User talk:Sjms111

July 2022

Hello, I'm PhantomTech. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ricky Steamboat seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PhantomTech[talk] 05:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an uncommon viewpoint in the wrestling community that Ricky Steamboat is one of the greatest. He is a former NWA champion, and he was involved in some of the best matches of the 1980s Sjms111 (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it shouldn't be difficult to provide a reliable source as a citation. PhantomTech[talk] 05:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Charlotte Flair. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. PhantomTech[talk] 05:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at AJ Styles, you may be blocked from editing. PhantomTech[talk] 05:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase “widely regarded as one of the greatest wrestlers of all time” is added to the Pages of a lot of wrestlers without a citation. It isn’t considered “disruptive editing” in those cases but somehow it’s “disruptive” when I do it? There could be any number of words and phrases on any number of articles that are similar in pattern, so are they going to remove them all? Sjms111 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can find other pages with issues does not justify spreading that issue to other pages. Isn't it contradictory for multiple wrestlers to be “widely regarded as one of the greatest wrestlers of all time”? You the claim that it is not an uncommon viewpoint and we are talking about material that you are attempting to add, so prove it. PhantomTech[talk] 05:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not contradictory because it says “one of the greatest” not “the greatest” There can be more that one wrestler that shares that distinction. And if it was contradictory then how come that phrase isn’t being taken down from the articles of other wrestlers? As far as your request to have me prove it, if I can produce reliable pages backing up my claims about those wrestlers then will my edits be re added? Sjms111 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who sees information in an article is free to challenge it, especially if it is unsourced, including yourself. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm not specifically looking for any of these edits, but I haven't seen the other articles you're talking about, I'm just acting on the edits I'm seeing. If you provide a reliable source supporting the information you are adding then I won't remove it, but I can't speak for other editors. The chance of another editor challenging it can be reduced by adding it using wording like "X is considered one of the greatest wrestlers of all time by Source" PhantomTech[talk] 05:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will keep that in mind when making edits to articles in the future. Thanks Sjms111 (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at AJ Styles, you may be blocked from editing. This is the second time you've been told this about the specific phrase you added. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever read. The other day my edit was taken down and the explanation that I was given was that I didn't cite a reliable source. I re posted the article with 2 testimonials from credible sources and I am being told the same thing again. I think you guys just don't like it when people post edits you don't personally agree with and you are forming cliques to try and exclude people who post things you don't like. If my posts keep getting taken down I am going to file a complaint against you guys for exluding and intimidating new members to the site. Sjms111 (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjms111! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi! I'm not an admin, just another editor, but I saw the discussion you started on ANI and I thought I'd reach out with some information with which you may not be familiar. English Wikipedia has a lot of rules, and is not like other fandom wikis or even Wikipedia in other languages.

Reliable Sources: Here's a list of reliable, unreliable, and blacklisted sources. What you might consider "reliable" may not be what Wikipedia considers reliable. YouTube is not a reliable source, since its content is sponsored and often user-generated. It's not like a well-researched newspaper article or book. On Wikipedia, "video testimonials" are not considered more reliable, or "stronger" than secondary sources. If you read that page's section defining the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, I think you'll see why.

Neutrality: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and tries to maintain as neutral a point of view as possible. That said, we try to limit the amount of opinions on a subject if those opinions are personal. For example, statements like "widely considered to be the best ______" is considered puffery. And if you find yourself wanting to add that to several articles, you probably shouldn't add it to any. There's also a handy list of words to watch out for that might help.

Guidelines and Policies: I would start with What Wikipedia is Not and, if you have time on desktop, playing The Wikipedia Adventure. It's a fun way to learn about the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, as are the lists linked at the start of this paragraph.

Disruptive editing: Keep in mind that admins, like editors, are volunteers. If editors repeatedly make edits that violate policy, other editors have to clean that up. It's considered disruptive because it takes time and effort from other editors to do that.

As a new editor, you can always ask questions at the Teahouse if you're not sure about something. If you do, be sure to sign your posts. And article Talk pages will show you what issues have already been discussed. Also, you may want to join the WikiProject Professional wrestling, where you'll find other editors who are interested in improving wrestling articles and find constructive ways to help.

Wikipedia has been around a long time, and there's a wealth of information that can help you be a productive editor. I hope you take this to heart and continue contributing to Wikipedia. —Matuko (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your advice, but I have decided that wikipedia is not for me. I will either take my interest in online forums to other sites or maybe start my own. Thanks for being respectful in telling me all of this though. Sjms111 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]