User talk:Vanessaezekowitz

Minetest

Hello, I saw your reverted my maintenance using reasons which are not valid. Firstly, Because Minecraft is notable and meets Wikipedia policies, does not mean Minetest does. References are counted towards notability. Minetest has 4 references and Minecraft has 98 references. They are not a lot hence one being notable does not mean the other is. Also because people play or write the game, does not exclude Minetest from having to use references. I will be monitoring the article closely and when I (or another Edits one who has not edited the article yet) removes the templates, that is it. Please do not remove them claiming they were sorted. When you reply, Please place {{Tb}} on my Talk page. Thanks John F. Lewis (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, John: Are you a Wikipedia administrator or senior editor of some kind? If not, you do not have the authority to dictate to others what shall and shall not be considered grounds for "notability", nor have you the right, in that case, to "monitor the article closely".

Second, from Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (a similar statement appears later in the same article). In other words, if someone's claiming something that might be controversial or which would cause someone to say "that's bull".

As none of the content of this article falls under those categories, and none of it consists of a quotation from another source, the citing rules do not apply. Ironically, the next sentence after the above cautions the writer that an article may be challenged without enough sources.

Furthermore, the number of references an article has speaks nothing of the reliability of the websites/sources from which those references are taken. This is especially true if an article is still under construction. If you'll observe the history of the article, you will notice it's only been in existence for a matter of several hours, so we simply haven't had enough time to hunt down enough good references. Not to mention the article is far shorter than the one on Minecraft, so expecting even a comparable number of references is ludicrous.

Finally, Wikipedia's Original Research guidelines clearly state, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." (and similar wording elsewhere). In other words, citations are NOT required to prove an article isn't OR.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to ask, John: Are you a Wikipedia administrator or senior editor of some kind? If not, you do not have the authority to dictate to others what shall and shall not be considered grounds for "notability", nor have you the right, in that case, to "monitor the article closely"." No, I am not. But to my knowledge there is no Wikipedia Policy stating 'Only an Administrator or Senior Editor can judge an articles Notability' or 'You must be an Administrator or Senior Editor to Watch a page.' There is no policy on this as this is a free Encyclopedia. Hence, Any user can make these decisions. In addition, It doesn't how long an article has been on Wikipedia. If it does not show notability or is shown as original research, an editor may express their concern of the article. Also a editor has the right to keep those tags in place until they feel they have been sorted. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can claim to have that right to "make these decisions" and to "keep those tags", then by definition I can as well. Hence, I am removing them and they stay removed until a neutral, third party with no connection to either Minetest or Minecraft decides that they should be re-added. And again you claim this might be original research. This article does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for original research because it contains no information that can't be verified by the game's usual sources - namely the official website and the heavily-moderated forums thereon, as well as the author's blog. I realize these would normally not be considered valid sources, but what else are we supposed to to? Invent new websites on which to publish this information? Pray that someone big like Wired or Slashdot covers it? No. That's not a fair request for a project that's only been around for 2 years.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a neutral, third party with no connection to either Minetest or Minecraft decides" I have no connection to Minetest or Minecraft. I don't use the Minetest software, participate in its community, and the same with Minecraft. They are valid maintenance tags. I strongly recommend you work on the article in the User space or the AfC namespace. The article has only 5 references. Two actually show slight notability, two are primary and one is Github. Remove them if you wish, But they will either be reverted or taken to either Disputes or a Speedy/AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanessaezekowitz! I appreciate your efforts but removal of maintenance templates without discussing or any strong base is not appropriate. I echo what John has said above but disagree about the article getting Speedily deleted. The article lacks in WP:GNG. The reasons are:

Large amount of data is unsourced
The article uses primary sources
No coverage in third-party sources is established to get its notability.

At present, the article fails criteria of notability as there is lack of "Significant coverage", "Reliable sources", "Sources (mention in press releases, books, magazines, getting reviews, etc)", and "Presumed". The article is failing in four out of five criteria for WP:N thus, keeping the tag is an appropriate step. The article can possibly be deleted via an WP:AFD but not WP:CSD. Please also read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OWN. The reason why we add the tags is that, it adds the article to some special catogery from where willing editors get a chance of improving the article so there is nothing wrong if an article is tagged with such things. I don't want to sound rude but frequent removal of tags may be considered WP:EW and one can receive a block if the practice is continued. I hope you understand and do not remove the tag again. If there are any doubts or problems, feel free to ask. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*grumbles incoherently* I give up. THIS is why Wikipedia is hemorrhaging contributors and losing valuable content left, right and sideways - there are too many rules and they're too strict for the nature of the world wide web.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are not strict rules, the rules are there purely to make sure Wikipedia stays a place of trust worthy information. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you've felt like that though it wasn't intended in any form. Since Wikipedia became popular, more and more people joined it and started editing. This was a good sign but it also resulted in what we call vandalism. There are few editors out there who add content to articles which are not sourced to things, which they use. In this case, it is a software and many would be using it. As a result, some people just to troll around add data which is incorrect or wrong to those articles and this leads to many problems. Articles may even get deleted. This is the reason why we need sources to verify the content as well as establish notability. I've faced such situation in past; In the "chart performance" section of When it's time, some editor added that it reached no.2 on UK rock song charts and it was there for a year. This was long lived vandalism and the page was getting almost viewed 500 times everyday. We would never know if the content is accurate or not unless there are sources to verify them. That is why we need them to avoid articles getting vandalized. Wikipedia is not loosing valuable content and will never do. Editors here produce almost 10 WP:FA and WP:FL every week and more then 50 WP:GA per week. We are getting better every passing day and little drops of contributions help us in getting the ocean. In the ocean we also have dirt which we clean up and some parts which are doubtful, we add a tag and wait till someone willing can fix the issues who has knowledge about the subject. The tag will undoubtedly be removed if we get WP:RS (third-party one) for the claims in the article. Happy editing! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanessa. if you would like some admin input, here it is: Our rules are probably not even strict enough for the 'World Wide Web' - the Wkipedia is an encyclopedia and the fact that it is an electronic one and stored on a web site does not make it any different from a serious, printed reference work. Although it's the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', that doesn't make it a repository for unproven content, and controls are needed. See: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia has possibly failed in its mission to make it clear to new comers what is wanted here and what is not, but if the rules have been pointed out and a contributor decides to leave rather then follow them, then we have to live with that. What we would much prefer, however, is that they familiarise themselves with those policies and guidelines, add good verifiable content, and perhaps even help out with the control of other articles - not only is is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it's also the encyclopedia where any editor in good standing and with sufficient experience can help out and make suggestions for improvement by adding maintenance tags, and they do not need to be administrators. I hope you'll stick around, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing!. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be well-advised to check my contribution history before assuming I'm a newcomer or that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. What you also fail to understand is that, even for a seasoned and formerly-prolific contributor like myself, there are far too many rules to remember. I've been editing on Wikipedia for at least 10 years (6 of which is under this account, the rest I'm not sure where to find), and in that amount of time I have seen the rules get stricter and more numerous, useful and informative content that once made Wikipedia stand out has eroded, and the site has shifted towards a corporate-academic institution in its general attitude. By that last bit, I mean the sort of "you're a nobody and your words mean nothing... unless we know you personally" mentality so often found in large corporations and schools. I'm not saying that you, TSU, or John are individually displaying such an attitude, but collectively the Wikipedia staff is, and you folks will continue to appear that way until you ease up and start treating every article (that isn't obviously spam) as valuable until proven otherwise, instead of the other way around.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your edits, that's whey I left the message above. As Wkipedia grows, the rules and policies need to be adapted and brought in line with new requirements. Even in my 7 years here they have changed enormously. I agree it's become somewhat of a bureaucracy, but even we admins have to respect and implement policies even if we don't necessarily agree with some of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I am reminded of the movie "Coming to America", namely near the end:

King: So do I. Come now, it is out of our hands, she told him no.

Queen: Well after the way you treated her, who could blame her?

King: Even if she agreed, they still could not marry, it is against the tradition.

Queen: Well, it is a stupid tradition!

King: Who am I to change it?

Queen: I thought you were the King?

If an admin disagrees with the rules, chances are there are other admins who also disagree. What's stopping you guys from changing things to make it easier on your editors? I think even Jimbo would agree that Wikipedia is turning into a bureaucracy, as you put it. At any rate, I've said all I care to say on the subject.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping us is a thing called WP:CONSENSUS, and Jimbo hasn't had any executive powers here for years. That said, we admins have absolutely no powers either - in fact we're simply janitors, we do the cleaning up at night after the editors have been and gone and made a mess of things ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Connor-Hotel.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Connor-Hotel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Connor-Hotel.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Connor-Hotel.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]