Talk:Freedom City

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I've added a bunch of currently-empty links to FC characters on this page.....if writing articles would violate copyright, please feel free to delete them. I plan on adding information, (Bio only, no game stats) on these characters to wikipedia, but was wondering if other people familiar with Kenson's work could help.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samantha O'Donnell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current Resident/Former Resident

Do these distinctions have any real meaning in an RPG setting?--Drvanthorp 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MnM Cover FC.jpg

Image:MnM Cover FC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research removed

I have removed long sections of original research from this article. If you want to add it back, it needs citations to reliable sources showing that these characters exist and that they are analogues of comic book characters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==Um...no, sorry. you don't to decide unilaterally what others "have to do" to edit Wikipedia. Cite a rule before making demands, and assume good faith.

== Frankly, the "research" speaks for itself. Anyone with even cursory familiarity with this product knows it was based on Author Kenson's own RPG gaming group, which in turn was based on popular comics they had read. the individual characters in the Freedom City narrative are clearly based on those in those comics. To give an example, the article cites Malador the Mystic as analogous to Mordru of DC or Baron Mordo of Marvel, who are each significantly different from each other, but at their base, are both stereotypical "evil wizards" practicing some from of "black arts" and are common to adventure fiction of all kinds.

== The editor, or editors, including this material in the article are citing reference via the inclusion of these analogs and what you are asking is for is a citation of a citation, essentially. The resultant work effort would be nearly as long as the article itself...just, please, let it be. The article as is isn't hurting anyone. If you want to add things, fine, but destroying the work put in here is not going to improve the quality of the wiki.

==Take a look at the cover of Freedom City. The character in the dead center looks like a cross between Dynamo of T.H.U.N,D.E.R Agents and Captain Marvel...the latter of whom is an analog of Superman. Clearly, this character, whomever he is, is meant to be the legal stand in for that square-jawed paragon of justice character so common in comics. By comparison, the female to his right is also clearly intended to be Wonder Woman. No further citation need be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.223.224 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for engaging on the talk page. I am not deciding anything unilaterally. The entire "Inhabitants" section is unreferenced. Your final paragraph above is the very essence of original research, the prohibition of which is one of three key Wikipedia policies. As written, the Inhabitants section was unverifiable, because no references to reliable sources had been provided. That is why I have removed it. I'm not just making up my own rules. These are the core policies of Wikipedia.

If, as you say, "Anyone with even cursory familiarity with this product knows it was based on Author Kenson's own RPG gaming group, which in turn was based on popular comics they had read", then it should be easy for you, or another editor, to provide reliable sources that demonstrate this knowledge. If the references are as long as the article, then wonderful, that makes a verifiable encyclopedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also reverted my copy edits, which is disruptive editing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely acting unilaterally, the definition of which is to act of one's own accord, without the co-operation of others. By editing out the tremendous effort of multiple other editors, by yourself, you are acting unilaterally.

In fact, neither my paragraph, nor the material contained in the article which you erased, constitute Original Research as defined by Wikipedia policy, which states clearly, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Furthermore, the policy goes on to state that "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

Since this article concerns a copywritten book, which one may reasonably conclude exists, then inclusion of excessive material from such a source would run counter to Wikipedia's policy on copyright. Therefore, the challenge would then be to prove that characters so listed such as Malador the Mystic do not exist in the book Freedom City, as you have used as your unilateral basis for reinclusion, rather than proving that they do exist in that book. The source material speaks for itself.

Lastly, the reversion of copy edits does NOT constitute disruptive editing, which is defined by Wikipedia as "...a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." If disruptive editing were to be defined as you see it, no one would be able to edit Wikipedia, as any alteration to pre-existing contributions would be seen as inherently "disruptive". Clearly, this is not the case.

However, the removal of nearly 2/3rds of the material of the article, merely because it is inclusive of material from the source begin discussed, neither improves the article nor builds Wikipedia, but rather reduces it. Therefore, the act of removing such material, rather than revising it to meet a standard with which you would be more comfortable, does in fact, constitute "disruptive editing". Please refrain from further removal of the included material for this reason.

In conclusion, I would rather inquire as to what type of reference or citation would you be comfortable with? To follow with the example of Malador the Mystic from the Book itself, that character is compared to DC Comic's character Mordru. This comparison is referenced be a direct link between this article and the Wiki page for Mordru, making verifiability simple and clear to reasonable readers. Again, please do not revert the data in the article without demonstrating your basis for determination of Original Research and a more specific guideline for acceptable reference. 4.15.30.244 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, one must add references when one is challenged. You disagree with WP:OR because sources exist somewhere. Well, where are they? WP:OR says The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged You have been challenged. You now must provide inline citations. Add in an independent, reliable sources and the material stays. You are disruptive editing. You are reverted anything Jonesey95 has added, including copy edits. You are reverting when challenged with adding a source. Any more reverts or adding material without references and the page will be locked. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The inline references are ALREADY THERE and were removed ! The characters so named ARE IN THE BOOK THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT see WP: OR as quoted above. I do not disagree with the OR research policy in any way, my position is in full compliance with that policy. You have given no explanation as to why my reverts either constitute a violation of OR nor do you cite any cause as to why my reverts are disruptive, except to state that they are, so therefore, I must disregard this conclusion.

However, that said, I'm sure as an Administrator you will lock the page, and probably ban me from editing without comment or cogent argument. 4.15.30.244 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said, Any more reverts or adding material without references and the page will be locked.. You did not add one reference. You have yet to add once reference. Page is protected. Three people have said the burden is on you to add a reference. We have shown you where it says you must add a reference or a revert will happen. Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging in discussion, IP editor. A reference to a reliable source would be a citation of a non-Wikipedia source, other than the book that is the subject of the article, that says "Character X in this book is comparable to Character Y in Marvel comics." If there is a reliable source that says something to that effect, you can re-add a statement about Character X to this article, followed by a citation to that reliable source. Linking to other Wikipedia articles does not count as citing a source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inline references are considered acceptable under Wikipedia policy. The material is to be restored. Note to Admin BGwhite: Threats to lock the page due to editing are Admin Abuse and will be reported as such. 65.88.88.40 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a TWO MONTH LOCK on a page?? For constructive edits?? BGWhite, you're a piece of work.65.88.88.40 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite: Giving you a chance to unprotect page, as you gave no valid reason to protect page and you are involved directly as an editor, having removed the data yourself. (See History) As you must know, policy WP:INVOLVED bars you from protecting the page at this point, as you acting in both an editorial and administrative role. 4.15.30.244 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do all the Wiki lawyering you want. Report me. Simple fact is you have refused to add references. You have blamed everybody but yourself. You were also edit warring by reverting and never adding refs. Until you actually show refs, the page will not be unprotected. This talk page is available to add refs. You have been told umpteen times to add refs and repeating the same thing every time is going nowhere. This is the last time I'll talk on the page until refs are added.

WP:ANI is where to report me and you can ask page to be unprotected at the same time. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where to ask for unprotection. Bgwhite (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite Ok, so, what you've said is you will not respond to inquiries about why you're doing what you're doing, you will not assume good faith and you will make accusations out of hand. So, this just becomes a game of patience. If it takes weeks, months, years, I will restore that material. Ban me, bar me, take me before the board take me back to Ol Virgina, I don't care...I wasted a discussion, you're demanding a war. - Stick that in your tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.15.30.244 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love this shit. If Original Research doesn't work, then revert the article as an Admin. If they're stupid enough to restore it three times, ban them. If they don't, then accuse them of disruptive editing. If you can't show why it's disruptive, then protect the article. If that doesn't work, then accuse them of "Lawyering" foe asking the rules be followed. Face it, BGWhite, youre nothing but a bully with a banhammer. Rules are off. Must restore article (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must restore article: Your edit summary is not civil and constitutes a personal attack. Do better, please. As for "I will restore that material", we have told you multiple times that you are welcome to restore any material, as long as it is sourced to reliable sources external to Wikipedia. Bgwhite and I have linked to Wikipedia policy and quoted from Wikipedia policy above. We have been helpful. You have been belligerent and have refused to acknowledge that we are trying to help you. I believe that you are able to read and understand words. Please choose to do so. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]