User talk:Kajicat

Welcome!

Hello, Kajicat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Game Critic

Please keep in mind that you cannot add statements like "Many of The Critic’s reviews have been considered unprofessional, offensive, and possibly homophobic" to an article unless you supply a reliable source where someone is saying this. Linking to the VGC site itself is not sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get it! You don't like the Video Game Critic, and may have opinions that are justified; Wikipedia is not the place for this though. Refer to 28bytes suggestion above: if the New York Times prints an article making the claims that you are pushing, then it belongs on Wikipedia. Please stop with reinserting that bit, so here's a somewhat friendly:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

And the article may get locked eventually. Let me know if you have any questions. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the "Controversy" section as you requested. It is very middle-of-the-road and informative. It is also cited very well. Please check the citations. Thank you! Kajicat (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat[reply]

Thanks for your message. The problem is still the lack of reliable sourcing, I'm afraid. People on forums can and do complain about lots of things, but we really can't use that as a source, even if their complaint is valid. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. The sources I am citing are directly from The Video Game Critic himself, and from his actual website. Both sources are from "user-generated" sections of The Video Game Critic site, but one was officially authored by The Video Game Critic himself, while the other source had The Video Game Critic as a contributing author. Being the creator and author of that web domain, The Video Game Critic is a credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. The Video Game Critic himself is making a claim about his reviews being possibly offensive and/or homophobic in nature and is asking his user base for their opinions. There is no questionable doubt over the authenticity of the source, as the claims are written directly by The Video Game Critic and found on The Video Game Critic's website. All sources I have provided directly support my writing, which is neutral. Would it be best if I do not put it under a "Controversy" section, but rather place it promptly within the correct time line under the "Reviews" section? Are my web citations incorrect? Please tell me what you think would be the best fit for my contribution to this article. Thank you very much and sorry for any misunderstandings. Kajicat (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat[reply]

I understand your frustration, and appreciate your considered response. I think the best thing to do at this point is to get an outside opinion. If my interpretation of the sourcing policies and guidelines is correct, perhaps someone else can explain it better than I can. And if my interpretation is wrong... well, it's always good to learn new things! I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I invite you to participate and comment there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, both you and I have reverted three times. Reverting a fourth time usually leads to a block, so let's neither of us do that while we wait for the noticeboard discussion to be resolved. 28bytes (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Game Critic again

Hi Kajicat. I and a few other editors have told you this before, but it looks like it didn't sink in, so I'll try again. We'll be happy to let you make the addition you want to make to the Video Game Critic article as soon as you find a reliable source that discusses the controversy. Forum posts by some guy named 'Moonman' don't count. A story in Wired, or 1UP.com or IGN would count. Go find one, then we can add it. If none of them have covered the controversy, then pick one and ask them to. Once they do, we can reference their story. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 28bytes. Moonman really exists. He/she is a user on The Video Game Critic's forum. The source I provide goes to a real message board, at The Video Game Critic's real website. This happened. The other link also goes to The Critic's very real forum and website, and features The Critic himself as the topic creator, asking his readers and other forum members if his making fun of "gays" and "homos" constitutes as "gay bashing". This too actually happened, in our reality. I didn't create a "Controversy" section, but instead put it under the "Review" section. It's less about accusations of homophobia and more about confusion as to whether The Critic should continue his making fun of "gays" and "homos" or not. Would you like me to shorten it to one sentence? I have many more sources to use from within The Critic's very own reviews if you want more sources to strengthen this occurrence more so. I'm sorry if you're a fan of The Video Game Critic and feeling the need to defend him.Kajicat (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Kajicat[reply]

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's not being covered by reliable sources. Or if it is, you haven't offered a link for it. 28bytes (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My source links straight to The Video Game Critic himself. Seems pretty reliable to me. It shows him questioning his actions, and other readers/users engaging in the conversation with him. Pretty reliable. It happened! There are many other pages on Wikipedia that are aren't sourced as well as what I'm providing, or not even sourced at all. I've seen other users use the subject as a source. The way I wrote the current version of the section I'd like to include does not make accusations, but instead shows that The Video Game Critic thought he might need to change the way he writes his reviews. I feel I've provided excellent sourcing.Kajicat (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Kajicat[reply]

If you feel that this version is more suitable than what you were trying to add previously that was rejected by the BLP noticeboard, go ahead and start a new discussion at that noticeboard and make your case. 28bytes (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes Warring With Me Over Video Game Critic, Once More...

You're edit warring, and you need to stop or an administrator will block you. It's been repeatedly explained to you why your proposed addition isn't suitable for the article. I encourage you to re-read the previous BLP noticeboard discussion about this if you still don't understand the problem. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is warring with me. I re-read the previous BLP noticeboard discussion and it ended with the need of reliable sources. I currently am using reliable sources, not the message board source from before (even though message boards are used as source material all of the time on Wiki). I am sourcing directly to the Video Game Critic, much like the other users who have edited the Wikipedia page for the Video Game Critic have also done. Everything is directly sourced to the Video Game Critic. There is no mention of "controversy" anymore. Everything is fine. Re-read my latest edit if you must. Kajicat (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theornamentalist and 28bytes Condone Politically Incorrect Journalism in the Video Game Industry

C'mon, we get it, you believe that he is an idiot to throw hurtful words like that around. Even if he is doing it without any hurtful intentions, I too believe it is wrong, and in the least, careless. But here is the bottom line:

From your standpoint you protest that it is encyclopedic to include it I assume. The problem is that if he wrote about his favorite freaking ice cream flavor, that he enjoys walking in the park while listening to the Cruis'n USA soundtrack, or that he was gay, it wouldn't belong on the page. None of these things are encyclopedic. If, for example, several newspapers wrote articles concerning his assumed homophobia or whatever, then it could obviously be considered and addressed, and most likely included. None have, so it won't be in the article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of those examples you gave could be used in The Video Game Critic's Wikipedia article, under a "Personal Life" section. You could say David Mrozek lives in blah blah blah with his wife and two kids, blah blah blah (sourced). His favorite video game soundtrack is Cruis'n USA, and his favorite ice cream flavor is Chunky Monkey, which he eats during every video game review session (sourced). He also has issues with homosexuality, which can be found in many of his reviews (sourced). So, if I make a "Personal Life" section...will you let me include the links to the many, many (I have many more that I'm not even using yet) game reviews in which he goes out of his way to say something about how "gay" a character looks or acts? - Kajicat (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the review website is what is notable, not Dave himself. This is what the article is about. His favorite ice cream is irrelevant in relation to the website. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is the author. Dave is The Video Game Critic. Information about the author's personal life could easily be added into a section on there. You just don't want him shown in any negative light at all, as you're a big fan. I understand that. Hey, I love video games too, but if a video game journalist (I use that term loosely here) starts adding racial prejudice or homophobia or other politically incorrect content into their writings and it goes unaccounted for, then myself and others have a problem with it. Are you the Video Game Critic? Or one of his buddies he speaks about so often in his reviews...? - Kajicat (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no. I don't know him, don't read his reviews,I couldn't be less removed from any of that. I became involved in the article after looking for sources on Atari games, and after research found out that "the Video Game Critic" met wikipedia's inclusion standard. And if you really want his all this stuff to make it into the article, write to an IGN writer or something. Get them to publish something about these issues. Then it can belong there. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You completely disregarded the part where I said we could definitely incorporate my contribution to The Video Game Critic's Wiki page under a "Personal Life" section or such. Using homosexuality is a reoccurring theme in The Critic's writing over the years. It's part of his writing style.

Kajicat (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, if you really want to push this point and go against the few editors who are monitoring this page, go for it. But inserting it endlessly into the article isn't going to work; it is my opinion that it doesn't fit it. Just bring it to the next level or something. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's so at the "next level" over on the Video Game Critic's message board right now. In the "Street Fighter for homos..." thread he has actually gone back end edited out a homosexual reference in a review because of complaints. But of course I can't use this as a source since it's a message board...which is so ridiculous considering real stuff happens on message boards too, especially when it directly involves the Video Game Critic himself, who is conversing and ultimately editing his old reviews due to the backlash he has been getting for poking fun at homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle. I don't care if it's on CNN or a message board...shit's real either way. It's actually happening in our world. But, I guess some feel the need to deny it since it's a "message board", huh? Garbage.

Kajicat (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful...thanks.

Kajicat (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at The Video Game Critic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your only interest seems to be accusing some video game reviewer of homophobia. That is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia, especially since your evidence for those accusations seem to come from your...well, your original research (also not allowed, see WP:OR). For now you are temporarily blocked; if you return to the same behavior, chances are you'll be blocked indefinitely. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- I took out the part where I claimed he might be homophobic. All I wrote in the latest iteration is that he mentions homosexuality a lot in his reviews over the years, as a reoccurring theme. It's the author's style of writing. Why is that not okay to mention in his Wikipedia article? Kajicat (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]