User talk:Warmonger123

This is Warmonger123's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zander Circuitry (June 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zander Circuitry and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Warmonger123! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how is guitar.com not a reliable source? Warmonger123 (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zander Circuitry (July 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zander Circuitry and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Zander Circuitry

Hello, Warmonger123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zander Circuitry, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Zander Circuitry

Hello, Warmonger123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Zander Circuitry".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Moonmana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moonmana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonmana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check both the article and the discussion. I've made some edits to improve it. Warmonger123 (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zander Circuitry (October 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zander Circuitry and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoconutOctopus talk 13:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, but can you specify which criteria(s) the references fail? Are they not independent? are they not reliable? are they not in-depth? Warmonger123 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moonmana

Just a note about your accusation of vandalism. Wanted to leave it here since conduct shouldn't discussed at AfD. Please do not play the victim. Yes, you are a newcomer and editors have attempted to guide you but been unsuccessful. Let's be clear that accusing someone of vandalism when it is not would be considered WP:TE. Please do not do it. CNMall41 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me to understand wikipedia better, despite I still don't get a lot of things, I learned a lot thanks to you and other editors. And I apologize if you feel like that was an accusation. I expressed my feelings how it feels, when you create an article, then people come and say "delete! RTFM" and don't explain you why, don't help and then ignore your questions. It feels like vandalism to me. But how I feel doesn't mean you're a vandal. From my point of view it looks like wikipedia invites you: hey, come and create something with this amazing community, and then you come and you're beaten by this amazing community. This is how it feels. Anyone who creates an article will be biased. No one will spend their time by creating an article about something they don't care about, no matter which way they're connected to the subject. In my opinion, if an editor decided to vote for an article for deletion, they should be ready to spend their time to explain why it should be deleted. Maybe it will help you to understand my side too. If you think I am playing the victim, you're free to think so, I did my best to explain. Warmonger123 (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonmana

Hello, Warmonger123,

I understand that it is aggravating when an article you created and crafted is being considered for deletion. But I think you have been very argumentative in this AFD discussion. Consider the possibility that editors who have been participating in editing Wikipedia and AFD discussions for 5, 10, 15, even 20 years have a better understanding of sourcing and notability standards than you do. They have tried to explain to you what is required but you return by challenging them as if they personally want to delete this article instead of the fact that they are simply using policies and guidelines to come to their decisions. What you were doing is considered "bludgoning" a discussion. If you think there are other articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards, feel free to nominate them for an AFD discussion but the fact that bad articles exist on the project is not a valid argument to keep a different article. We all know there are inadequate articles on the platform, that's why we have AFD discussions.

All I can recommend to you in the future is that you create articles in Draft space and submit the draft to AFC for review. The purpose of an AFC review is for the reviewer to foresee any problems which would arise and advise the draft creator on how to fix any existing problems. It would save you from working on an article that gets tagged for speedy deletion or an AFD discussion.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, sourcing or our deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you support, advice and a second opinion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your or your message. But you show you don't understand the problem. I didn't say I want to delete existing articles, I tried to understand why they are not deleted, despite they, same as mine, don't comply with WP:CORP. What's the difference? No one responded.

I understand that editors who are editing for 20 years know which articles should be deleted better than me. But inability to explain me why this article should be deleted and blaming me for everything, saying I am playing a victim, "bludgoning", etc. is rather Déformation professionnelle. I am not trying to force my point of view. I just don't understand the rules and I am trying to understand.

How any game development company can appear in wikipedia if the rules are so strict that almost no company could pass the rules? I am not talking about obvious advertisements of so called "local garages" which appear in wikipedia and should be deleted. And I didn't say I want to delete any of the companies. I am talking about companies who should be in wikipedia and should not be deleted, but they don't have notability according to WP:CORP. The wikipedia rules are blurry, the existing articles in wikipedia don't teach you:

Some of the articles existing are bad examples, because they should be deleted, but are not deleted yet.
Many other articles existing don't follow WP:CORP, therefore are bad examples too.

So, the rules say: almost no company shall pass. But, as you say, the editors who have 20 years of experience, know better. That's it? So these are the rules? So if you have 20 years of experience, you just decide what pass and what doesn't? So why the hell do they send me the links to the rules, which don't work? Maybe it's better to make a new page with one rule "There are no rules, except one: the editor with more experience is always right"?

I am a contributor on Equipboard. The community there is friendly and helps you to contribute. I didn't meet a single person there who tried to show their superiority over me. Not a single person who made me feel humiliated. On the contrary, the wikipedia community feels opposite: an elitist community that despises and harasses newcomers, with blurry criteria that contradict each other and existing articles, making it impossible to understand how to write good content. A community that doesn’t see this as a problem, and instead of trying to fix the root of it, shifts the blame for the platform’s fundamental issues onto others (in this case, onto me).

In discussing this article, I realized some of my mistakes and learned a bit more about what not to do, but it all came through pain and humiliation. Yet I still haven’t learned everything I need to, and I’m not sure I want to go through that again. Warmonger123 (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider to discuss this in the Teahouse. Maybe this discussion could help to improve the rules and wikipedia. There are separate criteria for music artists already. Maybe if there is a separate critera for video game development companies, the rules won't be so blurry. Warmonger123 (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your comment and questions here, as it seems a better fit than in that unrelated thread. I figured you'd have a copy of the deleted version. You seem better organized than some of the CEOs I worked for...

You said, no one could answer me how a game development company can be added to wikipedia. I think a better question would be, which game development companies should be added to Wikipedia? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a product catalogue. As you said, the criteria at WP:NCORP are indeed very difficult to meet, but that is on purpose. Most companies are not notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. We currently have over 1,600 game development companies on Wikipedia, almost all are substantially larger and more recognized than Moonmana. I'm sure you could find a few on that list that are less notable than yours, but that would be a reason to delete them, not to add yours.

What would it take to become notable? A column about the company in El País or El Mundo, or a detailed profile (not an interview!) in HobbyConsolas or Micromanía would help a lot. Getting listed on the Bolsa de Madrid would likely attract major news coverage; I truly hope that's in your future. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's the best and most valuable advice I received so far here. I never had a goal to add my company to wikipedia. In fact, it was added by other person using my account. I just came here when it was nominated for deletion, trying to understand what the rules really are and if it really has to be deleted or not. But the editors ignored my questions and didn't give me any understanding about notability. Thank you very much! Warmonger123 (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]