User talk:Kate ook

Welcome!

Hello, Kate ook, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massively multiplayer online game

I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit at Massively multiplayer online game. You used a primary source, which we should never use to make self-serving claims. We should use reliable, third-party published sources for all but the most basic, non-controversial statements. I hope this helps! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

references

Please provide references for your addition to virtual world. I reverted your edit on persistent world, because there are many examples of persistent worlds, what makes virtonomics especially persistent?! It also lacked a reference and had strange formatting.--K.Nevelsteen (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to the Virtonomics website or article in every edit you make

Hello, Kate ook. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Simulation, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your email

Hi, Kate ook, I received your email. I am replying on your User Talk page for transparency and so that other editors can reply if they wish.

You are correct that I removed a great deal of content from Virtonomics, but as of right now the article is a STUB and has not been deleted. (However, I would not be surprised if it does get deleted, for reasons that I will get into shortly.) I removed the content for several reasons: because virtually of it was unsourced, and the remainder was based on unreliable sources such as press releases. There were several academic sources, but they did not support the cited material in any way. On Wikipedia, all claims should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". We can use self-published and primary sources for some basic and non-controversial claims, but never self-serving claims. Furthermore, all article subjects should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order for an article to have been created.

You mentioned our article on World of Warcraft, which is an excellent article to use as a comparison. That article currently has 160 sources, from places as varied as IGN, Guinness World Records, The Boston Globe, and Business Insider. And these are significant articles, often running many pages or chapters each. They have allowed us to write an in-depth article about WoW, including sections on gameplay and plot, but also about its development and critical reception. As for Virtonomics, I'm not seeing any sources like that. Even the academic sources that I removed devote a paragraph to the game, and only describe it in its most general terms. (In other words, they do not constitute "significant coverage".) We're not here to write our own experiences or opinions about the subject, but to summarize what reliable sources say, and if reliable sources don't say anything then we shouldn't, either.

You wrote in your email that you aren't being paid to write about Virtonomics. I certainly will not reveal any of your personal information, but your email address seems to indicate that you hold (or have held) some sort of marketing position at Virtonomics. I'm trying to assume good faith, but all of your edits have been about Virtonomics and many–perhaps most–have indeed been promotional. If you have a conflict of interest, whether or not you are being paid, you should declare that COI and also refrain from editing any associated articles.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Woodroar (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar: Thank you for your response here.I hope you don't mind to answer some additional questions I have since I don't see a thing called "Wikipedia support" (let me know if it exists, so I won't be bothering you in future). I assume that the problem of legit sources are frequent here in Wikipedia. I am seeing Wikipedia articles where the blog posts or other type websites with the reviews of product are used as the references, is that a possibility to do? And how Wikipedia moderators are looking to edits supported the social media or forums references? As well, I have noticed an English article with the reference to French article and Spanish external source. I couldn't find this information on the your recommended link which you have provided before. I know that these could be wrong, because anybody could edit the articles, so I would like to double check this before going any further.

I understand that my edits might be debated on, so can I do my edits or proposals firstly in sandbox? Could that be an option? I assume that there are also volunteers who are reviewing these sandboxes and providing the feedback for that. I see this as a the different way out for the changes and to know if its against Wikipedia rules or a good direction to go. Correct me please, if I am wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate ook (talk • contribs) 11:14, 22 September 2015

Hey, no problem. To answer your questions:

As far as support goes, nearly all of us are just volunteers. But most questions can be answered by reading the links in your "Welcome!" message at the top of this page. There's also a FAQ and HELPDESK if those links don't help.
You'll find information about what we consider reliable (and unreliable) sources at WP:Verifiability and WP:Identifying reliable sources.
Social media and forums are rarely considered reliable sources. We do allow non-English sources, but we prefer English sources when possible.
If you have a conflict of interest, it's best if you suggest changes on an article's Talk page. Sandboxes are used mostly for testing wiki tags (which you are welcome to do) and writing drafts of articles (which you shouldn't do if you have a conflict of interest). Your sandbox is still subject to our policies regarding copyrights and advertising, so anything you write could be deleted. Even worse, you could be blocked or banned for writing spam in your sandbox. So it's really best if you used Talk pages instead.

I hope this helps! If you have any questions, feel free to ask. And remember to sign your comments on Talk pages with 4 tildes (~~~~). Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sergomen1, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Woodroar (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]