User talk:Woodroar/Archive 2

Yeah, it's a terrible source, found to be specifically unreliable by WikiProject Video games. Thanks for the head's up, though, I'll send it through AfD. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Please do not remove the reviews and interviews on the Astro Empires article, so others can decide for themselves if they are reliable or not. As this article is being considered for deletion it deserves all the arguments, don't you agree? --82.154.193.22 (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguments for or against deletion are best made on

burden of proof would be on the editor who adds or restores material (i.e., you), so again I would suggest bringing them up at the AfD page. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt. Unfortunately you also removed the link to an interview with the creator of the game on one of the top-selling newspapers in Portugal (Correio da Manhã), which is clearly relevant. Might want to restore that reference as it can prove important for this article, the others can be added to the discussion as you suggested. I'm an editor on the Portuguese Wikipedia and Astro Empires has an article there, I believe this game should have one on the English Wikipedia as well, since it's played mainly by Americans, Canadians and British. P.S: Sorry for not using an account here, but the username I have on the PT Wikipedia is already being used here, so I need to have it changed first. --85.240.43.160 (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a trivial fluff piece and, "top-selling newspaper" or not, doesn't even appear to list the author. Plus, the article is more about the gamemaker than the game itself. What it does mention about the game is a 3-year old player count (active players or simple signup count? we don't know because the article lacks depth) and conjecture about the age of its players, which is odd because the character-creation page doesn't seem to ask that question. This appears to be exactly the type of journalism that we don't want in our articles. Feel free to bring it up on the AfD discussion or the article's Talk page if you still feel that it's an important source. Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivial or not it's proof that this game is notorious, at least for the Portuguese media (besides 2 interviews the review from the MyGames website is also relevant, thus why there is an article on the Portuguese Wikipedia for this game). You may argue if the interview in question is enough to keep the article from being deleted, but it's relevant enough to show on the references of the article, at least that's my opinion and nothing on the

WP:SOURCES seems to say otherwise. However I'll do as you suggested and bring it up on the AfD discussion. Cheers. --85.240.43.160 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why was Bloodline Champions entry deleted by you with the comment "not an MMO" when there are numerous non-MMO games on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.57.114 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that other links should not be included there, feel free to bring it up on the article's talk page or remove them yourself. Or let me know which shouldn't be there and I'll look into it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really interested in maintaining the page and even less about wikipedia politics; just wanted to add a game which is aligned with other games on the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.57.114 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2011

But it's not "aligned with other games on the page". The article is about free

massively multiplayer online games, which Bloodline Champions is not, so it doesn't belong at all. If you feel that other games listed in the article don't belong there, please point them out. Alternatively, if you feel that the article title is misleading, feel free to bring it up at Talk:List of free massively multiplayer online games

.

Also, please remember to sign your edits on talk pages using 4 tildes (~~~~). Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

the link i put was relevent to the article it mentioned that you could not use mobile phones to play anymore and i was telling the readers that you can log in and how to do it the link i placed on the page was an exaple of how to log into the new travian version 4 that is replacing all serves as it rolls out and [spam link removed] is the link needed to log into travian.com server 9 if that is not directly relevent im a monkeys uncle and you are a scolar

and i wont bother trying to update or correct any of the information on the most unreliable source of information since BINGSuperconcepts (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're not here to assist users with bypassing software restrictions/limitations or running games on platforms which aren't supported. It's just not what we do. Woodroar (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you removed my mention of the Ashes of Athas campaign on the above articles based on notoriety and possible bias. It has now been two months since the Ashes of Athas campaign premiered at a convention. It was received well, written up on a multitude of prominent gaming blogs, mentioned on an official Wizards of the Coast podcast, is about to feature at four more conventions in the next two months, and will have new offerings at the three largest gaming conventions in the US this year. It seems pretty relevant for those pages to have the content. I reviewed the notoriety page but it is difficult to assess the language within the context of gaming (itself a relatively small genre). As a Dark Sun and living campaign fan, I find it really strange to not mention a Dark Sun living campaign. I am one of the admins, so I can understand the worry about bias, but it really isn't my reasoning here. I'm seeking help on understanding at what point a living campaign bears mention. Thanks! --Alphastream (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If it meets our

WP:Sources, as sometimes the search engines find blog and forum posts on otherwise reliable sites, and we can't base content on amateur sources like those.) You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, I'm sure you'll find some knowledgeable people there. (Personally, I've been both a Wikipedian and an avid D&D player for years now, but I'm not a member of WikiProject D&D so I'm not sure about their project-specific policies.) And as for writing the article itself, they have a style guide to assist with that. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But look, I've never deleted things that are referenced, I have only things with references completely valids, and I do not understand why these are reverted. --Asdfmovie (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless,

second opinion, or even check one of our various noticeboards for more options. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the tips about Wikipedia content. I'll be sure to delete stuff right away that doesn't fit the standards. You sure know how to make somebody feel welcome. Qchristensen (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

With 270 edits since 2005, you've been here long enough to know our policies and guidelines, and that we're

not an indiscriminate collection of junk. Woodroar (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, noticed that you removed my addition to the list too. Me and the board have gathered together and decided to readd it though. Love, Monkey alan Industries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.139.3 (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you decide it's spam, doesn't mean it is. There are no medals involved for making peoples life a trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.228.64 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't decide it's spam. The

the notability requirements for web content, write the article first and then we can include an internal link to the new article. Woodroar (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a disease.[1]^[2][3][4][5]

Thoughts? Please help stop the insanity. -Object404 (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia keeps stats on active Wikipedians and new Wikipedians. January 2011 had the largest one-month increase in active users (+12%) since March 2006 (+15%). We also keep stats on article creation, and it's falling into a normal plateau, which can be expected for a work of this nature and duration. Your sources are summaries of the same article, from 2009. The times have changed.

I understand your POV, and I empathize. Many users are discouraged when their well-intentioned edits are are reverted or removed, but you have to remember that we have

spamming

simply because users may get discouraged and leave the project? I suspect that you do not. If you do, I strongly suggest starting your own everything-goes media site, but first hire a good lawyer, because you'll need it.

Let me close with a personal example. I'm both a fan of music and a musician myself. Some of my first edits were creating articles about local musicians—yes, including a band that I once was a part of—and these articles were deleted without warning of any kind because the bands themselves didn't meet

WP:BAND

. I didn't include references of any kind, and if I had, they would have been interviews with zines and indie music websites, not anything even resembling legitimate music journalism. I've learned a lot of things since then, like how Wikipedia is about creating a user-edited encyclopedia about stuff that matters. Quite honestly, Wikipedia doesn't care if I write and release a record unless reliable sources consider it noteworthy, and I'm fine with that.

I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt Riot,

I noticed you have previously contributed to the Mankato city page. I'm new to Wikipedia and have been practicing a little on that page, and I wanted to recommend a change. The Academic Institutions section is not very informative, and not up to snuff with Wikipedia's MOS recommendation that sections be written in prose-style. I left a suggestion on the talk page, but (perhaps not surprisingly) I haven't received a response. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know what you think? Thanks! Balloccoli (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the list format is necessarily bad in that section, but it could definitely be changed the prose. (Anything could, for that matter.) As could, for example, the Media and Places of interest sections. I'll see if I can find some time to work on it, but quite honestly, I'm probably not the person to do it. Even though I live there (or here, actually), I didn't go to any of those schools and don't listen to the radio. I might be able to turn the Places of interest section into prose, but I can't promise it'll be any good. :) I'll see what I can do when I find the time. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so obsessed with what I'm doing? you kept campaigning to delete my artice, and now you're nagging me about copyright laws for a photo I never actually worked out how to use on an article which no longer exists. Get off my back! by the way, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_whole_system_is_unfair_and_biased - I'm sure you'de have plenty of annoying beauracratic comments to make about it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicianpig (talk • contribs) 12:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the image deleted because it doesn't qualify as

copyright violation as the original image is a screenshot from a film. Again, something that, had you read the disclaimers on the upload page itself, you would know. Writing an article about a non-notable subject is one thing, but uploading an image of dubious copyright status and claiming that it meets fair-use guidelines is another, and it puts Wikipedia in a potentially difficult legal situation unless the image is removed. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but please read before you edit. Every single one of our "rules" of which you're claiming ignorance has been explained to you, often multiple times. Woodroar (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they've been explained to me, countless times, mostly by you, but what I've been saying on the village pump page is that these tiny picky rules are ridiculous and deliberately confusing. And about that image. It doesn't matter!I didn't even use the image! Now please, GET OFF MY BACK! (Alicianpig (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

You're essentially asking that we sit idly by why you expose the project to legal risks. I'm sorry, but I can't do that.

And vandalizing my User page? Seriously, that's not just a "tiny picky rule", it's common sense. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WWIIOL was released June of 2001. That would make it the first MMOFPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.25.55 (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the article Massively multiplayer online game is about just that: massively multiplayer online games, not World War II Online. Extensive discussion of WWIIO belongs in its own article. Woodroar (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The MMOG article has a section that describes the different types of MMO games and has erroneous information claiming others to be the first MMOFPS, that's all I'm saying. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.25.55 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The best way to fix this is to find a

reliable source and edit the article. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Raja Online is a classic 2D MMORPG well-known in Asia (and now spread to Europe). Just because Americans (or wherever you're from) are ignorant of it, it doesn't mean it's not a classic. The game has been around since 1999 and still loved by many. Not many MMORPGs, especially from the late 90s, are still around these days. DRO has had servers in numerous Asian regions throughout the last decade, notably in Korea, Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan. It was at one point one of the top three MMORPG games in Hong Kong, for instance. If you're allowing Wikipedia to be that myopic, then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.181.251.131 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If the game meets

we wait for the article to be written before adding it to list entries. You can find all of this information and more linked above, at the top of my Talk page. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 38.126.23.254 (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, perhaps the most polite I've ever seen. (No kidding.) While I generally try to follow the wishes of an artist/group/publisher/etc. in my own personal writing, in this situation the community has set policies and guidelines (such as on

Manual of Style, which—like the style guide any other publisher—can be idiosyncratic and perhaps a little strange at first. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, but I think I know what I am doing. The guy who reversed my edits is an enemy of mine on NS. While no third party sources reported on it, it was quite a big event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Man Billy-Bob Jenkins (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 June 2012

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia is based on

Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not fight. Woodroar (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Goyo1980 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits primarily because they were copied and pasted from a copyrighted website, which violates our

policy on external links

may allow the link, but that's still questionable because the sign itself could be copyrighted and the content, if true, should be referenced elsewhere.

So, in short: the text would need to be summarized and reliably sourced; the photo and link would need to be cleared of potential copyright issues, but even that's unnecessary because other, more reliable, sources should exist that will allow us to write something better than the sign itself. Ultimately,

Wikipedia is a work in progress

, and eventually we'll have a nice, fully-featured article on Wagah, but we can't cut corners to get there.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to reply. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wyatt Riot,

My posting(s) over on the Anita S article talk page is/are related to a gender-gap list discussion that may have weighed in on the issues late, but some g-gappers were skeptical about notability. I'm open-minded and interested in the consensus. We don't know now, but if evidence of self-promotion appears, which is what has skeptical thinkers speaking up, then it could be revisited. Thanks for your comments, and keep up the thoughtful work. KSRolph (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll be good. The article existed for a year prior to the Kickstarter controversy, and professors have used her videos in classes, so I don't think it it's in danger. Plus, it would be bad form for anyone to nominate the article for deletion so quickly after the last AfD. I hope, at least. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you will bare with me, I only removed those red links just to reach 1,000 edits. I know it's crazy but, now that I've accomplished my goal, there's no purpose in that. --Jayemd (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, that was quick. I actually moved the article in order to prod it. I'll add a note at the MfD discussion page once it's up. Woodroar (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right before I block you as a sock puppet! I've had something like this before, with an article that I nominated for speedy deletion: Keosaychay Sayasone. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

What's funny is that I even anticipated how it would look and wrote out the prod template in Notepad, but to no avail. The singularity can't come soon enough; only then will I be able to move and tag at the same time. Woodroar (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, whoops, right you are! CCS81 (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No worries! :) I could have easily done the same thing—especially when the IP removed tags along with the number change—the edits just looked suspicious overall. Woodroar (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for helping me save face. I will do a better job with my counting next time. Meanwhile, thanks for all the helpful editing you do. Best, CCS81 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Typing Wahga will show you Wahga Results except those derived by Google from Wikipedia indicating such term exists. In Pakistan, sign boards also read Wahga and the same exist in Government Record. Even the article Wagah in WP, writes it in Urdu as واہگہ where ہ in واہگہ is analogous to H. Since Wahga/Wagah is a shared border between the two countries, it was a good idea to move page to Wagah (Wahga) instead of redirecting. --

Hello! I'm writing specifically about this but also more generally about copyright violation. I have read the

p.s. I've asked Jim1138 to contribute, as he's also of the same opinion as you. Hope you don't mind! BigSteve (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Zeurit1 on YouTube likely did not have permission to use the video from the

wp:fringe sources, and sensationalizes their videos. This makes for good entertainment, but not for good science. Best not to use THC as a source of history nor science. Thanks for asking. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, that all seems fair enough - your

WP:CV

pages?

Aside from that - would the THC be a good link in the context of the fact that the Nemesis hypothesis is in itself controversial, and therefore adding an "unreliable source" cannot really make it even more controversial, but would merely explain the controversy? If you see what I mean :-) BigSteve (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, History channel, how far ye have fallen! :) They used to broadcast documentaries on actual historical events, now it's all

WP:V. But that's just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be a good link for what not to link to? :) Scientifically, Nemesis is not controversial, as there is simply no evidence to support the hypothesis. At one time it "explained" the apparent cycle of asteroid impacts on Earth, but no longer. The only controversy that I see is THC and others using 'scary' Nemesis for profit.

Fear mongering? Maybe a new article Fear mongering for political gain and profit? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry fellas, was away for a bit. Thank you so much for the input - I seriously had no idea THC has fallen behind so much in recent years (I have not had it on my cable provider for yonks, get Viasat History instead, maybe that's why they dropped it?). But, yeah, I never personally considered Nemesis a serious theory, merely wanted to add info to it, but since it turns out THC's a dud, I see your point. Thanks again, and enjoy the holidays :-) BigSteve (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I've reverted some of your changes to the

Alternately, please feel free to combine both sections into one DragonSpires article covering both incarnations. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any references suggesting that the sequel is notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As stated, it is not a sequel. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So it's essentially a port with a different plot and artwork? (Not being facetious, just trying to narrow down what it is.) Do we have any references saying that it's notable? Woodroar (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that you're only asking now, to be completely honest (as you say, just trying to get at something) you should have looked into the notability or at least asked on the talk page before blanking the information. That's sort of a sidenote, though. Essentially the game was created with very slim playability, basically just a demo. Then the creators lost interest and, upon request, allowed others to assume control of the project. So there's a fluid change-over of staff who then moved the game into Java as opposed to its old language. It's a single game with a staff change and a change of format, after which it was developed much further over the course of years. More than one map, enemy creatures, and so on. For example, if World of Warcraft were given an all-new staff who changed the language it was coded in, would that make the original game in a new format "a sequel"? I'd be interested in re-writing the article, but I worry it'll be blanked again while I'm doing so, or my end result won't pass the test with anyone who looks for reasons to delete when it would be so much more beneficial to help embetter the article. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to address the "plot and artwork" bit. The first stage had no plot, not speaking figuratively - there was no plot. As things progressed, new artwork was needed because you can't add monsters and new lands without the artwork. Eventually, years later, the old art was replaced as well. It's more of a process than an abrupt change, when you look at it. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking about references because I looked for them when I originally deleted the content and couldn't find any. Rather, I should say that I only found the typical forums, SourceForge download pages, press releases, and advertising/game-referral sites, nothing that meets our requirements for references. To continue your example, if Blizzard did ask a team to continue work on World of Warcraft, we should still have a reference pointing towards that fact, and if we were going to write about the port we'd also need references on which to base that part of the article, as required by

WP:N, our basic requirement for the article existing in the first place. If you can find references, I'd be glad to help, but I couldn't find them. Woodroar (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It might just be me, but it seems like you're coming at this from an odd angle, arguing that everything mentioned about a game must have references. Can an article say "Mario jumps on enemies" without a reference? And so on. A game having a staff change doesn't smell like something legitimately in need of reference. In the end, DragonSpires is one game whose programming language and staff changed. If the Wired article is not enough for notability, then remove the entire article since it is all one game. This is a years-old article approved by your predecessors, with changes that are years-old and also approved. I don't see this shaping up to be anything other than part of a hobby - clearing out material because you can find a reason to. I'm not saying that to be mean or incite anything, it really seems to be what's going on since you took it down without mentioning it on the talk page before OR after doing so. Also, I don't see any mention about my comment on rewriting the article, you are simply continuing on the track of removing information. Please do not touch the

DragonSpires page again without seeking concensus. Even if it doesn't go how I'd prefer, I'm still asking you to back up your actions with uninvested third parties based on our exchange here. 4.154.6.11 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if we're writing about it, it should be referenced. Now, pragmatically, not everything needs to be sourced, just enough for us to write a thorough article, and we can usually get that from "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which happens to be our

WP:NOT

and, unless someone notices via my contributions or list of new articles, it could remain indefinitely. Of course, I hope you understand that's no reason to keep an article.

As requested, I've asked uninvolved editors to weigh in at

WP:BURDEN in mind and include references. Woodroar (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you think Wired, a major publication in the field at the time, is non-notable, it is clear that there is some sort of disconnect here. While waiting for reply, I decided to start rewriting the article and recently finished. I'll check back and see what the results are, but I'm not interested in taking part in the kerfuffle. Link all the standards you want, the spirit of the site and its usage remains that same. I get the feeling you'll continue finding more ancient, well accepted articles full of information to remove on technicalities from here. I've seen it before, where Wikipedia becomes a browser-based "search & destroy" game. Well, thanks for bringing this to others' attention, though I had originally asked you to ask others before editing or removing something, not just for you to go bring it before everyone immediately. I'll be bowing out of the conversation now, as I've spent enough time making my point(s). 4.154.6.11 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point Woodroar is trying to make; while DragonSpires itself may have some level of notability, the port does not appear to. Moreover, one two-paragraph mention in a Wired news roundup column is not, under Wikipedia's guidelines, sufficient to justify a standalone article. The whole point of the notability criteria is that it is a "gut check" as to whether there are likely to be reliable sources for everything in the article. It is entirely possible that a great article can be written about the original DragonSpires and its continuations, but that it would count as "original research" and so cannot be hosted here because of the verifiability requirements. GreenReaper (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Woodroar. You have new messages at Talk:Crusader Kings II.
Message added 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.