User talk:Woodroar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

If you're here to ask why I removed/reverted one of your edits or left a warning message on your talk page, may I first suggest reading Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (because the answer can most likely be found there). Many of the messages I leave are for the following reasons:

You may also want to familiarize yourself with these specific guidelines:

Otherwise, keep reading and feel free to leave me a message. Thank you!

Reliability of source[edit]

Hi Woodroar! I saw you recently made a comment in the source reliability noticeboard and I wondered if you have 5 minutes to help again with another item. I've been having a problem with a book that makes a false quotation of another book. This latter book is all over the internet and can be immediately checked by anyone. But if you're busy i don't want to spam you :) thanks! El Huinca (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@El Huinca: I replied at the RSN here, though I'm not sure it was the answer you would have preferred. :) I would caution you going forwards, however, that your message above would be considered canvassing and is not looked upon favorably. There is nothing wrong with asking editors to comment, as long as you a) ask neutrally, and b) avoid asking specific editors who you feel may agree with you. For example, you could say "please see this discussion regarding the reliability of a source" on an article talk page or a project page. But words like "false quotation" could get you in hot water. Just a head's up. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I asked you (which to my point of view is equivalent to "random people") because I wanted unexpected results :) El Huinca (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
@El Huinca: I figured that was the case. Just be careful, though. We see it as "asking two random or recent editors", but others may see it as "specifically asking only two editors in order to push a particular POV". Now you and I know you weren't doing that, but it can come back to bite you. As far as RSN goes, I hope some other editors chime in soon. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm also wondering why you put a Gamergate notification on User:DBachmann's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Because the user commented at Talk:Gamergate controversy. I notify everyone, when possible, whether or not I agree with them. I apologize if this isn't something we're supposed to be doing, but I thought it was. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's an unpleasant necessity of this kind of sanctions regime that we have to make sure everybody who makes any kind of edit in the area covered should be made aware of the sanctions before they proceed. Traditionally this is done with a neutrally worded template. --TS 16:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that everyone needs a sanction notice, but I will point out that given there is a case at the moment and we expect a proposed decision soon, unless you have reason to think an editor may be a problem you might want to wait. I normally wouldn't given anyone a sanction notice unless I thought they were unaware of the sanctions and might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, the single edit was not great: decrying a lack of objectivity while linking to KnowYourMeme, a misreading about the content and focus of the article, and veiled accusations of bad faith. Nothing sanctionable, obviously, but that's how several previously-sanctioned editors started. My goal is to AGF myself while getting editors up to speed as quickly as possible. I glanced quickly at the editor's Talk page, saw comments going back 2 months, a MiszaBot template but no indication that anything had ever been archived, and also no indication that the user has pending changes reviewer status, let alone the mop, so I figured the notification would be appropriate. I will take your advice and exercise more caution going forward, however. Thank you, and Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Good response on his talk page. On thinking about it, these are going to be more and more common, and as you said, don't on their own make someone involved. Only being involved makes you involved, to state the obvious. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Woodroar. You have new messages at Talk:Women and video games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


It's not worth trying to add/remove/replace/edit talk pages from throw-away accounts. Focus on the goal, not the process. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you. I generally try to ignore hit-and-run comments elsewhere, but with Gamergate they always lead to ridiculous arguments that only waste everyone's time. I'd rather just hat or remove them and move on. Plus, there have been cases in the past where someone suggested an edit that obviously and egregiously violates policy, nobody bothered to respond, and later they come back to change the article. Of course, it ends up in an edit war, because when they're reverted and told to discuss changes, they legitimately say that they have. Oh well.
And thanks for the link. Someday I will have to contemplate the nature of human stupidity. But not today. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sasha Hostyn[edit]

I looked back at the site and it appears they might be using Liquipedia to verify her birth date. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Video games, so I'll concede to your expert take on the site I sourced and revert my edit. My guess is that she had it posted on her Facebook page but her personal page has been deleted. Pink Fae (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, probably Facebook or maybe even paperwork for a tournament. She's gone from avoiding the media entirely to reluctant interviews, so maybe we'll have better sources soon. But then again, I can understand why transgender women (and men) may avoid releasing information that could lead to them being harassed or worse. Anyways, thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As a transgender woman myself, I can understand this as well. I was very shy when I was her age as well. :) Pink Fae (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


Sorry bud but first hand research from somebody who has actually spent a lot of time in the game is far more reliable than the cover definition. I know how the game works and those interested deserve to know what they're getting into. Wont stop changing the definition until it remains the accurate truth. Dislike it? Then change the game itself so my definition is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ I think you misunderstand. I don't work for Goodgame Studios, nor have I ever played the game. But we don't allow original research on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I stopped thinking you worked for them a while ago. However I don't really mind what your policy is on original research. This is something I know to be true and the only person who needs to know this for me to make these changes is me. As long as I know what I say is true I will be changing the definition to match an accurate description. This isn't opinion this is fact about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you[edit]

I'm a wiki noob but I found something weird in an article while researching something and saw you were last person to edit it, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Unfortunately it's about video game journalism so...put on your hard hat. :)

Section 2.2 ends with a sentence: "This conclusion was later refuted by the review's assigning editor, citing proof of the reviewer's completion of the game.[38]" The link does not seem to include any proof of the writer having played the game he was reviewing. It actually states that a hardware crash destroyed the possibility of recovering said proof.

Also, link [41] seems to be dead now.

I'll probably never follow up on this post, but you seem to be a respectable wiki editor so I trust you'll at least look into these 2 slight flaws in the article. (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@ thanks for the head's up. I removed the section: the article made a strong accusation of a breach of journalistic ethics where the source came just short of implying it, and all of it was based on a self-published source which should never be used when it comes to claims about living persons. The sentence about the rebuttal also said things the source didn't, and it was self-published as well. The whole situation needs to be covered in high-quality, reliable sources before we can summarize it.
Also, I added the {{dl}} tag to source 41—well, actually 39 now—so hopefully someone can track down the article. If I find some time tomorrow I can look as well.
Thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable". -- (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cantr has been deleted three times, twice in 2006 and once in 2011. I did not participate in any of those deletion discussions, including the single AfD discussion. I removed your link today because we generally don't link to red-links (i.e., non articles) on list articles, especially to former articles which were determined by the community to fail our notability requirements. As far as deletion discussion etiquette goes, I thank you for your suggestions but I am very familiar with the process. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online game[edit]


thank you very much for your feedback. I am very sorry for the inconvenience as I am relatively new to this kind of activity. Third party sources - understood. Will do my best to avoid these kind of mistakes in the future. Just that I took a look at Runescape reference and thought it is ok to use your own websites.

I also have a question - how is the suitability of a reference source checked? What are the requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate ook (talkcontribs) 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kate ook: good questions. Identifying reliable sources has some guidelines, but we look for things like this: editing staff and editorial policies (fact checking, for example), author staff and author by-lines (as opposed to crowd-sourced/database "articles"), and being widely cited by other reputable sources. When it comes to video games, we have a rough list of reliable/unreliable/situational sources at WikiProject Video games/Sources and a Talk page to discuss that list. I agree that the Runescape reference is inappropriate, so I've also removed that claim. To be honest, a lot of that article is in poor shape and really could be cut back. :( Anyways, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. The Welcome message on your Talk page will also have a lot of information to get you up to speed on editing. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


With regard to this JournoList reversion and the associated edit reason "rv per policy and consensus": would you please point me to the URL(s) at which this information is documented? Or is it just distributed across the JournoList talk page? Am I correct that the above cited revision is the last act in an edit war that had gone on for a while? Thanks. Deicas (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Deicas: You're absolutely correct. The relevant discussions are Talk:JournoList#POV, so reverted. through Talk:JournoList#Cited content buried on the Talk page—though it's really just one, long argument—which ended with User:Sy9045 getting blocked for edit warring. An IP continued edit warring for a while that day as well, and there were two more reverts since then, all geolocating to the same area. As you said, my revert was the last. Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'd like to see the JournoList member list included in the article but I understand that the issue was/is contentious. Would the appropriate why to initiate the discussion be 1) me undo-ing the deletion and; 2) you redo-ing the deletion and; 3) taking the issue to an RfC? Does this make sense? Thanks.
Deicas (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Deicas: I wouldn't suggest adding the list, as it was removed (at least partially) and stayed removed on BLP grounds. (See this BLPN discussion for more about that.) If you sincerely feel that the list belongs, I would suggest working to gain consensus on the Talk page. An RfC is an option, sure, but pretty much everyone is going to ask why you didn't take it to Talk first. Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll read this BLPN discussion and give thought to starting a talk page discussion.
Deicas (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


I posted some images of one article on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underlight from a magazine that I personally posess. I am trying to find it but there was another magazine that had done a review (2-pages in that case if I recall correctly). I would appreciate any advice you can provide for cleaning up the sources on the article page. I have played this game since it first launched, and it is personally upsetting to see it's history be flagged to be deleted. I would be fine with removing content from the page that you see as unfitting.KoiUnderlight (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@KoiUnderlight: the Computer Gaming World source is what we're looking for, though it's a little short. If we can track down that PC Gamer you mentioned at the AfD, I would personally be satisfied with notability requirements and would also help to rewrite the article around the available sourcing. I'll do some looking for it this weekend. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@KoiUnderlight: I googled "PC Gamer" "Underlight" and sadly wasn't able to find anything. I think we've got enough sources to meet WP:N, but of course a 2-page article from PC Gamer would help immensely if you can find it! (Feel free to tell me to knock off the pinging if you've got the hang of your Watchlist.) Woodroar (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Woodroar, I'm sorry about the pinging, I hadn't realized that I could use the watchlist to keep track of the conversation. I'll stop pinging you, thanks again for your help and your advice. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no worries! I was actually wondering if I was bothering you by pinging you on these replies, haha. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Not bothering me at all, by all means ping me if you have any questions or need any help finding additional sources for game articles. I tend to do a lot of searching through and other sites to find info on old games that I loved, even when it's frustrating at times with all the broken links and images. Thanks again! KoiUnderlight (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)