- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.
The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sdrtirs (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
VoteRiders, Kathleen Unger dispute
Hi, I am rolling back your addition (again) of a notability tag to VoteRiders because you are behaving in a disruptive manner there and on the related article Kathleen Unger. The article itself has many references, even after you have removed several, and you have refused to start a discussion despite the tag being removed twice already. Cleanup tags are not to be used in that way, and doing so makes it seem that your aim is stigmatizing the article rather than fixing it. If you still dispute the article's notability, please put the matter to the community at a deletion nomination rather than warring over a tag that is not intended to be controversial.
Your recent edits to these articles have all the hallmarks of what we sometimes call tendentious editing. That is, doing things like warring over cleanup tags, making frequent reverts without discussing, engaging in arguments via edit summaries, removing citations and then calling into question the article's notability, and misrepresenting Wikipedia policies or sources (like claiming Wikipedia does not accept Huffington Post articles because it is a blog or that an ABC News report is "self-published" because it was reposted to the subject's website). Edits like this one, removing crucial information, are particularly egregious. You seem to have a point about the tone of the article, but you have gone so far in the other direction hacking it down and being unfriendly that you've done more harm than good to this point, and I suspect that by your frequent invocation of certain Wikipedia practices that you know very well what you are doing. This is amplified by the fact that a lot of this subject matter is related to a living person, and I think a couple of your comments in edit summaries have been irresponsible.
Please take a step back and, going forward, engage more sincerely with other editors. That means you should begin a discussion on these articles' talk pages about what your issues are, rather than just making retorts in edit summaries, and you should take the discussion to community venues like WP:AfD if no agreement about complaints like notability can be reached. Dominic·t 07:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I wholly disagree. Roku may be a genericized name for the roku player to people as Nintendo was to for the Nintendo Entertainment System. However in source media it is rarely (if ever) referred to solely as Roku. However the company is mostly referred to as Roku. Typing in Roku will find them information on the player and with a link to the full page on the player. There's as much justification of spinning off the name to the player that there is to th Village and the Avatar character. Roku has a stronger claim to the name. There's the Roku (disambiguation) free for you to use for the Roku Player.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I completely disagree that the articles should be merged. The Roku player is distinct from Roku inc. They are related but very distinct. The split was a content split wp:split. Roku is used primarily to refer to the company. However Roku is also widely used to refer to the player. I think the signs are that Roku will continue to strongly be attached to both. The company is is licensing both their hardware and software to other companies and there is a talk of an IPO. At the same time more devices are incoming. The answer this I think is renaming each. One Roku Inc and the other The Roku Player. Then creating a disambigious page under the word Roku that has links to all 4 articles that relate to the word Roku.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)