challenged or lacks a clear consensus. That isn't the case here, which is why I restored the removal: it has a clear consensus on the talk page, so it is fine to move forward with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Responding to my well placed warning with accussations against me will not help your cause. Be more careful. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I assumed good faith that the warning was an honest mistake and I pointed out how it was reasonable that you could have made an error and I simply asked you to correct the mistake. What accusations are talking about? Huggums537 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Your behavior is problematic and calling a warning a "mistake" compounds that Legacypac (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Trolling? You are the one accusing me here, not the other way around. Huggums537 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you are being openly accusatory toward me on my talk page for no good reason, I can only assume that you still have not gotten over how butt-sore you were when I reverted you as you expressed it yourself when you openly told me how "uncool" I was for doing the revert and how you had no respect for me.

That's really what all this boils down to isn't it? You got upset over one revert and then decided to repay me with an unwarranted warning on my page for my disobedience? Retribution for my sin, am I right? It's really quite obvious when you are not willing to see the unjustified nature of the warning, and you won't quit being accusatory that you still won't just let go of the edit revert and let bygones be bygones. It amazes me how YOU are the one who goes around telling other editors they are uncool [trolls] and you have NO RESPECT for them, but only MY behavior is problematic? That's all very interesting. Huggums537 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresent the situation. I'm not upset over anything. I made a justified warning which you are scoffing at. Tony told you my warning was on point and you keep scoffing. Take me to ANi or admit you are wrong. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:TonyBallioni. Thinly veiled mocking of other users will not be tolerated either on my talk page or the rest of Wikipedia. Your interactions with SN on my talk page also include this one which have a mocking tone and show that you are trying to goad people. That is not acceptable, and when I have made it known by reverting you, you restored it. Please stop your disruption and goading of other users. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ravenswing 11:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ravenswing , Thank you for the information. To answer the question in your edit summary: I would have removed the offensive material entirely as opposed to just striking it, if not for WP:REDACT, which suggests to leave it there for others to comment after it's been replied to. You should also be aware that I notified Tony about the strikes on his talk page here and he sent a personal thanks for the edit. If you have any other positive and constructive ideas on how I can make reparation, then I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)