Really, you should keep your hands to yourself instead of running around playing God deciding what is relevant content and what is not, considering Graal Online predates your Internet relevance, has 100,000 players daily, and has its own page on Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online As it stands, there is no end to the stream of egocentric Wikipedia editors looking to debunk anyone's edits simply to exercise public control, adding their two-cents about things they know nothing about. You should be banned from using this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollos bow (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Apollos bow! The general consensus within WikiProject Video games (an open group of editors interested in articles on video games) as well as discussion at Talk:List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games has been to link only to games with articles on the English Wikipedia. The existence of an article on the German Wikipedia doesn't at all matter here. The English and German Wikipedias essentially function as separate sites, with (mostly) separate editors and separate policies and guidelines. The German article, for example, doesn't have any sources, which breaks our own general notability rules. In fact, Graal Online has been deleted for lack of sources on the English Wikipedia so many times that we've blocked it from being recreated. Hopefully games journalism sites/magazines and other sources will write more about the game and then we can remove the block. Keep in mind that we're not here to write about whatever we want, but to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources talk about. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
AN/I duplicate content
Hi, I restored the comment by dlthewave, and just saw your post on their talk page. It appears that the comment wasn't in the closed section - it probably got duplicated as a result of an edit conflict (already happened earlier today, though it was the entire AN/I content then, not just one section). Please let me know if I made a mistake by doing that. Thanks! BytEfLUSh Talk 03:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, just noticed you thanked me for the edit, so I guess all is good. =) BytEfLUSh Talk 03:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I am new to Wikipedia editing and edited Snow Crash page and you deleted my edition stating it was trivial. I am not here to berate you for it, rather ask you for a better explanation so I do not make this similar mistake again. I added it because I believed the comparisons between Snow Crash and Ready Player One are seen and on the wiki page for the Ready Player One (film) it makes mention of a critic noting the similarities. However, this was missing on the Snow Crash page and I wanted to include it.
On another note, any tips for a new Wiki editor? How to do things, what to do and what not to do?
- Hi Randyvuxta, and welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit for two related reasons, because the source didn't look "reliable" to me and because the similarities didn't appear to be a "significant" viewpoint. I'll explain:
- On Wikipedia, most of our content should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In other words, we're really just here to summarize what's already been published by peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers, books from respected publishers, etc. That does sometimes mean film review sites, but I'm not sure if The Film Stage meets those requirements. We do have a noticeboard to discuss specific sources (WP:RSN) but it doesn't look like that site has ever been evaluated there. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable, but the fact that The Film Stage hasn't come up at all in 10 years tends to indicate that it's not well known at all.
- In addition to simply summarizing what reliable sources say, we aim to do that proportionally to the number of sources saying it. If many sources say something, then it should be covered in depth. If few or even one says it, then we shouldn't devote much space to that claim, if any at all. So I didn't mean to imply negatively that your edit was trivial, more that the comparison between Ready Player One and Snow Crash didn't appear to be a significant viewpoint based on that single questionable source. You can read more about these policies at WP:V and WP:NPOV. WP:NOR is also a (related) core content policy.
- It looks like someone else (not me) removed the same claim from Ready Player One (film), so others probably feel the same way. That being said, if a number of high-quality sources make that comparison, perhaps it's something to include on Wikipedia. If you can find these sources, I'd probably start a discussion at Talk:Ready Player One (film) and Talk:Snow Crash to see what other editors think about it.
- I'm sorry, that was much longer than I'd intended! I'll leave a welcome message on your Talk page with some important links to our policies and guidelines plus the Wikipedia Adventure. I'd probably start there if you're interested! If you have any questions at all, please let me know! Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Post Rock bands list
I made some changes to the wikipedia list of post rock bands. You apparently deleted my changes. Why I made the changes is because, I've noticed that there are no Twin Cities post-rock bands listed on the list. I was attempting to remedy that as we (the twin cities) have a decent sized scene with bands that are more accomplished then many of the other bands that are listed. Obviously I'm new to editing wikipedia. Could you help me update the bands list page the correct way?
- Hi Dartfork1, thanks for your message! In most cases, subjects should have standalone articles about them prior to being added to list articles such as List of post-rock bands. I'm not sure if those bands you added should have articles, but you can read more about our "notability requirements" for bands—in other words, should the band have an article written about it or not?—at WP:BAND. If you think these bands meet the requirements, I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Your first article and then write the article if you're up to it! If you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with this. I reverted his edit in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (corrected noticeboard - 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)), but when I started looking at the contribution history last night, I decided I didn't want to deal with it then (it was my bedtime and I was in pain). most of the questionable edits were years ago, so I didn't see a big rush. The user seems to be naive about the whole thing, adding his name to articles without linking to his own article. I guess we wait to see if he engages. - Donald Albury 14:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Donald Albury: no problem at all! As COI cases go, I figured his was relatively minor: he just mentioned his CD and some of his students plus a band he was in, it's not like he filled the article with puffery or added Amazon links or anything. Like you said, it's probably best to see if he engages at this point. I hope you're feeling better! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)