This is an archive of past discussions with User:Woodroar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You're right, I linked the wrong part of WP:CHARTS. In WP:CHARTS, regarding the list of charts that can be used it states: "charts appropriate for wikipedia are not limited to those listed on this page, others can also be included as long as they are IFPI registered" and The R3-30 chart is not IFPI registered (list here). So please revert your reversion of my edit. I'll be using a different edit summary going forward. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
quit reverting the lyrical content on Touched By The Crimson King page you dumbass, its all correct and the citations are in the lyrics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.42.223 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. First, it's unreferenced; if you can find a reliable source which you can cite, then we can discuss it further on Talk:Role-playing game. Second, I felt that it was poorly-written. The ".hu" in your username leads me to believe that you're not a native English speaker, which is fine; not everything needs to be written in perfect English the first time, but I saw little point in correcting a statement that really shouldn't be there in the first place. And third, I think that it (as well as the other paragraph I removed) were unnecessarily specific. Yes, you can play an RPG via text, or over VOIP, or on a cell phone, or with smoke signals, but do we really need to say this? Ultimately, you can play an RPG when there are 2 or more people in any place who can communicate in any way. We can definitely clarify and narrow this down, but it has to be referenced and important in some way. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
okay:
- i'm not a native english maybe my english is not perfect but i'm curious if there would be no .hu in my username what would you think.
- i didn't want to make references because i think that would've been spam. i wanted to be neutral. maybe i could've been put a reference for voip. that's true.
- strange, that so far it hadn't disturbed you that there is a section about textually playing rpgs.
- you say, that "Yes, you can play an RPG via text, or over VOIP, or on a cell phone, or with smoke signals, but do we really need to say this?". i think yes we have to mention this, because i think someone who looks up wikipedia for the right answer, probably knows nothing about rpgs, how it can be played and so on. maybe it's useful for beginners that they can search further in certain directions if they want to try to play.
- "Ultimately, you can play an RPG when there are 2 or more people in any place who can communicate in any way." yes maybe you know this, but i think a beginner who has nothing in his or her mind about how it is played exactly in real, should know where and how he or she can try to play.
- i'm honest so i have a website which i think helps beginners to try rpgs almost as it was originally meant to be played. but i didn't want to mention my site because i wanted to be neutral.
- if you don't agree with me, then why is it there in the main section that "Several varieties of RPG exist in electronic media, including text-based MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons) and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs)." i wouldn't mind if my (objective) thoughts were mentioned in the main section under this.
i wouldn't have written my site name after my username if it wouldn't have been used already by another user.
- or let's put a reference to "virtual tabletop"
If there were no ".hu", I would still have removed the paragraph, just as I removed the previous paragraph which was added by an anonymous editor. As far as spam is concerned, if the source meets WP:Sources (as well as WP:EL and WP:SPAM) then you don't have anything to worry about; I'd suggest discussing any sources you'd like to add at Talk:Role-playing game where we can generate more consensus.
The section about other forms of RPGs is well-written, well-sourced, and on topic. You may not have noticed, but the Role-playing game article is a summary of the various RPG articles here on Wikipedia. If you read the more specific Role-playing game (pen and paper) article, you'll find the statement "The terms pen-and-paper and tabletop are generally only used to distinguish this format of RPG from other formats, since neither pen and paper nor a table are strictly necessary", which is sourced and works well in the flow of that article. What you're looking to add is probably more appropriate in that specific article, although personally I still think you'll be running up against WP:DUE issues. The vast majority of P&P RPGs are meant to be played face-to-face. Sure, we can certainly mention that you don't have to play them that way (which we do) but it's impossible to list all of the ways that you can play RPGs. If we follow WP:DUE, however, we can at least discuss the major ways that RPGs are played. If we get some reliable sources that stress VOIP or texting or even gaming while skydiving as popular ways to play RPGs, then by all means we should include it in the appropriate article.
I hope this covers all of your questions and comments. If I've left anything out, feel free to leave another note. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
well, i see that you are at home in wikipedia. i'm not. of course there are rules i should know. so all in all what do you suggest for me to do? so what do you think about putting information into wikipedia about possible ways to try rpgs other ways than the traditional. do you think it is not necessary? as i'm writing it on my page and i belive in that (that's why i invested a lot of energy and time to make my website reality), "I think it's no doubt playing a roleplaying game is the best with friends, meeting face to face physically, but there's much more in it, than purely the playing. Rpgonline.hu doesn't want to challenge this, because it wouldn't be possible anyway. But if we just look at the pure game itself, my site is almost a 100% solution, because playing a roleplaying game is much more about saying words and telling the story and imagine what you hear...". i think if wikipedia mentions forum rpgs, which is also just a way like smoke signals, it should mention the virtual tabletop or online gaming methods, because there are even more applications/websites about this. more and more people are looking for this. so what do you think? should we put content like this into wikipedia or not. if yes, how? thanks, stargazer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargazer rpgonline.hu (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The most important question is this: can you suggest references that meet WP:Sources and support your claim? If yes, then we can move forward from there. For example, if you have reliable, third-party, published sources that say VOIP is common in P&P RPGs, then we can discuss what to add in the article. If there are no sources or the sources suggest that VOIP (again, just an example) is used only marginally, then we should avoid discussing it per WP:DUE. That's ultimately what Wikipedia is about: articles must be based on reliable sources and the focus(es) of our articles must be in proportion to these articles. So can a group of people play P&P RPGs with smoke signals? I'm sure they can figure out a way, but is this an important way to play? Probably not. I'm sure that VOIP, texting, forums, etc. are used much more than smoke signals and that there are plenty of RPG communities out there that support these mediums. However, I don't know if they are notable enough or if we can find quality references to justify writing about them on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
interesting. i've watched the ehow video about creating an article. it says a blog and a forum is not a reliable source. but what else can be a reliable source, if not these? these are showing that there are a lot of people who are seeking this. but if we accept that these are not reliable sources, still there is the question: do we really need to only say what can be referenced? or what is common? i'm sure i can find in no time a lot of articles in wp that are not about common things, methods, etc. the other thing: Fantasy Grounds. it's only a wp article about an application. that it exists and what is it about. if i create a wp article about my site and what is it for and how it works and why is it unique amongst similar solutions, after that i will have reference for my site at virtual tabletop examples? is it okay that way? thanks, stargazer
WP:Sources gives a few guidelines on reliable sources, what is and isn't okay. Per WP:Verifiability, everything should be referenced. Sure, you're going to find articles where material isn't referenced, but any editor is perfectly justified in removing unreferenced material.
Your example of Fantasy Grounds is perfect. The article has existed for almost 3 years without meeting our most basic notability requirements (WP:Notability) and it's entirely unreferenced. I looked and found no reliable sources, so I am recommending that we delete the article.
If you or your site become notable in the future, then we may write an article. (You should not write an article about yourself or your site per our conflict of interest guidelines.) After that, it could be linked to other articles. I'll be honest here and tell you that most notable people are game designers and other industry insiders, and most notable sites have been around for a long, long time or are sponsored by game companies. Even some of the references currently used in Role-playing game (pen and paper) are questionable.
Hello Wyatt Riot. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fantasy Grounds, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 doesn't apply to software, and I think this classes as software rather than web content. PROD or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK19:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've read the article. It mentions that WISE may find a nearby brown dwarf. That's it. Nothing about the name "nemesis", nothing about mass extinctions, in other words nothing about the bulk of the article itself. That's the very definition of a link we should avoid per WP:EL. Woodroar (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
OK I've added new citations to that section. From a science magazine-- verifying what is already said in the Wikipedia Nemesis article about the WISE mission, and also discussing the 'Sedna orbital theory' about Nemesis (also created a new section, with citations, for the Sedna theory as it pertains to the Nemesis theory).
thx for notifying me, even though I had already noticed your edit. I would welcome your opinion on Talk:Tribal Wars. If you do not consider that a proper place for a discussion on the notability of the subject, please suggest a good place and we can move it there.
If you are interested in improving the PlaneShift article you are very welcome. I personally think it's one of the game articles with more sources I've seen, and it's fine as it is. Anyway if you are of different advise, please find new sources and add them to the page. Removing information or removing sources is not a way to improve the page at this point. Xyz231 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
I noticed that you reviewed my article for creation, State-tistics, but you put it on hold. You did leave me with a very helpful comment, which I happened to resolve (The submission includes reliable sources, but they do not cover the subject. The references merely support the claim "which allows its many users to gain a valuable look at politics" which could be applied to any game. Reliable, third-party published sources covering this game must be supplied to establish notability.), but I was wondering if you would mind coming back to the review as soon as possible. I really appreciate the help. Thanks.
I checked back and I'm still not seeing any reliable sources covering the topic. To meet our notability guidelines, the sources need to cover the topic itself, not any other random claims made in the article. In other words, your sources from the UN and the US Constitution support claims about the most populous nations in the world and the roles of the branches of government, but they don't cover State-tistics. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete it? There was nothing wrong with the article. Please recreate it. There are hundreds of pages just like it that haven't been deleted. Philyboy2012 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. And no, I will not thank you, since you are just banding up with the cool group of people that's bashing the page since about 3 years. Xyz231 (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I seriously think you should remove this phrase from your user page: "I feel that policies against obvious trouble-makers need to be stronger."
It's exactly the opposite of what you have shown recently. You managed to bash the only real editor of that page, and help the identified troublemakers to reduce the content of the page. Good job! Xyz231 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Minibossespennywinblood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Minibossesbrass.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Minibossesminibosses.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
As for why, it's because Miniconomy is a simulation game, not a role-playing game. Even beyond that, the article doesn't say it's an RPG, nor do any reliable sources that I can find.
Is it that non sense to add here? Can i ask why some games / application like and some other are included on this Wikipedia? Does the game needs to be famouse first before adding it on Wikipedia? And can i know what should i need to do to include it here :) Thanks in Advance Raiine (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to this site (at least while being registered) but I've come because another user tried to create an article for this game. From what I see, the talk page for that page does not exist. So I don't know how I can discuss anything concerning the game...
There currently isn't a talk page for Dead Frontier but feel free to start one yourself. As for the links, Onrpg isn't reliable (and the single review on the page is horribly amateurish) and the Gamespot link has nothing but screenshots, no reviews at all. Woodroar (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
So what does it take to get a beta game approved? None of the big companies are going to care for quite awhile (unless they happen to randomly find this game).
NegimaSonic (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite honestly, Wikipedia isn't about having an article on everything, only notable things. At the same time, we need reliable sources to base our articles on. (The two go hand in hand, really.) Some beta games may be notable, like Diablo III for example, because it's being developed by a big name in the gaming industry and the game itself garners a lot of press. I'm a big fan of independent artists and companies (especially when it comes to music), but it's almost impossible to write an article about the more indie bands, games, etc. without having sources, and we absolutely need the sources first. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of [Astro Empires]], as notability has been asserted in the awards section. If you believe it should still be deleted, I would recommend using AFD. Stephen!Coming...10:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a terrible source, found to be specifically unreliable by WikiProject Video games. Thanks for the head's up, though, I'll send it through AfD. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Astro Empires
Hi. Please do not remove the reviews and interviews on the Astro Empires article, so others can decide for themselves if they are reliable or not. As this article is being considered for deletion it deserves all the arguments, don't you agree? --82.154.193.22 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Arguments for or against deletion are best made on the discussion page for that AfD, so I would bring up the (potential) sources there. As far as the quality of the reviews go, they don't meet WP:SOURCES, which is why I removed them. If you would like them to be included, the burden of proof would be on the editor who adds or restores material (i.e., you), so again I would suggest bringing them up at the AfD page. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wyatt. Unfortunately you also removed the link to an interview with the creator of the game on one of the top-selling newspapers in Portugal (Correio da Manhã), which is clearly relevant. Might want to restore that reference as it can prove important for this article, the others can be added to the discussion as you suggested. I'm an editor on the Portuguese Wikipedia and Astro Empires has an article there, I believe this game should have one on the English Wikipedia as well, since it's played mainly by Americans, Canadians and British. P.S: Sorry for not using an account here, but the username I have on the PT Wikipedia is already being used here, so I need to have it changed first. --85.240.43.160 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a trivial fluff piece and, "top-selling newspaper" or not, doesn't even appear to list the author. Plus, the article is more about the gamemaker than the game itself. What it does mention about the game is a 3-year old player count (active players or simple signup count? we don't know because the article lacks depth) and conjecture about the age of its players, which is odd because the character-creation page doesn't seem to ask that question. This appears to be exactly the type of journalism that we don't want in our articles. Feel free to bring it up on the AfD discussion or the article's Talk page if you still feel that it's an important source. Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Trivial or not it's proof that this game is notorious, at least for the Portuguese media (besides 2 interviews the review from the MyGames website is also relevant, thus why there is an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia for this game). You may argue if the interview in question is enough to keep the article from being deleted, but it's relevant enough to show on the references of the article, at least that's my opinion and nothing on the WP:SOURCES seems to say otherwise. However I'll do as you suggested and bring it up on the AfD discussion. Cheers. --85.240.43.160 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Reverted on list of F2P games
Why was Bloodline Champions entry deleted by you with the comment "not an MMO" when there are numerous non-MMO games on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.57.114 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that other links should not be included there, feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page or remove them yourself. Or let me know which shouldn't be there and I'll look into it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really interested in maintaining the page and even less about wikipedia politics; just wanted to add a game which is aligned with other games on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.57.114 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2011
the link i put was relevent to the article it mentioned that you could not use mobile phones to play anymore
and i was telling the readers that you can log in and how to do it the link i placed on the page was an exaple of how to log into the new travian version 4 that is replacing all serves as it rolls out and [spam link removed] is the link needed to log into travian.com server 9 if that is not directly relevent im a monkeys uncle and you are a scolar
and i wont bother trying to update or correct any of the information on the most unreliable source of information since BINGSuperconcepts (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to assist users with bypassing software restrictions/limitations or running games on platforms which aren't supported. It's just not what we do. Woodroar (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you removed my mention of the Ashes of Athas campaign on the above articles based on notoriety and possible bias. It has now been two months since the Ashes of Athas campaign premiered at a convention. It was received well, written up on a multitude of prominent gaming blogs, mentioned on an official Wizards of the Coast podcast, is about to feature at four more conventions in the next two months, and will have new offerings at the three largest gaming conventions in the US this year. It seems pretty relevant for those pages to have the content. I reviewed the notoriety page but it is difficult to assess the language within the context of gaming (itself a relatively small genre). As a Dark Sun and living campaign fan, I find it really strange to not mention a Dark Sun living campaign. I am one of the admins, so I can understand the worry about bias, but it really isn't my reasoning here. I'm seeking help on understanding at what point a living campaign bears mention. Thanks! --Alphastream (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
If it meets our notability requirements, then it warrants an article. At that point, you would be justified in placing internal links to the article in Living campaigns and Dark Sun, among other places. An external link to the Ashes of Athas website would only be appropriate in that single article. As far as being notable in such a niche, I'd suggest starting at the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons guide to references to see if any sources mention it. (You can rule out the book section since it's so new, but the Wired search near the top of that page may turn up some sources. Just make sure they also meet WP:Sources, as sometimes the search engines find blog and forum posts on otherwise reliable sites, and we can't base content on amateur sources like those.) You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, I'm sure you'll find some knowledgeable people there. (Personally, I've been both a Wikipedian and an avid D&D player for years now, but I'm not a member of WikiProject D&D so I'm not sure about their project-specific policies.) And as for writing the article itself, they have a style guide to assist with that. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
RE: Enough Already
But look, I've never deleted things that are referenced, I have only things with references completely valids, and I do not understand why these are reverted. --Asdfmovie (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Your edits to List of multiplayer browser games
Hey thanks for the tips about Wikipedia content. I'll be sure to delete stuff right away that doesn't fit the standards. You sure know how to make somebody feel welcome.
Qchristensen (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, noticed that you removed my addition to the list too. Me and the board have gathered together and decided to readd it though. Love, Monkey alan Industries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.139.3 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just because you decide it's spam, doesn't mean it is. There are no medals involved for making peoples life a trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.228.64 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia keeps stats on active Wikipedians and new Wikipedians. January 2011 had the largest one-month increase in active users (+12%) since March 2006 (+15%). We also keep stats on article creation, and it's falling into a normal plateau, which can be expected for a work of this nature and duration. Your sources are summaries of the same article, from 2009. The times have changed.
I understand your POV, and I empathize. Many users are discouraged when their well-intentioned edits are are reverted or removed, but you have to remember that we have policies and guidelines, including a strong idea of what Wikipedia is and what it is not. This is, after all, Wikimedia's project and they get to decide the focus. There are both legal and logistical reasons for this. Do you feel that we should change our views on, for example, copyright violations or spamming simply because users may get discouraged and leave the project? I suspect that you do not. If you do, I strongly suggest starting your own everything-goes media site, but first hire a good lawyer, because you'll need it.
Let me close with a personal example. I'm both a fan of music and a musician myself. Some of my first edits were creating articles about local musicians—yes, including a band that I once was a part of—and these articles were deleted without warning of any kind because the bands themselves didn't meet WP:BAND. I didn't include references of any kind, and if I had, they would have been interviews with zines and indie music websites, not anything even resembling legitimate music journalism. I've learned a lot of things since then, like how Wikipedia is about creating a user-edited encyclopedia about stuff that matters. Quite honestly, Wikipedia doesn't care if I write and release a record unless reliable sources consider it noteworthy, and I'm fine with that.
I noticed you have previously contributed to the Mankato city page. I'm new to Wikipedia and have been practicing a little on that page, and I wanted to recommend a change. The Academic Institutions section is not very informative, and not up to snuff with Wikipedia's MOS recommendation that sections be written in prose-style. I left a suggestion on the talk page, but (perhaps not surprisingly) I haven't received a response. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? Thanks! Balloccoli (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the list format is necessarily bad in that section, but it could definitely be changed the prose. (Anything could, for that matter.) As could, for example, the Media and Places of interest sections. I'll see if I can find some time to work on it, but quite honestly, I'm probably not the person to do it. Even though I live there (or here, actually), I didn't go to any of those schools and don't listen to the radio. I might be able to turn the Places of interest section into prose, but I can't promise it'll be any good. :) I'll see what I can do when I find the time. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to get the image deleted because it doesn't qualify as fair-use content and it's likely a copyright violation as the original image is a screenshot from a film. Again, something that, had you read the disclaimers on the upload page itself, you would know. Writing an article about a non-notable subject is one thing, but uploading an image of dubious copyright status and claiming that it meets fair-use guidelines is another, and it puts Wikipedia in a potentially difficult legal situation unless the image is removed. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but please read before you edit. Every single one of our "rules" of which you're claiming ignorance has been explained to you, often multiple times. Woodroar (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they've been explained to me, countless times, mostly by you, but what I've been saying on the village pump page is that these tiny picky rules are ridiculous and deliberately confusing. And about that image. It doesn't matter!I didn't even use the image! Now please, GET OFF MY BACK! (Alicianpig (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
You're essentially asking that we sit idly by why you expose the project to legal risks. I'm sorry, but I can't do that.
The MMOG article has a section that describes the different types of MMO games and has erroneous information claiming others to be the first MMOFPS, that's all I'm saying. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.25.55 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Just because you haven't heard of it, it doesn't mean it's "not notable"
Dragon Raja Online is a classic 2D MMORPG well-known in Asia (and now spread to Europe). Just because Americans (or wherever you're from) are ignorant of it, it doesn't mean it's not a classic. The game has been around since 1999 and still loved by many. Not many MMORPGs, especially from the late 90s, are still around these days. DRO has had servers in numerous Asian regions throughout the last decade, notably in Korea, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It was at one point one of the top three MMORPG games in Hong Kong, for instance. If you're allowing Wikipedia to be that myopic, then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.131 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm totally new to this talking, so please excuse any unintentional impoliteness. Despite the fact that amazon.com lists it as "Reamde", I think it is clear that the title of Stephenson's book is "REAMDE" in all caps. The README file was always all caps, the cover of the book has REAMDE in all caps while every other letter (including the "n" and "s" in neal stephenson) is lowercase, and as far as I can recall every time the word appears in the book it is in all caps. Stephenson obviously knows his Unix conventions, I think he would find the use of "Reamde" incongruous (not that I have asked him).
I just suggest this to you because you're the last person listed in the page change log. I suppose I could do edit it myself, but I'd prefer to leave the job to someone who has invested the time and energy into pages about Stephenson's work.
Thank you for the message, perhaps the most polite I've ever seen. (No kidding.) While I generally try to follow the wishes of an artist/group/publisher/etc. in my own personal writing, in this situation the community has set policies and guidelines (such as on title formatting, trademarks, and use of capital letters) asking that we render the title with a single initial capital letter, as "Reamde" rather than "REAMDE". It's a part of our overall Manual of Style, which—like the style guide any other publisher—can be idiosyncratic and perhaps a little strange at first. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Jennifer Government: NationStates
Excuse me sir, but I think I know what I am doing. The guy who reversed my edits is an enemy of mine on NS. While no third party sources reported on it, it was quite a big event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Man Billy-Bob Jenkins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 June 2012
Hi!
I have read through your copywrite violation post that you left me, but am not really sure how this falls under that category. Would it be better if I fixed the grammar and changed the wording a bit? The information on that sign is so valuable that it would be a pity and a disservice to the page to not include it.
Also, why was my link removed to the photography from the event? That is all related information, non-commercial and not violating any terms of Wikipedia.
I reverted your edits primarily because they were copied and pasted from a copyrighted website, which violates our policy on copyrights. Most content should be written in your own words; if a quotation is necessary—see our policy on quotations for details on that—it should be short and certainly surrounded by commentary. Full-length works are rarely allowed, not for copyright reasons, but because our purpose is to summarize, not reproduce. We'll reproduce full-length public domain works at Wikisource, for example; works that aren't in the public domain are simply linked to, provided the link goes to a reliable source. And that's the secondary reason I reverted your edits, and also why I removed the external link: we rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in everything we do. If the sign could be found on an official Indian or Pakistani governmental website, or if the author of this particular website were an authority on the subject or simply a renowned world traveller—Rick Steves, for example—then that carries some weight. Our policy on external linksmay allow the link, but that's still questionable because the sign itself could be copyrighted and the content, if true, should be referenced elsewhere.
So, in short: the text would need to be summarized and reliably sourced; the photo and link would need to be cleared of potential copyright issues, but even that's unnecessary because other, more reliable, sources should exist that will allow us to write something better than the sign itself. Ultimately, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and eventually we'll have a nice, fully-featured article on Wagah, but we can't cut corners to get there.
My posting(s) over on the Anita S article talk page is/are related to a gender-gap list discussion that may have weighed in on the issues late, but some g-gappers were skeptical about notability. I'm open-minded and interested in the consensus. We don't know now, but if evidence of self-promotion appears, which is what has skeptical thinkers speaking up, then it could be revisited. Thanks for your comments, and keep up the thoughtful work. KSRolph (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we'll be good. The article existed for a year prior to the Kickstarter controversy, and professors have used her videos in classes, so I don't think it it's in danger. Plus, it would be bad form for anyone to nominate the article for deletion so quickly after the last AfD. I hope, at least. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Why I removed those Red Links
If you will bare with me, I only removed those red links just to reach 1,000 edits. I know it's crazy but, now that I've accomplished my goal, there's no purpose in that. --Jayemd (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, that was quick. I actually moved the article in order to prod it. I'll add a note at the MfD discussion page once it's up. Woodroar (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What's funny is that I even anticipated how it would look and wrote out the prod template in Notepad, but to no avail. The singularity can't come soon enough; only then will I be able to move and tag at the same time. Woodroar (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries! :) I could have easily done the same thing—especially when the IP removed tags along with the number change—the edits just looked suspicious overall. Woodroar (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for helping me save face. I will do a better job with my counting next time. Meanwhile, thanks for all the helpful editing you do. Best, CCS81 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm writing specifically about this but also more generally about copyright violation. I have read the WP policy and cannot understand why linking to a documentary is copyright violation. Also, the documentary does not claim that the star exists, but discusses different scientists' theories about what has led some of them to believe that it might exist. The History Channel is a major documentary channel, and the claim that it is "notoriously unreliable" is itself subjective... Thanks in advance! BigSteve (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It would appear that Zeurit1 on YouTube likely did not have permission to use the video from the The History Channel (THC). Wikipedia's policy is to not link to works that are copyright violations. See WP:COPYLINK. A link copyright warning If the YouTube video was on THC's own page, it would probably be OK as far as copyright issues were concerned. Another major issue with THC is that they are not a wp:reliable source. THC ignores scientific consensus, uses wp:fringe sources, and sensationalizes their videos. This makes for good entertainment, but not for good science. Best not to use THC as a source of history nor science. Thanks for asking. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, that all seems fair enough - your template warning was especially informative - maybe you can a link to it to the WP:COPY & WP:CV pages?
Aside from that - would the THC be a good link in the context of the fact that the Nemesis hypothesis is in itself controversial, and therefore adding an "unreliable source" cannot really make it even more controversial, but would merely explain the controversy? If you see what I mean :-) BigSteve (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Might be a good link for what not to link to? :) Scientifically, Nemesis is not controversial, as there is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis. At one time it "explained" the apparent cycle of asteroid impacts on Earth, but no longer. The only controversy that I see is THC and others using 'scary' Nemesis for profit. Fear mongering? Maybe a new article Fear mongering for political gain and profit? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry fellas, was away for a bit. Thank you so much for the input - I seriously had no idea THC has fallen behind so much in recent years (I have not had it on my cable provider for yonks, get Viasat History instead, maybe that's why they dropped it?). But, yeah, I never personally considered Nemesis a serious theory, merely wanted to add info to it, but since it turns out THC's a dud, I see your point. Thanks again, and enjoy the holidays :-) BigSteve (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
DragonSpires Content
Hello, I've reverted some of your changes to the DragonSpires page. The reason for this is that the Java version of DragonSpires was not a "fan game" or "sequel", but was the actual game handed over to new developers by the creators for the purpose of furthering that same game. It is not a fan work or sequel, but the actual game itself reformatted. Please let this revision stand, since this is not personal but is based in the facts which are now stated clearly in the article. I have removed the sequel sections since you're correct on that account. However, neither of those were "fan" games, and as such I do not know where you came up with the "fan game" reasoning. There were none listed. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
So it's essentially a port with a different plot and artwork? (Not being facetious, just trying to narrow down what it is.) Do we have any references saying that it's notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems odd that you're only asking now, to be completely honest (as you say, just trying to get at something) you should have looked into the notability or at least asked on the talk page before blanking the information. That's sort of a sidenote, though. Essentially the game was created with very slim playability, basically just a demo. Then the creators lost interest and, upon request, allowed others to assume control of the project. So there's a fluid change-over of staff who then moved the game into Java as opposed to its old language. It's a single game with a staff change and a change of format, after which it was developed much further over the course of years. More than one map, enemy creatures, and so on. For example, if World of Warcraft were given an all-new staff who changed the language it was coded in, would that make the original game in a new format "a sequel"? I'd be interested in re-writing the article, but I worry it'll be blanked again while I'm doing so, or my end result won't pass the test with anyone who looks for reasons to delete when it would be so much more beneficial to help embetter the article. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to address the "plot and artwork" bit. The first stage had no plot, not speaking figuratively - there was no plot. As things progressed, new artwork was needed because you can't add monsters and new lands without the artwork. Eventually, years later, the old art was replaced as well. It's more of a process than an abrupt change, when you look at it. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm asking about references because I looked for them when I originally deleted the content and couldn't find any. Rather, I should say that I only found the typical forums, SourceForge download pages, press releases, and advertising/game-referral sites, nothing that meets our requirements for references. To continue your example, if Blizzard did ask a team to continue work on World of Warcraft, we should still have a reference pointing towards that fact, and if we were going to write about the port we'd also need references on which to base that part of the article, as required by WP:V and WP:UNDUE and a number of other policies and guidelines. Hell, the article itself is based on a single, trivial reference, which doesn't even meet WP:N, our basic requirement for the article existing in the first place. If you can find references, I'd be glad to help, but I couldn't find them. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It might just be me, but it seems like you're coming at this from an odd angle, arguing that everything mentioned about a game must have references. Can an article say "Mario jumps on enemies" without a reference? And so on. A game having a staff change doesn't smell like something legitimately in need of reference. In the end, DragonSpires is one game whose programming language and staff changed. If the Wired article is not enough for notability, then remove the entire article since it is all one game. This is a years-old article approved by your predecessors, with changes that are years-old and also approved. I don't see this shaping up to be anything other than part of a hobby - clearing out material because you can find a reason to. I'm not saying that to be mean or incite anything, it really seems to be what's going on since you took it down without mentioning it on the talk page before OR after doing so. Also, I don't see any mention about my comment on rewriting the article, you are simply continuing on the track of removing information. Please do not touch the DragonSpires page again without seeking concensus. Even if it doesn't go how I'd prefer, I'm still asking you to back up your actions with uninvested third parties based on our exchange here. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if we're writing about it, it should be referenced. Now, pragmatically, not everything needs to be sourced, just enough for us to write a thorough article, and we can usually get that from "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which happens to be our notability policy. A minor aspect of gameplay is one thing, but a team of fans porting the game with the blessing of the creators is another thing entirely, and something that I feel needs to be referenced. Keep in mind that "material challenged or likely to be challenged" must have a reference, and if an editor removes unsourced material, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". The age of the article or section means nothing, only that someone hasn't come along to clean it up. I could literally create an article today that violates WP:NOT and, unless someone notices via my contributions or list of new articles, it could remain indefinitely. Of course, I hope you understand that's no reason to keep an article.
Since you think Wired, a major publication in the field at the time, is non-notable, it is clear that there is some sort of disconnect here. While waiting for reply, I decided to start rewriting the article and recently finished. I'll check back and see what the results are, but I'm not interested in taking part in the kerfuffle. Link all the standards you want, the spirit of the site and its usage remains that same. I get the feeling you'll continue finding more ancient, well accepted articles full of information to remove on technicalities from here. I've seen it before, where Wikipedia becomes a browser-based "search & destroy" game. Well, thanks for bringing this to others' attention, though I had originally asked you to ask others before editing or removing something, not just for you to go bring it before everyone immediately. I'll be bowing out of the conversation now, as I've spent enough time making my point(s). 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point Woodroar is trying to make; while DragonSpires itself may have some level of notability, the port does not appear to. Moreover, one two-paragraph mention in a Wired news roundup column is not, under Wikipedia's guidelines, sufficient to justify a standalone article. The whole point of the notability criteria is that it is a "gut check" as to whether there are likely to be reliable sources for everything in the article. It is entirely possible that a great article can be written about the original DragonSpires and its continuations, but that it would count as "original research" and so cannot be hosted here because of the verifiability requirements. GreenReaper (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
tb
Hello, Woodroar. You have new messages at Talk:Crusader Kings II. Message added 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
