Silent Hill
You wrote statements in Silent Hill's article which are unsourced and, therefore, unverifiable, with some of them written in an informal tone. You talked about a discussion in the edit summary but there isn't any discussion in Silent Hill's talk page. The sources I'm talking about are 25 & 26. Neither these nor any other sources of the article verify your statements. One of Wikipedia's primary guidelines is to write verifiable information (written in a formal tone). Unverifiable statements could be perceived as "original research", which isn't permitted in Wikipedia. The statements you made would had been deleted even if you had provided proof for them, because they contain trivia that doesn't enhance the understanding of the plot and occupy valuable space. The plot section (which must contain a synopsis of the plot and not trivia) has already passed the limit of 700 words, due to the presence of multiple endings, so unneccessary and/or excessive details which don't enhance the plot's understanding by the reader shouldn't be included. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The discussion was one YOU started, so don't pretend like you don't know of it. And the only thing I said that is not known to be true is the thing about Kaufman and faking Alessa's death. And all it said is that he presumably did so. That is perfectly acceptable, since he is in on the plot and head of the hospital. I don't know what ecessive details or trivia you are talking about.Yomiel (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please, please, please don't attack other editors, Yomiel. Please. You do not own the articles. Please do not act like you do. There is a specific word limit to how long the plot summary can be, and the SH page is already past it; it doesn't need trivia or original research. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That's enough. You have no right to come here an falsely accuse me of attacking anyone. You guys are the ones walking around and acting like you own the articles, and it needs to stop.Yomiel (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- All caps is considered very rude ("The discussion was one YOU started"). You revert any change done. Instead of starting up a discussion, you wait for one to begin or don't discuss. Again, there is a word limit for the plot summary, and original research is discouraged. I'm confused by your last statement as I've made many attempts to be discuss changes with you and reach a compromise. Golden Sugarplum has given you a good explanation as to why your statements were removed. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
All-caps is not rude, but to convey emphasis. You two are the ones who kept reverting things without starting discussions. My first edit here, you dismissed and even had the nerve to call vandalism. And you insulted me, too. And no she never gave me a good reason, just made a bunch of ridiculous claims. And she even tried to hide her reply, not bothering to put it at the end. I wouldn't even have seen it, had I not realy been looking.Yomiel (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Typically all caps is considered shouting, and I find your emphasis ("The discussion was one YOU started") uncivil. And I remember apologizing to you for my actions. Her claims are not ridiculous, but are supported by Wiki policy. I also strongly doubt she tried to hide her reply; maybe she's just new to everything? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You always try and twist what I say into something uncivil. It was not even all in caps-just one word. This is clearly emphaiss, and it's not offensive. Her claims are ridiculous. Two many words? Most plot summaries have a lot of words. That's just how it is.Yomiel (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Please, do not insult and be aggressive. I believe that I was absolutely polite and civilised when I wrote to you. I haven't seen any discussion about this. I saw that you are a new user in Wikipedia, so you possibly don't know some of its guidelines. The fact that you discussed it with someone is not enough in this case because one of Wikipedia's top rules is broken. This rule is contained in the link I provided you with in the last message. According to this top rule, Wikipedia should not contain presumptions, but facts (which means sourced statements). According to Wikipedia's rules, presumptions are totally unacceptable, since they suggest original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia. The sentences: "She set her house on fire for the ritual, burning her daughter in the process" and "Alessa's imprisonment in the basement of Alchemilla Hospital and presumably had a hand in faking her death as well ," are both unsourced (which means unproved) and trivial. But even if you provided proof for your statements, your statements would still be unsuitable because they contain unneccessary and excessive details (a video game article's plot section should contain a plot summary, not an excessively detailed plot description). Please revert your last edit. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have not done any of those things. There is nothing wrong with saything something that is very likely, so long as you make it clear it's not certain. Lisa being dead is not really a solid fact. The only thing stated that is speculation is Kaufman being responsible for faking Alessa's death, but given that we know her death was faked, he's in on the plot, and he's the head of the hospital, it would seem pretty much definite that he was responsible for this. Dahlia burning her house down while burning Alessa alive for the ritual is not speculation at all. No offense, but have you even played the series? That's kind of a huge plot point...Yomiel (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that Lisa is dead is verified by its accompanying reference (24), in which Lisa says: "I get it now... Why I'm still alive even though everyone else is dead. I'm not the only one who's still walking around. I'm the same as them.". Given this, this statement is a solid fact, not a presumption. Concerning Kaufmann, it is true that he faked Alessa's death, but since this statement is unsourced, it can't be included, but even if there was a source proving it, this statement would still be unsuitable for the already extra long plot section, because it's unneccessary detail. The phrase "secretly hospitalized" is enough because it summarizes everything in 2 words (the word "secretly" already suggests that she was pronounced dead, because if she wasn't, there wouldn't be any need to keep her hospitalization secret). The plot section shouldn't contain things that are very likely or seem to be something, but proved facts. Concerning Dahlia, it's not explicitly stated in any of the article's sources that she set her house on fire, it's only stated in some sources that Alessa got burns during the ritual (without clarifying how exactly she got them). Even if you had provided proof for this statement, the general phrase "through immolation" is enough. Adding the exact way of how Alessa was burnt is excessive detail and the plot section can't take any more words. You said before that most plot summaries have a lot of words. The fact that most of them are extra long doesn't mean that it's acceptable to pass the limit of 700 words. Most articles don't follow Wikipedia's rules. Concerning me, yes, I've played 1, 2, 3, 4 and Origins. I ask you to not say unfounded conclusions about me. Please revert your last edit. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Except it's not. That just says Lisa is like them, not that she is dead. It could be taken any number of ways. If you believe it is true that Kaufman faked Alessa's death, then there is no reason to remove it, just because it lacks a source. This is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. Something can be fact, but if it is not sourced, some editors think they have the right to remove it. Some even use this to troll and ruin articles. We know Alessa was falsely said to have died during the fire seven years ago. If you really have played all those games, then you must know the ritual involved burning Alessa alive and thus the house fire. This is common knowledge. What do you think the scene at the beginning of Origins is? You are freaking out because I added a few words to the article. It's really not neccessary.Yomiel (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- If it can be taken any number of ways, then you could help improve the article by finding a source that explicitly says that she is dead. The fact that you and I know that Kaufmann faked Alessa's death doesn't mean we can write it without providing proof, because it's against Wikipedia's rules to write unsourced things (even if we know they're true). Sources can very easily be found on the Internet (in this case it's pointless to find sources because your statements are unsuitable anyway). Also, one of your statements is written in an informal tone ("had a hand in faking her death"), which is also prohibited, and you added the word "Hospital" again, while we try to reduce the number of words. It's correct to just say "Alchemilla" the other times it's mentioned. The moment you became a user of Wikipedia, you automatically agreed to follow its rules. Now about the ritual, it doesn't sound logical that the ritual's purpose was to sacrifice Alessa, because if she got killed, there wouldn't be any "vessel"/mother for the god to be carried within until the birth. As revealed in Origins, the god takes some time to be born (Alessa was impregnated with the god at the beginning of the game, but gave birth at the end), so if she had died from the fire, the god wouldn't be born. Dahlia's target was to impregnate Alessa (the house being set on fire could either be a part of the ritual or just an accident caused by the candles) and make her live a terrible life onwards by keeping her imprisoned in the basement, in order for the god inside to be "nurtured by that nightmare". The problems are both the plot section's great length and the lack of sources and importance of your statements, which are unsourced and unneccessary details which don't enhance the readers' understanding of the plot. Everything you wrote about Kaufmann is already summarized in the phrase: "secretly hospitalized" and what you wrote about Dahlia setting the house on fire is presumption (the house being set on fire could also be an accident, but that isn't important anyway). If you haven't read the rule about original research in the link I gave you above, you should do it because it's a top rule of Wikipedia. I found the discussion you were talking about. Kaguya-chan only approved of the phrase "kept in the basement of Alchemilla Hospital", not of anything else, so the other statements you added were not discussed with her. I've been a user for about a year and Kaguya-chan for more than 2 years, so you should trust us. I didn't revert your edit because I wanted to show comprehension. I see you still haven't done it yourself, so I will do it. I really hate to, but if the correction is reverted again I'll be forced to ask an administrator to resolve this problem. Please cooperate and revert your edit so that this doesn't need to be done. You should visit the link I gave you if you haven't done it already. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I may have only recently created an account, but I've been here and editing a lot longer than that, so don't try pulling rank on me. What right do you have to say that something is informal. There is nothing wrong with the way it was stated. And I think it's terrible that you know something to be true, yet you are trying to threaten me into removing it because there is no source. That's practically vandalism. You're using the rules as an excuse to damage the article and remove valuable information. And I never said the ritual's purpose was to sacrifice Alessa, but burn her alive and cause the god to be born. But things got out of control, and the whole house caught on fire. And you want a source. Lost Memories. Maybe you should have read it yourself before making accusations.Yomiel (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- About the informal tone and the lack of sources and importance, I've already given explanation. The phrase "burn her alive" (used by you) means "incinerate her" (i.e. kill her by immolation). If the meaning you intended was "char" her, then the word "burn" should have been used without "alive" next to it. About the ritual, it wasn't clarified in your edit that the house was accidentally set on fire, but there's the general phrase "Dahlia set it on fire", which could be perceived as arson by a reader who hasn't played the game. I've read Lost Memories and know what is written in it. Concerning me, I did not try to pull rank, I did not underestimate you. It would be underestimation if pejorative words were used. I just advised you to show trust to us since we are more experienced (this is evidenced by your edits, which do not follow the rules; judging from your speech, you must be a native speaker of English and if this is true, it is a pity that you made such mistakes and refuse to correct them; even though I'm Greek and English is a second language to me that I almost never speak in my everyday life, I haven't made such mistakes, and I make this comparison not to underestimate you, but to try and give you a motive to correct your mistakes). I did not threat, I politely warned of last-resort action after multiple ignored notifications and refusal to cooperate and follow the rules. It would be a threat if it was expressed aggressively. And finally I did not accuse you of anything, I politely told you your mistakes in order for you to correct them. It is ironic to speak of accusation when you say that I vandalize and damage the article. Please do not express unfounded conclusions like this about me as this is personal attack. I believe I'm absolutely polite. I asked for a comment on this situation, in Silent Hill's talk page. I don't like that, but you do not cooperate with us. According to the rules, the request of a comment is one of the steps before the notification of an administrator. Again, please revert your last edit. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Dahlia burned Alessa alive for the ritual. That does not mean she killed her. You can burn someone alive without killing them. Saying she "charred" Alessa would be incorrect and would sound stupid. And Dahlia is responsible for the fire at her home. You can be as polite as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are threatening me. And as far as I'm concerned, rallying to get information that you know to be true deleted, just because it is not sourced, is vandalism. And like I already pointed out, the information is all confirmed in Lost Memories.Yomiel (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Editing of yours involving unsourced statements and trivia continues despite multiple notifications about them by both me and another user at your talk page and consensus at your talk page and at the article's talk page, with 2 other users saying that they saw the unsourced statements and that they must be removed. You also removed 2 sources without obvious reason. I repeat that the phrase "to burn someone alive" means "to incinerate someone" (i.e. to kill someone by immolation), which can can be checked in any dictionary and at the article "Death by burning", and that the phrase "to set a house on fire" could be perceived as arson (i.e. deliberate setting of something on fire) by a reader who has not played the game. There are comments made by you at your talk page and at the article's, claiming that I threatened you, while I just warned of notification of an administrator. Notification does not mean that I will ask the administrator to block you or do other bad things to you, it means that he/she will be informed about the problem and take action (whether the action will be just reverting the wrong edits or anything else is up to his/her judgement, so this is not a threat). There was also a comment at your talk page claiming that I was lying about not having seen a discussion between you and another user at your talk page. These 2 are personal attacks. Personally attacking is not permitted in Wikipedia. You have said unfounded things about me, both at your talk page and at the article's. Although I have been absolutely polite and civilized, have shown great comprehension (knowing that you are a new user) and have even tried to reach a compromise by including the word "forced" next to "hospitalization", to indicate the confinement of Alessa, you still refuse to follow the rules and cooperate. You act on your own, without taking into account the opinion of 3 other users. On top of the editing problems, the behavioral problems. You obviously edit with good intentions, but the edits don't follow the rules. You should read the rules, if you haven't, and trust the more experienced users. Please revert your last edit. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop. I'm perfectly experienced here, and you know my additions are true, but still try and delete them anyway. As far as I'm concerned, that is vandalism.Yomiel (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I need to stop doing what? Keeping the article by the rules? Your actions contradict your statement that you are perfectly experienced. Since you are a user, you are obliged to follow the rules, especially the fundamental ones, such as the one that says that statements must be sourced, as anyone can question them if they aren't. The definition of vandalism can be read here: "Wikipedia:Vandalism". The fact that the additions are true doesn't mean that they are important. They are also not proved, so they are subject to doubt by someone who has not played the game. Sooner or later, these edits will inevitably be deleted by someone, since they break the rules. There was consensus. You cannot act on your own, this is a collaborative project. No user can do what they want and go against the majority's opinion. You were the one who asked for a discussion weeks ago and even though we had one, you still acted on your own like we hadn't, without even trying to reach a compromise, while I did. This is contradicting and I know that it has happened in the past with another user. I cannot understand this logic. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The people who responded also stated that it something were true, even if not sourced, it should not be removed. You just want to mess up the article. Enough already.Yomiel (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop attacking, for civility's sake. I really cannot understand this meanness. I didn't ask for something supernatural, I asked for civility. I believe being civil is the very least people who engage in a disagreement should do. The same thing again, that I want to ruin the article. I was one of the primary editors (if not the primary editor) who worked on the article while it was being assessed in order for it to be promoted to a good article. At the very least, make sure insults are founded, I sincerely don't know what else to say... The only person who said that it should be kept as it is, if it is true, is Blake, but he also said a little below that "if both are somehow true, and they are being imprisoned as they are hospitalized, then go by what the sources say," (all the relevant sources use the word "hospitalized") so considering the fact that Alessa is indeed being imprisoned as she is hospitalized, the current wording is correct. Anyways, this is not the problem now, as it has been solved; except if you change this little part again. Apart from the personal attacks, the other thing that saddens me the most is not your ignorance of the rules, but the fact that you don't even try to reach a compromise, you want your edition of the article to be kept no matter what consensus shows, no matter what advice other, more experienced editors give. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop, and you need to stop now. The only one attacking anyone here is so, so don't try and pin it on me. And you are the one using this site's rules to mess around with the article and delete facts.Yomiel (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see that there is no point in trying to discuss. I quit. I even just read that I'm the one attacking. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It is pointless to try talking with you.Yomiel (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- As I said in my previous post, I will stop discussing here about the known problems. From now on, I will use the game's talk page to discuss about these. Please stop attacking. You have been repeatedly notified about that issue and great tolerance has been shown, but today there was another personal attack against me, based again on conclusions of you. If personal attacks continue, intervention by an administrator will be requested. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning. I'm getting sick of your lies, bullying, and condescending attitude. You need to stop this, or I will be the one to contact an admin. Playing the victim when you're the one doing wrong won't work with me.Yomiel (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it is at least moral and my duty, too, to notify you that after the personal attack in your post just above, intervention by an administrator has been requested. I do not like this solution but it is last-resort action after many notifications and refusal to follow the rules and cooperate. The request was done to prevent further attacks and disruptive editing, not to punish. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You are the one attacking my and vandalizing articles! Ugh, you are just unbelievable.Yomiel (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
From a look at the history of Silent Hill (video game), along with the RFC on the article's talk page, it appears that you have repeatedly re-added material which consensus indicates is inappropriate for the article (primary because it is personal interpretation of primary source material). As you yourself have pointed out, this is a relatively minor content dispute, and it is therefore in everyone's best interests if it is dealt with in a collegial manner on the article's talk page. If you reintroduce the disputed content again without there being a clear consensus to do so, I will block you.
Furthermore, it is expected that users accompany changes with an edit summary to explain them where possible; you have repeatedly omitted this when reinsterting the text in question. Please provide summaries whenever possible. If you have any questions, please let me know. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
This is seriously ticking me off. You're mistaken. Golden repeatedly undid my edits because they were unsourced. However, she also let it slip that she knew they were accurate, which means she was causing trouble just for the sake of doing so. She has brought this issue all over Wikipedia because she can't deal with what is really a very minor edit. Her claims that the consensus agreed with her are false. The consensus asked for proof of my statement from me, received it, and accepted it. Many thought the matter should be dropped, but Golden wouldn't let it go. She continued to harass me in various places, despite me repeatedly asking her to stop. Then this Sjones person randomly showed up and staretd helping her, under the guise of trying to get another opinion. I do not appreciate you threatening me when I have done nothing wrong. The consensus had agreed with ME not her. I don't know why you're bullying me, but don't expect me to let it slide.Yomiel (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
April 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
Yomiel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is insane. It's a witch-hunt. I made a valid edit to the Silent Hill page. I provided a resource when asked, in the form of an official, extensive guidebook. Everyone was fine with how the page was, except for a user known as GoldenSugarplum. She refused to accept anything but what she wanted, and like this Sjones guy, who is a friend of hers, she has brought this issue up everywhere she could. It's not right that I'm falsely accused of these things, just because of a few bullies who want the article their way. The two of them both have reported me on every single page they could get their hands on, and even worse, the admins totally catered to them. Golden has even admitted that she knew FROM THE VERY BEGINNING that my edits were accurate. She only challenged them because she could. All she wanted was to start trouble. But I'm the one being accused and punished. It's just not right at all. And then, some admin doesn't fully investigate the situation, accuses me, and claims that if I ever edit the Silent Hill page again, I'll be banned. Again, it's just not right.[[User:Yomiel|Yomiel]] ([[User talk:Yomiel#top|talk]]) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is insane. It's a witch-hunt. I made a valid edit to the Silent Hill page. I provided a resource when asked, in the form of an official, extensive guidebook. Everyone was fine with how the page was, except for a user known as GoldenSugarplum. She refused to accept anything but what she wanted, and like this Sjones guy, who is a friend of hers, she has brought this issue up everywhere she could. It's not right that I'm falsely accused of these things, just because of a few bullies who want the article their way. The two of them both have reported me on every single page they could get their hands on, and even worse, the admins totally catered to them. Golden has even admitted that she knew FROM THE VERY BEGINNING that my edits were accurate. She only challenged them because she could. All she wanted was to start trouble. But I'm the one being accused and punished. It's just not right at all. And then, some admin doesn't fully investigate the situation, accuses me, and claims that if I ever edit the Silent Hill page again, I'll be banned. Again, it's just not right.[[User:Yomiel|Yomiel]] ([[User talk:Yomiel#top|talk]]) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=This is insane. It's a witch-hunt. I made a valid edit to the Silent Hill page. I provided a resource when asked, in the form of an official, extensive guidebook. Everyone was fine with how the page was, except for a user known as GoldenSugarplum. She refused to accept anything but what she wanted, and like this Sjones guy, who is a friend of hers, she has brought this issue up everywhere she could. It's not right that I'm falsely accused of these things, just because of a few bullies who want the article their way. The two of them both have reported me on every single page they could get their hands on, and even worse, the admins totally catered to them. Golden has even admitted that she knew FROM THE VERY BEGINNING that my edits were accurate. She only challenged them because she could. All she wanted was to start trouble. But I'm the one being accused and punished. It's just not right at all. And then, some admin doesn't fully investigate the situation, accuses me, and claims that if I ever edit the Silent Hill page again, I'll be banned. Again, it's just not right.[[User:Yomiel|Yomiel]] ([[User talk:Yomiel#top|talk]]) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}