Talk:Glitches

Matortheeternal

This conversation is more relevant to the page than the user, I think, which is why I have opted to put it on a talk page rather than use his UserTalk or social profile comments.

Matortheeternal, I have added the appropriate Citation Needed notices to your edit. You failed to cite any sources, opting only to add an all-caps HTML comment saying how your edit should not be removed as you're "an expert in the field of glitches in Halo: Combat Evolved". (By the way, all-caps is unprofessional and unbecoming an expert in nearly any field.)

I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but by what standards are you an "expert"? What is the definition of the word "expert" as it relates to what I like to call glitchology? What are the qualifications? Have you demonstrated an above-average knowledge of glitches? I do not mean to sound hostile; I am merely trying to point out that a wikieditor's declaration of their own expertise is nowhere near as reliable as a cited source.

So if you can find a website that documents at least seven thousand glitches in Halo: Combat Evolved and at least four hundred glitches in Blood Gulch, then by all means, add the appropriate REF tags and remove the {{fact}} template codes. Until then, the edit must continue to be marked with "citation needed", assuming that other editors don't opt to delete it entirely.

Also, to counter an anticipated response, I am aware that Halopedia has more relaxed standards for when and where sources are required; this is because many video game concepts, such as the natures of particular glitches as well as terminology such as lag, teamkilling, etc., are not formally documented in a source that can be reliably cited. However, exact details (such as, say, an attempted approximation of the number of glitches in a particular aspect of a game) can and should be held to a somewhat elevated standard. DavidJCobb  20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)