User talk:Gregorytopov

Welcome to my Talk page.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Gregorytopov}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Thank you

Hi Gregory. I just wanted to thank you for your work on card games including patiences and introduce myself really. I play and research card games especially, but not exclusively, those played in Central Europe, often with German-suited packs. I have an extensive library of card game books in English and German, so can look stuff up and answer questions. I also have as numerous links to older publications in French, German, English and Danish online which I'm happy to share. :) Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)][reply]

Nice to meet you Bermicourt, and thank you; I'm sure our paths will cross more often here. Gregorytopov (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoardGameGeek

Please note that the reliability of BoardGameGeek as a reference has previously been disputed at WP:RSN. As such, please do not use it in citations. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the note. The Milton Bradley edition should be included so I have reinstated just that part. Gregorytopov (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! FWIW I had to check at RSN. I thought I'd seen something about BGG before but I couldn't remember for sure. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spit card game

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Spit (card game), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, but I've actually been on Wikipedia for more than ten years. I've reinstated the edit to Spit (card game), and included a source that supports it, as requested. Gregorytopov (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonk card game

Hello. Would you mind clarifying the issue at Talk:Tonk_(card_game)#Stefancic_reference? I'm concerned that a valid source might have been removed here. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gregorytopov (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattel for a source

Hello! While normally I would say Mattel is not an appropriate source, in the case you added it I think it would be acceptable. Thanks for adding a source to what you added! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making contact

Hi Gregory, if you are interested and if you have a library of patience books, it may be good to touch base offline to see if we can share information, sources, etc. Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unravelling the confusion around patience and solitaire games

Hi Gregory, I've been doing some research into the confusion of names that seems quite common in these games and correcting the articles accordingly. I have to say that the work you've already done has been great and saved me a lot of time. If you spot any errors that I've made, do let me know. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see more work being done in polishing these. Thank you for your efforts! Gregorytopov (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish I could debunk the myths around Canfield and Klondike, but it probably needs someone to go to Saratoga and check out the archives about the casino(s) and Richard Canfield. I tried emailing them, but they clearly weren't interested in helping. Bermicourt (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

We had a conversation about this some time ago and you seemed to understand, so I was quite surprised to see you added lots of citations to a blog hosted by a web store. This clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and should not have been added. Please, do not use self published blog posts or vendor sites as citations in the future. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over a lengthy period of time, Bermicourt and I have independently been doing extensive work on Wikipedia's pages on solitaire card games. Unfortunately the majority of these had errors, were unverified, and lacked any sources whatsoever. Unfortunately there are very few reliable and well-informed contributors who are active in this specialized area on Wikipedia besides us. It's not that notability or verifiability is open to question, but simply that there's no engagement from individuals with the ability or inclination to provide what is needed, other than us.

The first goal has been to correct misinformation introduced by original creators of the articles, where unverified and inaccurate content was added to begin with, which is the case in a significant number of instances. Wherever possible, we have added many primary sources and books, and are going through our own libraries of actual books and articles on the subjects, adding citations as we work through the primary sources wherever possible.

Our earlier conversation is not being ignored, especially in relation to citations of sites from creators of commercial solitaire software. Due to the concern you rightly identified previously, this is no longer happening. I also remove such links introduced by others whenever I come across them. However the page on Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." It has been determined that this particular site is simply hosting content independently created by an expert on solitaire games, is separate from the vendor part of their site, which in any case isn't selling commercial software. So it's in a nebulous category, and ideally the goal is to introduce better primary sources where possible.

Also a word of caution, which I believe I have also expressed previously: Carelessly reverting edits comes with the risk of undoing other important changes to content that were made at the same time, reducing the quality of the article. I will go through all the changes you've made and revert all instances where this has happened, in order to preserve important content that you've inadvertently removed or changed, or where this was one of the only sources, until better and more sources can be documented.

I appreciate your intent to ensure to honour the need for reliable sources, and that's been the goal of the majority of our work in this area of Wikipedia. But we're working with very mediocre content to begin with, which was in urgent need of overhaul and correction. The challenge in this area of study is compounded by the absence of other reliable contributors with the required materials, or editors who either don't have the ability to add verification, or lack the inclination to do so. On the whole, the solitaire card games part of Wikipedia is in much better shape than it was a couple of years ago, and that also includes the kinds of citations that are referenced. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any practical difference between a site that is set up to sell software and a site that is set up to sell decks of playing cards, and the full quote is "e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page" - what you have been adding are not such cases. Feel free to take this to WP:RSN if you truly think this is a reliable source, but I would be very surprised if the folks there supported this. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and link to WP:RSN - I'll look into that (another day, when I have more time). As I noted in a comment on one of your reverts, remove the citation if you must, but please leave the content on those pages intact. A lot of care has gone into ensuring accuracy of the content, which is by no means based purely on those citations. Many of the articles had no citations to begin with unfortunately, and we've been attempting to provide them at the same time as improving the clarity, accuracy, and formatting of the content. Gregorytopov (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, restore the content if you must, but do not restore the inappropriate citation. I understand the drive to find citations, but keep in mind that no citation (or a citation needed template) is preferable to a citation that doesn't meet guidelines, because drive-by editors will generally not pitch in to replace existing citations. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider Solitaire Central a legitimate source that can be used? It's an independent site that has links to game rules and information about software, but isn't directly affiliated with any of them (c.f. their About page). See for example the citation on the Australian Patience page, where you previously removed some citations but not that one. Or would it also fail to meet the required criteria for references? Gregorytopov (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't. It is obviously someone's personal web site. Just because I am working on removing one problematic source, please do not assume I necessarily support everything else on the page. And in that case, that cite wasn't present last time I edited that article. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about getting the time-line wrong. It was a difference reference I was thinking of that was retained at the time of that edit: a source called Dogmelon. That is a software vendor and was a dead link at the time you made the changes, so you wouldn't have been able to check it. That's a software vendor's site however (here's the active link), so I've now removed it. Gregorytopov (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: I respect what you're trying to do but you are coming across as a little high-handed; please remember that you are not the only one who is trying to improve Wikipedia! Gregorytopov is right - the content we started with was woeful. And we are as keen on WP:RS as you but there are many articles with no sources at all so, as an interim, a link to a respectable site run by a known games reviewer and owned by a playing card vendor is better than unsourced text which may be WP:OR. The source in question is hardly a promotion; a set of rules offers no scope for marketing. So a rigid enforcement is neither required by Wikipedia nor always helpful. In time, most of these references will be replaced as we have amassed a library of WP:RS from the birth of patience and solitaire games to the present day. In the meantime feel free to replace these sources if you can find better ones per WP:RS which says " e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not such a major issue. I've reviewed all the recent changes I can see and supplied better sources where needed; in some cases there was already a second citation to a WP:RS. Bermicourt (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: Bermicourt makes good points. Context is important here: many of the pages we have been working on have been in a woeful state for more than ten years, ever since the pages were created on Wikipedia. A significant number had zero sources for that entire period of time, despite an ongoing call for citations. That call went unheeded until the ones we introduced were added, thus in many instances bringing to an end a decade of altogether absent references.

Removing somewhat debatable ones as per WP:RS can be justified in instances where other primary sources can be provided, and we can take that concern on board. But in other cases where references are lacking entirely it would would not be helpful to remove these references, because it would return some articles to a worse state, where they'll remain unreferenced for the next ten years.

Over-vigilance here won't be helpful. What is sorely lacking in this area is editors with expertise, sources, and willingness needed to supply sources, since it is a specialty area of study with few contributors and experts. The writer at the referenced site is one of the few. The concern about drive-by editors isn't warranted; a more realistic concern is the absence of editors entirely, despite this being content that is notable and does need encyclopedic entries.

I think we've taken your comments on board, and Bermicourt has also actively supplied better sources where available. So in the occasional instances the referenced site is used and other sources aren't provided, it's in everyone's interests to retain it until a better source is provided. Your efforts to replace it with a better source are by all means welcome. Gregorytopov (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This all seems to be based on a misunderstanding of policy. Where references are lacking entirely, the proper action is to remove unsourced information, not to resort to unreliable sources. I'll be posting to RSN soon to get wider input. MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No that is not the proper action and not what WP:RS demands. If we remove all unsourced text, much of Wikipedia will disappear overnight. What is needed is an intelligent appraisal of the text and, if it seems reasonable, some attempt to find a suitable reference. My experience is that, where the text is valid, a reference can be found within a couple of minutes. Bermicourt (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If we remove all unsourced text, much of Wikipedia will disappear overnight." This exactly. Hence my concern about over-vigilance, which in this instance is going to be harmful.

This BBC radio documentary about Wikipedia illustrates well the problem that happens when you have people outside a specialist area rigorously enforcing policy, without carefully considering the context, or intelligently appraising the text, or considering the expertise of other individual editors, and thus end up causing damage to the content and accuracy. It gives a good case example of a musician who discovered untrue statements about his life on Wikipedia, and was unable to get them changed due to overly rigorous editors going overboard in requiring citations and thus perpetrating inaccuracies despite him being a reliable source. There's potential for that to happen here, the result being that good, accurate, and necessary content will disappear. Gregorytopov (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately this is not a particularly controversial or sensitive area and we can find alternative sources. We just can't do it at the same pace that a source can be removed from multiple articles. Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]