User talk:Gordonrox24/Archive 2

This is User:gordonrox24's Talk page Archive1. Do not make changes. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php/Machine_Requirements ToonPenguin (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Please, do not bite the newcomers (see here). If you see them do anything wrong, point it out correctly, or use the correct template (level 1 warnings to level four in the correct order). Thank you. Montgomery' 39 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huberia striata

Sorry, I missed that one. It's there now. Hope I'm not missing other ones as well :/ --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Section_headings. Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

im not vandalizing. im just an idiot who doesnt know how to use wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starroller (talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory the Great Parish

I have declined your speedy on this article for a couple of reasons:

Despite being tagged for "no content", there is in fact plenty of content in the article, having a full infobox, picture, etc. In fact, the A3 criteria specifically says "Similarly, this criterion doesn't cover a page with an infobox with non-trivial information".
This was tagged less than one minute after being created, which is a bit bitey. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the editor saved the infobox in and was planning to expand it further with subsequent edits. Tagging such potentially useful articles as soon as they pop up on newpages can mean that they end up not getting built and drive enthusiastic newbie editors away. Even when an article technically meets a CSD criteria (which this one didn't), it is usually a good idea to allow at least a few minutes before slapping a speedy tag on it.

Please feel free to ask any questions about this on my talkpage, and please be more careful in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Carbonite.com

This redirect was correct but the editor who created it just made an error by putting Carbonite (online backup instead of Carbonite (online backup). Please check any simple possible errors before adding a CSD tag. Best, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gordonrox24. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ged UK 07:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gordonrox24. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Gordonrox24. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Ged UK 22:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:76.78.45.100

In response to your edit summary; It is the truth? I blocked them for 3 hours for the move, since I doubt a warning was going to effect them, and on the basis that the sanction was too short (I assumed they would abandon the ip address if they were unable to edit within the next 10 minutes) I didn't bother with a standard template. My message, in the lolcatz terminology, was sufficient and not bitey - so it may be read by a subsequent individual without getting worried about it. Obviously, I'm not going to revert you but I may have appreciated the query before you removed it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I would suggest that AGF should mean that my sysop bits need not have been a means of legitimising my edit - a quick review of the ip's block log would have determined if they were blocked (and by who). Once that is determined, then any query could be posted to clear up misunderstanding. My view is that if the only edit from an addy is a page move - and one involving a very high traffic page - then they are likely a sock intent on disruption, and process can be somewhat dispensed with.

BTW, and I should have mentioned it earlier, that was fast work in reverting it in the first place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blockland

You made a very convincing case for deletion in this discussion but unfortunately, with the exception of stifle's declined CSD:A7, only you were arguing for deletion. I would suggest waiting a few months and if the article doesn't improve try again. Consensus can change. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Gordonrox24. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the COI tag added to Blockland article.

Adding the tag without explaining what you believe to be wrong with the article is not particularly helpful to me. I would appreciate if you could explain specifically what parts of the article you have an issue with so that they may be addressed. If you do not point out specific issues it makes it extremely difficult to modify the article in a way that resolves your concerns satisfactorily. Sergeant Peppers (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I have thoroughly read WP:NPOV. Even if all the content is written by players of the game, what justification do you have for assuming that there is a conflict of interest beyond the fact that it is all written by players of the game? While I believe that a Template:POV may be appropriate for the article, (for example, the word immense is highly subjective and probably not appropriate), I don't agree that your rationale for applying the COI template is in accordance with it's actual use. I believe that the players of a game are distanced enough from the subject that they can write a neutral and critical article.

Finally, I know many of the people who have accounts. They are not SPAs, the accounts were registered by individuals. I can't pretend to know why they registered, but I would assume it is because they didn't feel like having there IP plastered on everything. The administrator of the forum does not, in fact, edit the article. Sergeant Peppers (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reread it and I guess you could say that they are SPAs.

I do not believe that your claim that blockland.us cannot be used as a source is legitimate. Keep in mind that the information it is being use

Here are a few examples I believe back up my claim:

The EPA wikipedia article states "As of February 1993, 38 ADID projects had been completed and 33 were ongoing." and then cites epa.gov as it's source from the number of projects completed and ongoing. I fail to see a distinction between citing the EPA website for the number of projects and citing the Blockland site for the number of players allowed in a server.
In the Sixth-generation Ford Taurus article the Ford Second Quarter Earnings Review published by Ford is used to support the claim that there is a new taurus model slated for release in 2009. I'd like to believe this establishes a precedent that the developer of product is an authoritative source on the product. Of course it's a biased source, just as Ford would probably claim to be America's #1 auto manufacturer, I'm sure that the developer of a game would take some pride in their game and have some interest in promoting it. However, I think any statements related to features, goals, release dates, plans and explanations of how the game works would tend to be accepted as legitimate.
I recognize that the jump from cars to games may seem a little illogical, so I looked for another independent game that also sources itself. In the Defcon article, Introversion software is used to cite the version number.

I would also like to challenge the argument that forum posts cannot be used as a source. The reliable source examples page states that forum posts may be used "in cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases." I argue that the maker of the game may be considered an expert source in the field and reliable in certain cases, specifically the way the game works.

As an example, in the Darwinia article, a | forum post by the developer is used as a source for the claim that "Allegedly, the release of Darwinia on the Steam platform was delayed for several hours when a Valve employee saw the intro and believed there had been a security breach." I realize that the word allegedly is a qualifier in that statement that means there is some uncertainty about the veracity of the claim, I'm pretty sure that a statement by the developer "The game uses a modified version of Bullet for the physics engine" can be assumed to be true and would not require the word "allegedly."Sergeant Peppers (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about being offered a job at LEGO wasn't really the issue. That never belonged in the article. ever. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the game itself, and it's been removed and added again multiple times. You were right to remove it or challenge it. I think you're missing what I have a problem with.

The issue here was your insistence that Blockland could not be used to cite other things. It appeared to me that the editors' opinion was that the developer isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards to support the claim that he was offered a job by LEGO (which I would agree with). Based on that, why did you feel the need to challenge the developer's statement that the event system can be extended?

Also, I still disagree that COI is the right tag and am putting the POV tag up instead. After all, this isn't the case of the developer logging onto wikipedia and trying to sell his game, this is an issue with the players of the game having difficulty with leaving out words like "immense." They aren't trying to sell the game to more people, in fact, there's a certain group that would be quite happy if the game never sold another copy. I think it's an issue with people not knowing they are writing an article with a certain view because they were never taught in English class how to write a sentence without bias.

One last thing- we'll have to sort out the issue with criticism. While most games do have a "reception" section, it is used to establish it's notability (for example, this game was spotlighted on IGN but received a 62 on metacritic). If the criticism itself meets notability guidelines (an editor for the New York Times hated the game, a bug in the authentication service kept people who purchased the game from being able to play it, or DRM led to rampant piracy) it usually gets it's own section called criticism. While I can probably find loads of problems people had with the game, (for one, you can't have bricks rotated at anything besides a 90 degree angle), nobody important wrote about them. How do you write about something such as problems people have with the game in a way that is encyclopedic without having a trusted third party polling company quantify the data for you in a way that is meaningful and accepted? I don't think you can. Figures about sales, piracy rates, bugs and the like do not exist. But then again, I don't believe that criticism sections are intended to balance an article, since an article will ideally not have a bais anyway, I think they are intended to record criticisms of historical significance. Sergeant Peppers (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Halo article. We can't write "GameSpy gave Blockland a considerably lower (abeit still positive) rating than other reviewers, later placing the game tenth on its "Top 25 Most Overrated Games of All Time" list" because it never happened. Realize that the absence of a criticism section doesn't necessarily mean that people are trying to sweep it under the rug, it could be that there genuinely hasn't been any criticism of Blockland anywhere by anybody Wikipedia would care about. I could write "One user complained about the small number of different bricks" but if I wrote everything one user complained about the criticism section of the Blockland article would be the longest article on the whole site. I don't believe that there needs to be a criticism section for the article to be balanced. Perhaps there is some method of quantifying forum threads and user opinions in a way that I am not aware of, and we could just cite a forum thread. Other than that, I know of no criticism on any site of importance, perhaps you should take a jab at it so I can get an idea of how it's done? You might want to contact another editor and have them weigh in on it. I don't know anybody here so I'll let you do the looking. Just send me a message when you find them so that I can present my view. Sergeant Peppers (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was trying to say :)

When you wrote "Criticism is always the hardest part when trying to write a good article. It will take some work, but it can be done." I thought you were suggesting that the article needed it. Sergeant Peppers (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest and Policy Shopping on Blockland article.

Welcome to Wikipedia. I would like to suggest you hand over this "audit" of the Blockland article to another Wikipedia member as your position as a fan of Blockland competitor and rival "ROBLOX" may be causing a conflict of interest. So far you have placed a speedy delete, an AFD and a COI on the Blockland article along with removing multiple references. It is beginning to seem increasingly likely that you are Policy Shopping. Note that this is not a good thing. Ephialtes42 (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing POV and material without reference.

{{adminhelp}}

Hello,

Since the Blockland article was nominated for Deletion, a lot of information has been added to the article by WP:SPA's. The new information is pretty much POV and no new references have been added. I have already went through the article and removed all POV and all material without citation to try to make the article fit WP:NPOV, only for my edit to be reverted by one of the Single purpose accounts. I am just wondering if I should go through the article again or not. Any input is appreciated. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and revert. If it's multiple IPs or users, you can request a semi-protection. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict; another opinion)

So, start a discussion on the article talk page, and ask the user to contribute. Ask other users for their opinion etc, try to reach consensus, if you can, add the info again "per talk page discussion", and if someone then removes it, revert it. Don't get into an edit war, if they keep adding it back against consensus, warn them, and ultimately ask an admin to block them.

If you can't reach a consensus, see WP:DISPUTE.

Hope this helps, Chzz ► 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Username report

In that case, it should be reported to WP:COIN; please remember that UAA is only for blatant username violations. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]