User talk:Dnyarri

Tradewars & other info

New posts go at the bottom of a talk page, not the top.
Please sign your posts by using four tildes (~~~~)
Anyone can edit any article on wikipedia. It is extremely poor form to ask someone not to edit an article
We have rules about what information can be included in articles, especially regarding external links
Before adding information to articles, or complaining about the information you've added being removed, I'd suggest learning our policies and guidelines -- frankly, you're flat out wrong and in violation of several policies and guidelines. Please read the following: WP:V WP:NPOV WP:RS WP:EL WP:ATT. I'm sure that will help.
Repeatedly adding inappropriate information or willfully violating our policies is considered disrupted behavior and will get you blocked.

Hope this helps! /Blaxthos 22:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New posts appearantly can go either place. I chose the top to get your attention. It clearly worked. I will post at the bottom here per your request, however.

I'm not a wikinerd, I don't really care about the customs of the people around here but will try to follow your requests hoping you will follow mine.

Yes anyone can edit any page, but if you aren't an expert in the field you probably should consider other people's opinions when making changes. Again, I am not a wikinerd. I ask only that you respect the work and opinions of the experts on a particular page, we are trying to make it easier for new players to find the resources they need to actively play.

I am not asking you to not edit a page, I am asking, politely, that you refrain from making certain types of edits. That is considerably better form than many of the pages I've seen here.

The rules about information includes self-promotional links, these links are not self-promotional. They are designed by the community and supported by hundreds of people. I could draw a dozen analogies here, but it's a waste of time. We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us.

I ask only that yohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dnyarri&action=edit&oldid=134178423u stop making assumptions about topics you are not an expert on, and atleast be willing to consult one before making questionable changes. Thank you.

Dnyarri 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Dnyarri[reply]

Wow, where to begin?

Calling people who follow wikipedia policies and are aware of proper etiquitte "wikinerds" is absolutely unacceptable and insulting to the community as a whole.
If you're going to try to participate, you best learn proper etiquitte. Saying "I don't really care about the customs of the people around here" will earn you no respect.
Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to post your favorite fan sites, or to "make it easier for new players". Appropriate content policies are clear.
The external links guideline is clear about what content should be added. Additionally, I direct you to WP:NOT#LINK.
Making threats and blatantly defying policies/guidelines ("We will continue to re-add these links as neccessary, and given the number of people involved you will be hard pressed to stop us.") will certainly get you blocked, especially if you repeatedly make disruptive edits.
You shouldn't assume that I am or am not an expert on anything... I'm not interested in getting into a pissing contest regarding who has more TradeWars clue. I will, however, continue to ensure that new editors follow our guidelines and policies.

/Blaxthos 00:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of etiquitte does not concern me. You are not the etiquitte police. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge, not just mere history. As a collection of knowledge it very much is a place to post information regarding current styles and methods of play. There is no content policy regarding this and your belief that there is one... is in error. Point to the exact rule that says "no collections of material may be referenced in an external link" and I'll change my opinion, but you can't because it does not exist. You are choosing to interpret the rules outside of their scope, and only making the problem worse in the process.

I will continue to re-add these links. If wikipedia feels the need to block me, so be it. But I will be sure to point the finger back in your direction first. There are perhaps 3 people in the game that can outmatch my knowledge, K3, Traitor and JP himself. Are you any of those 3? If not, then you are not an expert on the subject. What was the last tournament game you won?

Expertise in the field is most certaintly relevant.

Likewise you are violating very specific rules yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

It makes it quite clear you should not simply revert changes. In every change I've made I've tried to incorporate a little more of the previous discussion hoping for a reasonable compromise. But I will not compromise completely on the issue, you will need to meet me half way if you want this resolved... otherwise I will preceed in the dispute resolution process. I have never been uncivil with you at any time, I expect the same courtesy in return.

Just because wikipedia is not a collection of links does not mean it cannot contain links. A collection implies far more than a few highly relevant and authoritative sources.

The rules against linking are as follows...

Advertising - No ads anywhere.

Conflicts of interest - Which we both appearantly have, but other neutral parties have attempted to add these links in the past and been shot down by yourself. Don't proceed to lecture me on the rules of interest when you are guilty of the same.

Require registration - None of these sites do.

Not a foreign-language.

Not a redirect.

No rich media.

Will remain relevant for years.

No copyright issues.

... And on the "What should be linked" "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

There are numerous reviews of the game and it's approaches to be found there.

So if a neutral party adds the site, where's the conflict? If a neutral party had already added it, and had it removed by a non-neutral party, does it matter who re-adds it?