User talk:Shannara

Player Worlds website

See Wikipedia:Vandalism for information about vandalism. For different anonymous IPs making a few edits spaced over weeks, the best solution is to just revert it, because nothing much can be done to prevent it and it is not serious. In this particular case, I would not necessarily call it vandalism because http://www.playerworlds.com is currently empty, though Google clearly has it as the official website, while http://www.playerworlds.org is available and appears relevant. These changes could be by well-meaning readers. I would recommend including a link to http://www.playerworlds.org. If http://www.playerworlds.com is unavailable in the long-term, the link to it from the article should be removed. —Centrx→talk • 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not threaten to ban the IPs editing these pages. They reasonably see that the website is currently down, and therefore remove the link to it; this is not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is more like deliberately replacing articles with gibberish or obscenity, blanking large swaths of text, etc. In this case, it looks like there are a few random anonymous readers who see that the playerworlds.com site doesn't work, so they change it to an other major site, which is the top Google hit. They may be mistaken, but it is not an effort to diminish the quality of the encyclopedia. Sometimes, things like this indicate that something in the article should be made more clear. In this case, I think something should be done to clarify what is going on with the playerworlds.com site. If it is defunct, this should be stated, like "The Player Worlds official website was located at playerworlds.com, but this site is now defunct". If it is undergoing renovations or being fixed, etc. this should be stated similarly. —Centrx→talk • 23:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage Online

Hi, I noticed that you removed a proposed deletion notice from the Mirage Online page claiming it was vandalism. However, it was not vandalism- it was a legitimate concern, especially considering the game was very minor and has no reliable sources to verify information or assert notability. This is also in addition to the fact that its developer was minor (assuming that "Shannara" was actually its name), and the game seems to have faded from existence seeing as all of the links on the page no longer function. --Wafulz 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of deletion notices

It seems that when you disagree with the proposed deletion of an article, you remove notices under the claims that they are vandalism. If you want to see what vandlism is, click here.

I understand it can be frustrating to have your efforts marked down for deletion, but simply removing the notices and claiming they are vandalism is not the appropriate way to approach this. Most editors have these pages on their watchlist, and they check the progress of deletions at least once per day.

About articles that you've contributed to - we have several policies and guidelines on article inclusion, such as:

If an editor feels that the article cannot meet the above criteria, he/she may take the route of deletion. Constantly removing deletion notices won't get you anywhere, and it puts you in bad standing with other editors. If you disagree with the deletion, simply take part in the discussion- for an Article for Deletion notice, that means going to the discussion page, while for a Proposed Deletion, you should remove the notice provided that you mention why in the article talk page.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Wafulz 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination: RPG Toolkit

An editor has nominated the article RPG Toolkit for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RPG Toolkit. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article RPG Toolkit during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. --WikiSlasher 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mirageonline wiki.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mirageonline wiki.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]