User talk:TacticalMaster

I do not think that kpopstarz.com meets the requirements of Wikipedia's reliable source policy, particularly because it is not a video game news website and it is basing all of its information off of outdated translations and comments left on the GameFAQs.com forums. Please do not add back anything regarding the fictional group unless you have a reliable source that is not some random KPop website's 3 month old rumors about a Japanese video game.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you want me to do? Skim through hundreds of pages on Google or go to Japan and buy a game mag? Or maybe, I could go to the Pokemon Company and have them verify this for me.

Since you're still displeased, how about the next reference I added then? If you don't like it, then why not I search in Japanese letters to find that subject? If you remove the evidence, then you're removing the truth. And that truth, is the truth that everyone had been talking about. I searched them. Got a handful of evidence. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The VG247 post contains factually inaccurate information (including the various Gym Leaders and Professor Sycamore as members of Team Flare) so it too cannot be used as a reliable source. None of the official websites explicitly state what the motivations of the group are (making money is mentioned on the Japanese website but their motivations are not explicitly stated), and all of the sources you are pulling are 3 months old and outdated so they cannot be used either.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to mention anything about their reason for world conquest, not to mention it never states if they want to. The only edit I'm doing is their simple goal of making money. And like you said, making money is the only source needed. Everybody around the web is saying all of this, and they're legit enough to confirm it. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia's internal rules on what counts as "legit".—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, what happens if the game is released and people end up putting up what I tried to accomplish? Will that require a "source" as well? ---TacticalMaster (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, when the game is out and people are playing it all over the world there will be no need to provide a source. However, I discovered that the Japanese website does in fact say "Team Flare wants to make money, but no one knows why". All of the sources you have been bringing up are outdated and are not needed to cover this information with the plot description from the official site says it clear enough. And you most definitely should not have removed the text I added that basically said "no one knows why they want money" because people have gotten the game early and they've discovered that Team Flare is raising money for a very specific purpose and it's not just because "we want a lot of money" so cutting everything that they want down to being "we want money" because of a couple of pisspoor translations of CoroCoro Comic in July posted on blogs presenting themselves as news outlets is completely unnecessary. Please stop changing this part of the article. It says money now. That's good enough until more people have the game on Saturday.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I've been trying to do is doing my best to make sure the truth is there. If it's stated, it's stated. And when the truth comes out, then the whole world must know it. So by just disregarding the truth, then it will be lost from history forever. And without it being history, there will be conspiracies. But now you understand at least. And that's good.

And what do you mean by "outdated references?" I've rechecked the policy and there isn't anything saying "anything past, dated, or obsolete, is not allowed," about anything upcoming. So yes, I did my homework this time and anything goes with references, so long as it's reliable and not contradictory. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "truth" was a bunch of mistranslated CoroCoro scans that say the same thing the Japanese website does but no one bothered to translate anything after the word "money". And you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If it cannot be verified by reliable sources (and frankly none of the websites you pulled up could be considered reliable) then we cannot post about it, even if it seems to be "the truth".—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All resources must at least have a strong point, that is. And not the crudely designed Google Translate. Most people are hardly fluent in foreign language. But obviously, we're not gonna use anything poorly translated. But the writer should at least make their topic original and not copied straight off the book. They write an article, they must make sure it's their own words and not copyright infringement. That's how journalists write in those "articles" of theirs. And the articles that support our referencing.

So what you're saying is, that the "truth" must be "verified," as long it is "reliable." That's what I've been trying to do. Browsing online articles for anybody who used official stuff as their references in their articles so I can see if that's legit or not.

So for instance, if the journalist actually translated that Japanese magazine very fine, then at least they know what they're doing in their online article. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use Google Translate to see that a sentence on the Team Flare description on the Japanese website says "They want to make money, but it's a mystery as to why". And you did not find any "journalists". They were all blog entries. And information merely need to be WP:verified in reliable sources. Again, nothing you brought to the table met the criteria of being what Wikipedia considers a reliable source.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even IGN, Eurogamer, and Joystiq uses "blogs" in their game reviews.

Also, I did not asked if you used Google Translate to confirm the Japanese description of Team Flare's goal to make money. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well most of what you picked and put on the article were questionable. That's all.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't understand this edit. The edit summary is confusing--what exactly is the problem with the references being formatted in proper {{cite}} format? Feel free to respond here, I'll add your talk page to my watchlist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as I stated the date in the edit summary: The page had no reference. And I added one to start it off since March 11, 2014. Since because I was the first one to use MLA there, it's supposed to be accepted, according to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style. Read this: If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article. And I made the mark since the date I already mentioned. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as I stated, your edit summary was confusing: "Reverting citation style due to the fact I was the first to use this style on the page when it didn't have one since March 11, 2014. Some rewritten refs were restored to original, especially when the prior editor tried to rig the access date" I've read it 5 times and it still isn't clear. (For the record, I'm sure my passive-aggressive "Um, as I stated" response went over as well with you as it went over on me. I'm happy to avoid that sort of nonsense in the future, if you are.)

Switching gears, I propose that the "If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article" instruction is not a perpetual right. You can decide on the appropriate reference at the time you first add the references, but that doesn't mean that your choice will be adhered to in perpetuity. There is no article ownership at Wikipedia. Articles can and SHOULD evolve, and so far, at least one Anon has attempted to improve the citation. You reverted that. I then questioned your reversion. AussieLegend then reverted your edit to be more consistent with other Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure you have consensus, and you might reasonably expect and yield to reasonable article evolution without enforcing your POV. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb is correct. The statements in WP:CITE are aimed at preventing edit-warring over citation styles, not to support ownership. WP:CITE endorses changes in citation styles. Generally, changes from fully manual citation styles to one of the citation templates are encouraged, as the templates provide a consistent format for citations and are easier to use for most editors. I too was confused by the edit summaries:

• "especially when the prior editor tried to rig the access date" - Accessdates don't have to remain the same forever. They can be changed when another editor re-verifies the source. When that happens it's not "rigging" the accessdate.
• "Unable to get a detailed summary from Aussie Legend" - I don't know what this means. Reversion from templated citations to a purely manual, inconsistent format is generally unconstructive, especially when it removes information from the citation. If somebody has added a better style, there's nothing to be gained by reverting to your preferred format. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb - How was it confusing? Have you even looked back in the view history to see for yourself? Your message assumes you haven't because you didn't state it (in lieu with your secondhand message of claiming about my "bad" English).

Regarding to your next paragraph, yes, I don't own articles because then that make me look like I'm selfish. But to be honest, I carefully read the citation rule page to make sure I ain't breaking any of the rules. The guideline said that If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. So you should of talked to me in the first place or this petty conflict you claim it to be would of never happened. We would of just talked it down, fast or slowly. Usually the slow part.

But then there is the "imposing one style" advice. But the question here to this vague tip is: "Which is considered an improvement?"

Another honest truth I should add is that I just read the consensus page. To describe, it basically means the "decision-making" of an editorial of knowing what is right or wrong between editors. I am not egocentric. I always find the truth by criticizing others of their own beliefs should I find it controversial. Of course, just trying to undo back and forth is pointless. But the thing is, I assume that because EVERY article uses the same reference style, you always follow it. A typical domino-effect taking place there. But do you think that's how it goes? You can't just incorporate one thing and into another because there's also this in the Citation styles: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely to make it match other articles". So, what happens when your APA domino incorporation suddenly becomes unfavorable for the article's citation you tried to switch out of? Well, you should of just seek consensus first, because we need to debate it on the matter.

Having being told off that APA should always be used, would mean that the other accepted citation styles are not allowed, which in turn contradicts Wikipedia's own rule of citation about ALL citation styles being accepting. So what is it? What is accepted in this complicated community of perfection-obsessed weirdos? Can't they see that as long it made sense enough, then at least it's readable. But no. They're obsessed with their own personal pride.

@AussieLegend - So why do you think the template is better? It's not always better because you need to type in the elements. I had to use it the manual way because at least I can view the format properly. But I WAS the first one who introduced the style to the Tamagotchi anime article. After viewing the consensus that Cyphoidbomb showed me, I undid your revision because you did not made a consensus on the talk page or with me so we could have a discussion whether the page should just follow other articles that already have the proposed style (which in turn, contradicts the citation style variation guideline). If you would of at least started a discussion or made a talk to me, then this petty conflict wouldn't happen.

STILL, I'm open to starting a consensus with you, Aussie, for your claim on why APA is better... Can't believe I have to keep myself a lenient editor here. But, that's me. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, templates provide a consistent format for citations and are easier to use for most editors. There's no need to type the parameters in manually as the template can be copied and pasted, giving even inexperienced editors a place to start. Manually formatted citations are often inconsistent and unclear. For example, in this edit, what does "1 August 2013. Web. 1 August 2013" refer to? The first date would seem to be |date= and the second |accessdate=, but what is "Web."? What does " (Page Number). Print." mean? When you check templates, the meaning is clear. This is but one of the reasons that we use templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie pretty much echoed my thoughts. Tactical, your edit was confusing to me because I saw you remove the {{cite}} template, which is ubiquitous on Wikipedia, and which provides clean and consistent reference formatting. The removal seemed arbitrary, and your edit summary seemed to suggest that you were trying to take ownership of the article. Rather than to assume bad faith, I thought instead to drop you a note, which took us down into this rabbit hole. It was further unclear what you meant by "date rigging"--which I would have assumed meant "numerical vandalism", something that wasn't obvious to me for reasons stated by Aussie above. I was only at the article to revert vandalism from user Fidelis ofoajoku. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend Template or no template, either way are the same. Stating which either is the majority is pointless because using the template is still using its format, same as writing the format down manually too. It's still using the reference format, and it's the same old writing over and over again. I say it doesn't matter about "perfecting consistency" what only matters is if they make sense enough and they're in proper format. But based on what you said in your example, it's clear to me that you are not versed in all styles. I studied the citation format guideline carefully, in turn I studied all citation styles to make sure they ALL follow its proper format. I studied its format, the general elements, and the similar features. All of them, they are the same.

So after checking that reference that I just fixed, it WAS placed in August 1, 2013. Which of course, did coincided between the access date and the publish date. But hey, when I checked with ALL the citation styles, access dates are generally placed in the end of the format. Everyone should of knew that by now if they're versed in ALL citation styles. HOWEVER, the only thing I have to agree with you is what you said with the "access date" in your first message in this section. Still, my explanation that every access dates being in the end of the citation format, stands firm.

The other reference, the print reference, that was in that revision difference you shown, admittedly yes. Currently that reference "did not have enough information." That information, is the page number. So that's considered a null reference. So unless I get the information, it will have to stay removed.

@Cyphoidbomb Did I say anything in the summary such as "do not touch my edits"? No, I did not. I was simply following the rules. I don't do anything reckless such as making bad grammar. But okay, maybe the summary looks too obvious if you put your explanation that way. But according to your message, you just seem to have limited English, thinking about that "date rigging" thing. Do you know even know what "rigging" means? It's the same as "adjusting," "replacing," and "switching." But because you're saying that you're "still confused," then I would say that I'm confused too, because you have limited reading skills and that reasoning with you is getting you nowhere. (I'm assuming that you're not taking this the wrong way when I said "it's getting you nowhere.") I was confused when you said "at least one Anon has attempted to improve the citation. You reverted that." I checked the history and looked at all those possible anons + me differences and I see no evidence of your claim.

@Both Now here's what I saw: Blackgaia02 just switched citation styles without having a consensus with me. So I reverted it back because one wasn't started. (I'm also going to assume you both are not taking this the wrong way with "ownership.")

My question is: If you THINK my method of using MLA is wrong and you think APA is better, then at least start a consensus with me with a separate section. We would at least reason why APA is better than MLA. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) I think you're confusing consensus with permission, based on your statement: "Blackgaia02 just switched citation styles without having a consensus with me." Consensus is a determination made by the majority. 2) I'm delightfully amused that you are openly mocking my English, but you might want to scale it back a little bit, what with WP:NPA and all. 3) I'm not aware of "rigging" being used in the way you are describing. People aren't usually found rigging their belt if it's too tight, rigging the empty milk carton, or rigging their old underpants for a new pair. I suppose you could rig your belt with shark repellent, but that's a different use of the verb. On the other hand, I am familiar with "rig" having a common negative connotation, e.g. "to tamper" as in "jury-rigging", "price rigging", "bet rigging", and "election rigging". Perhaps these are cultural nuances. 4) I've opened a discussion on the article's talk page. You are invited to contribute your thoughts. I will point out, however, that Wikipedia:Citing sources says at the very top that the guidelines should be treated with common sense. It seems to me that if three editors are using the {{cite}} template for their referencing, adhering to principle for principle's sake does not seem to make much sense. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check my edit count and the number of articles that I have edited. I am well versed with the different citation styles, but I use {{cite web}} style templates because that is the most widely used format (cite web is used in nearly 1.7 million articles)) and even inexperienced editors can format citations easily. Regarding some comments you directed to Cyphoidbomb:

• "Did I say anything in the summary such as 'do not touch my edits'?" - Your edit summaries imply that.
• "according to your message, you just seem to have limited English" - Not a very appropriate statement at all. I'm sure you would not appreciate others criticising your English skills ("should of", "would of", starting sentences with "And", "Since because I was", "made a talk to me" and so on), so please don't criticise others.
• "Do you know even know what 'rigging' means? It's the same as 'adjusting,' 'replacing,' and 'switching.'" - No, "rigging" implies an inappropriate change, which it wasn't.

Note that Cyphoidbomb has now formally proposed that the citation style be changed. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS. Other editors don't have to form consensus with just you. All involved editors form a consensus together, but it does not have to be a unanimous agreement. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoid, consensus requires a group of people, one or few. So that's why I asked Blackgaia for his consensus on why it should be switched. Also, please re-read what I stated in my previous reply to you when you were saying that you're still confused: I was assuming you won't take it the wrong way. That was me trying to state it in no offense but you misinterpreted it and refused to believe that insurance. Now, I hopped into the discussion with the citation change so at least we can finally come to an agreement.

@Aussie Aussie, as I stated in my reply to Cyphpoid, I restated the fact "I assume you won't take it the wrong way." Yet you (and him) still ignored that message to ensure that is "no offense." If I were to criticize his inability, I would be like be writing a one-page essay stating his "limited" skills.

Also, yes I am aware Cyphoid already started a discussion and it's already still in motion (despite that it's already late midnight). ---TacticalMaster (talk) 09:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]