User talk:Dotaveteran

Welcome!

Hello, I am Dotaveteran, and welcome to Wikipedia!

If you have a cup of tea, feel free to have an intelligent conversation here. --Dotaveteran (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winner 42 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hi Dotaveteran! Not sure this is the right place to contact, but we're currently attempting to build out our Rise of Immortals MOBA game page. I noticed you had edited the Petroglyph one. I'd love to ask for your advice on Wikipedia standards... thanks! BerekHalfhand (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BerekHalfHand! I have added Rise of Immortals to my task list in order for it to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am currently compiling a list of reliable sources in order to help establish Wikipedia:Notability for this DotA based game. Consider the Rise of Immortals article as a work in progress. --Dotaveteran (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pandamonium. You were removed from playdota.com for your constant advertisements about Heroes of Newerth, even in the most inappropriate discussions, so I'd think that you'd take heed on Wikipedia. It seems that you're a fairly new user with a minimal grasp of proper dictation, but you seem to assume ownership of every article you touch, whether it be that half-assed Dota (genre) you crassly advertise everywhere, or DotA or HoN. In case you were wondering, people are pretty sick of you assuming ownership and would like you to stop. Sincerely, Me. —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Dota (genre) reversions

Hey there, I noticed that you reverted two of my Dota (genre) edits. I re-reverted your last revert because you didn't even give a reason for your action in the change summary, which would be explicitly encouraged for reverting non-vandalism changes. Please note that WP:BRD isn't a reason for assuming ownership of an article and reverting good faiths edits you personally don't like, the article talk page can be used to discuss such situations. You might also want to consult WP:ROWN and WP:DRNC. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, I don't know if you have the Dota (genre) talk page watchlisted, so I wanted to make sure you get notified of my comment there. Since I see no point in edit warring and needlessly invoking WP's formal conflict resolution instances, I would appreciate if we could reach a consensus soon. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, changes have been made to the introduction of the page. Would like to know your thoughts on it. --Dotaveteran (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I noticed that you reverted my cleanup changes again, without providing any reason as to why to do so. I am a strong believer in trying to resolve disagreements through discussion instead of editing/edit warring, but I find it increasingly hard to do so, as you refused to participate in it so far. Wikipedia is certainly not about winning, and thus it would be great if you could actually let me know in which points you disagree with my changes, so I can incorporate your suggestions. I think the revert only when necessary principle is a good idea, but for it to work, the involved parties need to talk with each other. Thus, let me again invite you to join the discussion on the talk page. I'd also like to add that I hope you don't assume my mentions of Wikipedian policies/essays to be insulting, I merely referenced them in order to explain why I think reverting my changes was not the best options available. Thanks! --Clickingban (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seems like we have resolved our disagreements regarding Dota (genre). I hope this doesn't come off as presuming, but as a long term Wikipedia editor (another language, another nickname, I know this ruins my credibility^^), I'd really like to point out that generally assuming good faith and reverting only when necessary has certainly made a lot of things easier for me. Your mileage may obviously vary, but at least for me personally, these principles have proven themselves over the years. Also, your might want to have a look at WP:OWN; I can personally understand that authors tend to care about the articles they spent a lot of time writing very well, but for me this once ended with other people accusing me to be a WP:SPA and other not-so-funny things… ;) --Clickingban (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hero count

Hi, you made an edit to Dota 2 recently, removing the current hero count that I specifically added in one of my many recent edits to the article. I was wondering, what was your reasoning for this? I mean, I'm not one for edit wars, so I'm not reverting it or making a big deal out of it, but you didn't give an edit summary, so I'm curious.

Does it not add substantial information that may be updated regularly, as is true with Defense of the Ancients, or in your case, Heroes of Newerth? I'd be inclined for keeping it, as it builds to the report of the game, but I'd like to hear your opinion. Perhaps even opinions from others, as well? DarthBotto_talk•cont 03:46, 05 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily removed it since the game is currently in closed beta and the hero counts are highly unstable as of the moment - heroes removed and added every now and then. Since Dota 2 is essentially a remake of Defense of the Ancients, it may lead to people reading the article to jump into conclusions that the game has a smaller hero pool compared to DotA. We can start tracking the number of Dota 2 heroes once the game is out. We did not start tracking hero counts for League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth until the games were officially released. I hope you understand the wisdom of that decision. --Dotaveteran (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dota (genre)

Hey, since you haven't reverted it, I thought I would give you the heads up that this user called GenkiNeko has significantly changed the Dota (genre) page to MOBA (genre), despite not informing anyone else, citing that there's consensus that MOBA is neutral and more widely accepted, which nobody concurred with. His other edits to the page are good, but changing the page name is unacceptable and since I don't want to get involved, I figured I'd give you a heads-up, in the least. DarthBotto_talk•cont 01:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

That last edit to Dota 2 was aggressive towards me. I admit that journalism from my end and its use in the article should be lessened, but they were included as sources by Valve of that nature would be considered exclusive to the subject matter and as such, would gain a tag upon inspection from a senior editor. I admit that those sources were close to me, but to stamp me out in the contribution was inappropriate on your part. Considering that the removal of sources has been exclusive to me, rather than approaching me on the matter, I feel obligated to ask if you have an issue with me that you would like to discuss. Considering how much I've put into these pages, you may want to re-evaluate my intentions as being for providing an alternative to an exclusive source, rather than "personal gain". DarthBotto_talk•cont 09:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if you want me to be honest to God, blantantly frank, I added the references with my name with the intention of having them as temporary placeholders until more mainstream and less personally-involved sources could be available. I did not have the intention of pasting my work for a portfolio or whatever it may be misinterpreted as. I can understand your interpretation of the page. DarthBotto_talk•cont 09:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no merit in that excuse as multiple mainstream sources were readily available at the time of sourcing. Just refrain from doing it again as it leaves a lot of room for "misinterpretation". --Dotaveteran (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sins of a Dark Age may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| genre = [[Action real-time strategy]<br/>[[Real-time strategy]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Multiplayer online battle arena. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Ref revision 560695491 Gmt2001 (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]