The sources identify Mt. Helium/Apex Theory as a progressive metal band. Industrial metal and nu metal are not in any of the sources. -- 74.32.168.246 ( talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Gringoladomenega is still evading the block. See this edit history and my report. SLBedit ( talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm typing this out because I see that (unfortunately) the pokemon sage wikipedia article still contains many inaccuracies, and (unfortunately) many of my fellow developers who don't understand wikipedia are still posting hostile and unproductive messages in the talk page in an effort to correct the info or have the page deleted.
For context, I previously tried to speak to the author of the page here in an effort to handle this in the way it has to be per wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I think it went to an arbitrator or something, but unfortunately I needed to stop because I had other priorities. From what I recall talking with him and some arbitrator, it was discussed that what we needed to do to correct the inaccuracies was produce a usable source that would clarify that info. IRC, some suggestions provided by him or the arbitrator were that the front page of our wiki be edited to specifically dismiss the inaccuracies present in some of the articles used as sources, since Bulbapedia's article (which, apparently, no longer exists, i'll get back to this later) used bulbapedia's front page as a source (the logic was that if the front page was locked from random edits and only admins could edit it it would be usable), that our fourm admins make a press release to clarify it, or that we somehow contacted the authors of the articles that are used as sources to update their articles or that a new article came out that clarifies.
My understanding, is that all 3 of those things happened: we did get our front page edited, we did produce a press release of source (via a stream where I and a few of the other developers spoke in person and addressed the issue) and another gaming news site did make an article that addressed the inaccuracies came along. I don't have links to any of those things on hand (we overhauled the front page again a few days ago so I don't think that info is present anymore), but reading over the articles talk page I see that other people have brought those up as well: Are those still not sufficient?
Anyways, I think a great deal of us would prefer the article itself be deleted: Is that truly not possible at this point? I understand that Kotaku and the other sites used as sources are considered by wikipedia to be reliable in general, but reading reliable sources and the noticeboard, it seems to me that reputability can be considered in a case by case basis depending on context, that is, that a source, even if it's from a website or publication that is usually considered reliable, can be considered unreptuable in a particular circumstance: if so, then can that not apply here?
I also question if we meet notability requirements: While there are a number of articles about us, I very much doubt that it's substantially more then many other works (official or fanmade or otherwise) that have an equivalent amount of coverage that do not have articles, and, I would guess, have had articles made but have been deleted due to a lack of notability. Could you explain if my thinking here is valid in regards to how wikipedia functions (as in, this is valid logic and I could use it to act on to propose the page be deleted), and if so, how I should proceed on that?
Lastly, I notice that bulbapedia no longer has a main article, but has instead been reduced to a single line on the main pokemon article. Bublapedia was, and still is, a much larger and more complex topic then we are: If it was able to be moved from it's own article to a mere mention on the main pokemon one, could the same not occur for our article? I also know that in the past, wikipedia used to have individual pages for individual pokemon creatures, or listed them more comprehensively then they currently are, so: what's the process for changing how a topic is listed from it having it's own article vs there being 1 article that acts as a list that that topic would be included in vs there just being a section on the overarching subject's page where it's mentioned?
Anyways, I would appreciate a response. I understand that you've been dealing with this subject (as in, pokemon sage) for a while here on wikipedia (in fact, I remember now: There was no arbitrator, I was thinking of this discussion, which I see you were involved with), but unlike many of the other individuals who you have dealt with over this, I understand and can appreciate that wikipedia has a lot of rules, and, even if we disagree with them or they aren't helpful in this situation, they need to be followed unless they get changed, so I would hope that interacting with me would be more pleasant then with them. Jabberwock xeno ( talk) 21:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, here's the long version:
In my opinion, I think the easiest route would be to try to get a third party source to correct the content. There's also potential in the merging route: There's no definite, deal-breaking policy that would prevent a merger. It would largely come down to what the consensus of the discussion would dictate. Some may say there's enough content to warrant its own article, while other may feel its better as a small part of a bigger article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you please block User:Stevietheman for 24 hours? He keeps leaving harassing messages on my talk page in an attempt to try and provoke me, then claims I can't remove them. A statement that goes against /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#OWNTALK He is also claiming multiple users are using this IP which isn't true, all edits are mine.-- 76.107.252.227 ( talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I need some clarification on this, given your recent edit on Fire Emblem Fates. The source you restored says it's the twelfth entry in the series, not counting remakes. But footnotes in this Iwata Asks concerning the game (footnotes 1 and 6) calls Awakening the fourteenth and Fates the fifteenth entry in the series respectively. I also know that there are sources (mostly reviews) calling Awakening the thirteenth installment. I would go with Nintendo's statement in the Iwata Asks personally, but what do you think? -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to erase this Gothic-punk page that it is not even a stub - 2 lines created in 2009- and merge it to Goth subculture as it is already covered on the latter article. I've been bringing a lot of content to both Gothic rock and Goth Subculture articles these last years. This page Gothic-punk with these 2 lines should be withdrawn and merged to Goth subculture. Strangely, the almost double Gothic punk has been merged to Gothic rock, but "Gothic-punk" wasn't. We should correct this, could you do it please? Thanks. Woovee ( talk) 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Nintendo own Creatures Inc. and part of Game Freak? I don't understand how it's a three way partnership.-- occono ( talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
why did you change "god" into "God" in the sonic colors article? Valehd ( talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the Green Couch Project.
Looked into it, and this editor seems to be pushing an anti-LGBT agenda. They've done similar stuff over at Sailor Moon, and made "official-looking" warnings to other editors. This quote is bizarre, and is quite telling: "To insert those categories would ultimately give other people (who may not even support the LGBT movement) reading the article the assumption that every person who does enjoy Sailor Moon is a homosexual (and/or supports SSM)". I don't personally watch/read Sailor Moon or know much about it, so I'm not confident enough to re-add the categories, but the reasoning for their removal is flawed regardless, and there is a sourced part in the article about female homosexuality.-- IDV talk 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Serge,I am trying to create a wikipedia Article for the Singer Musical Artist.
Hi SerdeCross73,
You have got in Wikipedia page about other website like GameDesire ( /info/en/?search=Gamezebo).Why do You delete my article? We have got article about GameDesire in Poland ( https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameDesire).
Best Regards Kaszna ( talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
^thats being used in a neutral tone right? im trying to understand neutral tone and canvassing. Anyways, i wanted your input on adding the lgbt category, its being discussed on this talk page /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#lgbt_category 66.25.246.226 ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK maybe they are not american punk but they are Chicago punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
And despite all of that i have some proof that rise against is a Chicago punk rock band and my evidence shows that when you are punk its not like green day with their makeup or politics or video games and you cannot judge a band with their sound of music and albums because you will be end being wrong and a mater of face here's this they are vegans and straight edge which that mean is that they do not do drungs or drink the only one is Barnes they do talk about animail rights and anti buyling and politics thats punk i got people who agree with my statement in Wikipedia i can come up with a vote to prove it ps 2 things that right is they do have alternative and melodic hardcore but 2 thing are wrong they do have punk rock and meoldic hardcore look at give it all and help is on the way and make it stop Jg9443 ( talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S rise Against should be like this Rise against is a chicago punk rock band from chicago formed in the summer of 1999 Not rise against is american punk rock band becouse that is were punk rock is popular from and also united kingdom plus they curetly sigh to fat wreak chords were they only acept punk rock so think about that because like i said their is a lot of people who agree on me in wiki Jg9443 ( talk) 21:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
can you tell 4thewayne that can he put rise against is a chacago punk rock band that the descsion we made Jg9443 ( talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were still active, so since you were the protecting admin, would you mind handling my Request for unprotection for FIFA 14? True CRaysball | #RaysUp 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Serge, My name is katerina, and I've been using wikipedia for a long time now, especialy when I research music, and this is why I'm leaving you this message, because you seem intrested in music too especialy rock, so my request or a suggestion to make our lifes much more easier if possible of course, is to have a page that seperates different genres of music, so that people can find what they are looking for exacly, without the need to search for a specific band or artist. Please respond to my message as soon as possible and thank you. P.S : You are doing a great job, I read a lot of the articles that you edited, and they were amazing.
WWE WrestleMania 33 does not exist. The creator of this page has completely made it up. This page needs to be deleted.
KC Roosters —
Talk 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! You recently added on GTANet.com article, that it may not be following general notability guide. I am aware that not every statement has reliable reference. So, if you could assist me, what parts of page should I leave out? Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much on your assistance! I found few sources about the subject in google books. I also found this and this on IGN. Do you think these are good enough to be added? Would they go well as source for claim predicting content of the upcoming GTA titles in the article? I will also try to remove all fansites that don't serve as fact info. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I will try finding such sources. Thank you for helping me. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for being very helpful! Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hey there. I want to discuss the removal of the this from the lead of That's The Spirit -- it's not a case of reliable sources, more just a case of the sentence fitting in with the lead, especially when there is a lack of content that is there already. Before I removed the sentence, I thought about moving it to the reviews section of the article, but then the article would be repeating itself.
I feel like the "According to Jon Wiederhorn of Rolling Stone" part should be removed from the lead, that would make it look better. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources identify Mt. Helium/Apex Theory as a progressive metal band. Industrial metal and nu metal are not in any of the sources. -- 74.32.168.246 ( talk) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Gringoladomenega is still evading the block. See this edit history and my report. SLBedit ( talk) 13:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm typing this out because I see that (unfortunately) the pokemon sage wikipedia article still contains many inaccuracies, and (unfortunately) many of my fellow developers who don't understand wikipedia are still posting hostile and unproductive messages in the talk page in an effort to correct the info or have the page deleted.
For context, I previously tried to speak to the author of the page here in an effort to handle this in the way it has to be per wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I think it went to an arbitrator or something, but unfortunately I needed to stop because I had other priorities. From what I recall talking with him and some arbitrator, it was discussed that what we needed to do to correct the inaccuracies was produce a usable source that would clarify that info. IRC, some suggestions provided by him or the arbitrator were that the front page of our wiki be edited to specifically dismiss the inaccuracies present in some of the articles used as sources, since Bulbapedia's article (which, apparently, no longer exists, i'll get back to this later) used bulbapedia's front page as a source (the logic was that if the front page was locked from random edits and only admins could edit it it would be usable), that our fourm admins make a press release to clarify it, or that we somehow contacted the authors of the articles that are used as sources to update their articles or that a new article came out that clarifies.
My understanding, is that all 3 of those things happened: we did get our front page edited, we did produce a press release of source (via a stream where I and a few of the other developers spoke in person and addressed the issue) and another gaming news site did make an article that addressed the inaccuracies came along. I don't have links to any of those things on hand (we overhauled the front page again a few days ago so I don't think that info is present anymore), but reading over the articles talk page I see that other people have brought those up as well: Are those still not sufficient?
Anyways, I think a great deal of us would prefer the article itself be deleted: Is that truly not possible at this point? I understand that Kotaku and the other sites used as sources are considered by wikipedia to be reliable in general, but reading reliable sources and the noticeboard, it seems to me that reputability can be considered in a case by case basis depending on context, that is, that a source, even if it's from a website or publication that is usually considered reliable, can be considered unreptuable in a particular circumstance: if so, then can that not apply here?
I also question if we meet notability requirements: While there are a number of articles about us, I very much doubt that it's substantially more then many other works (official or fanmade or otherwise) that have an equivalent amount of coverage that do not have articles, and, I would guess, have had articles made but have been deleted due to a lack of notability. Could you explain if my thinking here is valid in regards to how wikipedia functions (as in, this is valid logic and I could use it to act on to propose the page be deleted), and if so, how I should proceed on that?
Lastly, I notice that bulbapedia no longer has a main article, but has instead been reduced to a single line on the main pokemon article. Bublapedia was, and still is, a much larger and more complex topic then we are: If it was able to be moved from it's own article to a mere mention on the main pokemon one, could the same not occur for our article? I also know that in the past, wikipedia used to have individual pages for individual pokemon creatures, or listed them more comprehensively then they currently are, so: what's the process for changing how a topic is listed from it having it's own article vs there being 1 article that acts as a list that that topic would be included in vs there just being a section on the overarching subject's page where it's mentioned?
Anyways, I would appreciate a response. I understand that you've been dealing with this subject (as in, pokemon sage) for a while here on wikipedia (in fact, I remember now: There was no arbitrator, I was thinking of this discussion, which I see you were involved with), but unlike many of the other individuals who you have dealt with over this, I understand and can appreciate that wikipedia has a lot of rules, and, even if we disagree with them or they aren't helpful in this situation, they need to be followed unless they get changed, so I would hope that interacting with me would be more pleasant then with them. Jabberwock xeno ( talk) 21:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, here's the long version:
In my opinion, I think the easiest route would be to try to get a third party source to correct the content. There's also potential in the merging route: There's no definite, deal-breaking policy that would prevent a merger. It would largely come down to what the consensus of the discussion would dictate. Some may say there's enough content to warrant its own article, while other may feel its better as a small part of a bigger article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you please block User:Stevietheman for 24 hours? He keeps leaving harassing messages on my talk page in an attempt to try and provoke me, then claims I can't remove them. A statement that goes against /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#OWNTALK He is also claiming multiple users are using this IP which isn't true, all edits are mine.-- 76.107.252.227 ( talk) 15:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I need some clarification on this, given your recent edit on Fire Emblem Fates. The source you restored says it's the twelfth entry in the series, not counting remakes. But footnotes in this Iwata Asks concerning the game (footnotes 1 and 6) calls Awakening the fourteenth and Fates the fifteenth entry in the series respectively. I also know that there are sources (mostly reviews) calling Awakening the thirteenth installment. I would go with Nintendo's statement in the Iwata Asks personally, but what do you think? -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 15:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to erase this Gothic-punk page that it is not even a stub - 2 lines created in 2009- and merge it to Goth subculture as it is already covered on the latter article. I've been bringing a lot of content to both Gothic rock and Goth Subculture articles these last years. This page Gothic-punk with these 2 lines should be withdrawn and merged to Goth subculture. Strangely, the almost double Gothic punk has been merged to Gothic rock, but "Gothic-punk" wasn't. We should correct this, could you do it please? Thanks. Woovee ( talk) 22:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Nintendo own Creatures Inc. and part of Game Freak? I don't understand how it's a three way partnership.-- occono ( talk) 18:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
why did you change "god" into "God" in the sonic colors article? Valehd ( talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the Green Couch Project.
Looked into it, and this editor seems to be pushing an anti-LGBT agenda. They've done similar stuff over at Sailor Moon, and made "official-looking" warnings to other editors. This quote is bizarre, and is quite telling: "To insert those categories would ultimately give other people (who may not even support the LGBT movement) reading the article the assumption that every person who does enjoy Sailor Moon is a homosexual (and/or supports SSM)". I don't personally watch/read Sailor Moon or know much about it, so I'm not confident enough to re-add the categories, but the reasoning for their removal is flawed regardless, and there is a sourced part in the article about female homosexuality.-- IDV talk 22:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello Serge,I am trying to create a wikipedia Article for the Singer Musical Artist.
Hi SerdeCross73,
You have got in Wikipedia page about other website like GameDesire ( /info/en/?search=Gamezebo).Why do You delete my article? We have got article about GameDesire in Poland ( https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameDesire).
Best Regards Kaszna ( talk) 09:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
^thats being used in a neutral tone right? im trying to understand neutral tone and canvassing. Anyways, i wanted your input on adding the lgbt category, its being discussed on this talk page /info/en/?search=Talk:The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)#lgbt_category 66.25.246.226 ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
OK maybe they are not american punk but they are Chicago punk rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg9443 ( talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
And despite all of that i have some proof that rise against is a Chicago punk rock band and my evidence shows that when you are punk its not like green day with their makeup or politics or video games and you cannot judge a band with their sound of music and albums because you will be end being wrong and a mater of face here's this they are vegans and straight edge which that mean is that they do not do drungs or drink the only one is Barnes they do talk about animail rights and anti buyling and politics thats punk i got people who agree with my statement in Wikipedia i can come up with a vote to prove it ps 2 things that right is they do have alternative and melodic hardcore but 2 thing are wrong they do have punk rock and meoldic hardcore look at give it all and help is on the way and make it stop Jg9443 ( talk) 20:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S rise Against should be like this Rise against is a chicago punk rock band from chicago formed in the summer of 1999 Not rise against is american punk rock band becouse that is were punk rock is popular from and also united kingdom plus they curetly sigh to fat wreak chords were they only acept punk rock so think about that because like i said their is a lot of people who agree on me in wiki Jg9443 ( talk) 21:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
can you tell 4thewayne that can he put rise against is a chacago punk rock band that the descsion we made Jg9443 ( talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were still active, so since you were the protecting admin, would you mind handling my Request for unprotection for FIFA 14? True CRaysball | #RaysUp 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello Serge, My name is katerina, and I've been using wikipedia for a long time now, especialy when I research music, and this is why I'm leaving you this message, because you seem intrested in music too especialy rock, so my request or a suggestion to make our lifes much more easier if possible of course, is to have a page that seperates different genres of music, so that people can find what they are looking for exacly, without the need to search for a specific band or artist. Please respond to my message as soon as possible and thank you. P.S : You are doing a great job, I read a lot of the articles that you edited, and they were amazing.
WWE WrestleMania 33 does not exist. The creator of this page has completely made it up. This page needs to be deleted.
KC Roosters —
Talk 11:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! You recently added on GTANet.com article, that it may not be following general notability guide. I am aware that not every statement has reliable reference. So, if you could assist me, what parts of page should I leave out? Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much on your assistance! I found few sources about the subject in google books. I also found this and this on IGN. Do you think these are good enough to be added? Would they go well as source for claim predicting content of the upcoming GTA titles in the article? I will also try to remove all fansites that don't serve as fact info. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 14:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I will try finding such sources. Thank you for helping me. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 15:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for being very helpful! Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
Hey there. I want to discuss the removal of the this from the lead of That's The Spirit -- it's not a case of reliable sources, more just a case of the sentence fitting in with the lead, especially when there is a lack of content that is there already. Before I removed the sentence, I thought about moving it to the reviews section of the article, but then the article would be repeating itself.
I feel like the "According to Jon Wiederhorn of Rolling Stone" part should be removed from the lead, that would make it look better. Thanks, My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)