User talk:Vemnox

Red Dead Redemption

You edits were removed due to not having any reliable sources to back the information up. Unfortunately whether a statement is true or not is not good enough for Wikipedia standards. Such things are considered original research, or speculation until they are proven with factual, published sources. That's why I removed your edits. They may or may not have been true, but such claims need to be backed up. A list of acceptable sources for video games can be found here if you'd like to find a solution and re-add the content. --Teancum (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To go along with my last comment, Rockstar explains the reasons for the updates to the patch which fixes bugs and the XP exploit here. As the issue was resolved in roughly 24 hours it isn't newsworthy, it's common enough practice to have to patch DLC shortly after release. --Teancum (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't believe the new source is necessarily reliable, and I also don't believe the issue is notable. However, I've left the content in now after initially reverting. Let it be discussed on the talk page. ferret (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please move discussion of this issue to the article's talk page. I started a section. ferret (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing source, original research, and burden

Hi. I see that you've continually removed the "hiatus" status from Breaking Benjamin's article. Please stop doing this unless you've got a reliable source stating they have officially broken up. You can't just deem them broken up because you haven't heard any updates from them in a while, that's called original research, and is not allowed on Wikipedia. The last official word is that they are on hiatus, and it should stay that until a reliable source says otherwise, something that needs to be provided by the editor who wants to make the change, ie, the burden is on you.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent source in the article, the drummer of the band literally says "Breaking Benjamin is still together". This is from February 2012, and as far as I'm aware of, the most recent official word from a band member. Not only is your source outdated, it doesn't cover the whole story. Billboard, about as reliable as it gets with the music industry, confirms that "Mr. Burnley intends on moving forward using the name Breaking Benjamin and the band will continue." Unless you've got a more updated source, "hiatus" is a much more accurate term. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've added OR to Flyleaf as well. It's one thing to say their website has not been updated, it's another thing to find a secondary source to support that. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not goes into some of the reasons. "This is fact - simply go to the sites" isn't enough. WP:V makes that clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]