User talk:Gameroffun

Welcome Wikipedians to my talk page!

Welcome!

Hi, Gameroffun. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Hitro talk 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gameroffun. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hitro talk 21:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light‎

Soetermans edit was correct. The Infobox template has rules associated with it, and Soetermans was making the infobox meet those rules. The engine is not notable on it's own, so does not belong in the Infobox. This does not mean it cannot be mentioned in the article itself, however. -- ferret (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi. Regarding this edit to Bruce Jenner, inline citations should not be placed nor numbered by hand in the References section. They should be placed inside ref tags, and you can learn how to do this at WP:INCITE. Adding numbers yourself is not a good idea, because as citations are constantly being added, moved or removed from articles, the number will not line up with the ones generated automatically by the reflist template, and will result in errors like this one, in which two #58 refs are given in the References section, with the second one, not included in the list of the others. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterMMORPG

Please stop changing "have" to "has" at MonsterMMORPG. The subject of the sentence is "[t]he concept and gameplay", which makes "have" the correct plural verb form. Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for myself

Are you talking about this? First of all, you should know about Wikipedia's policy called WP:VERIFIABILITY. Every statement in the article that may be challenged should have a reference to a reliable source. You kept adding the information without providing any source. Generally, if you want to change something in the article, you should always cite source, unless the statement is obvious. If you make an edit to an article, and somebody reverts it, you should not revert him. You should go to the article talk page and try to discuss the matter with the editor who reverted you (see: WP:BRD). On the talk page, you should provide some reliable sources for your edit. I see that you did go to the talk page, but you just told that you "think" the genre is also action, adventure, but you did not provide any source. If your edit gets opposition form other editors, you should always try to discuss it with them on the talk page, and try to reach consensus. If that does not give result, you may try wp:request for comment, or wp:dispute resolution, but you should never keep pushing your edit without reaching consensus (that is edit-warring and is punishable by blocking).

Wikipedia Stinks

There are many reasons why Wikipedia represents a flawed model for publishing accurate information. These 10 reasons critique Wikipedia and will hopefully provide some impetus for improvement.

The theory that everyone’s contributions to a topic are equally valuable sounds good, but is clearly nonsense. Wikipedia has no way of recognizing expert knowledge over inexpert knowledge. The members with most authority are the ones who have spent the most time working on Wikipedia – their “knowledge” is often just a combination of Google results and prejudice. Wikipedia gives people’s opinions undeserved authority by virtue of its search engine rankings and authoritative presentation and identity. Too many people (especially students) who use Wikipedia believe the articles will be reliable – and Wikipedia’s stance as an encyclopedia encourages this misguided belief. At the core of Wikipedia is the idea that bad articles will eventually be edited by the community until they become good (i.e. factual and well-written). In fact, they are likely to be edited until all but one member loses interest or gives up trying. “If you don’t like an entry, you can fix it yourself”(1). But I came here for information, not to provide it. “Wikipedia pages have become increasingly complex and Wikipedia doesn’t support a WYSIWYG editor.”(3) This and other technical aspects of Wikipedia effectively prevent many people with valuable knowledge from participating. The lack of any required standard of writing, error-checking and fact-checking means that many Wikipedia entries are poorly-written and contain factual inconsistencies.(1)(2)(4) Wikipedia articles only ever skim the surface. Which is fine – but they don’t ever indicate what might be below the surface either, leading people to believe that everything is as simple and uncontroversial as Wikipedia says it is. (2) Wikipedia entries are meant to be “notable” – but only Wikipedia’s (self-appointed) editors have to think so. Is Stroyent really important? Gameroffun (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]