JonJ937

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 27)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Qcne was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: We cannot host content based on Fandom Wikis.

Qcne (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If the description of the faction was written from the evidence provided by the game, would that article be accepted? JonJ937 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, @JonJ937. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics: we need to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are completely independent of the game.

So, for example, if you found multiple separate games journalism websites that discuss the Cult of Kosmos in detail, that may be acceptable.

Fandom.com is never a reliable source. Qcne (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Qcne. Is there a list of reliable gaming journalism sites I could use? JonJ937 (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There's this @JonJ937: WP:RSP which lists frequently used sources.

But you'll usually have to evaluate yourself if the source is reliable or not. You can do this by checking:

- does the website have a named editorial team?

- is the website a mainstream and well-known, i.e. has awards?

- does the website have a solid presence, i.e. active social media, a physical office address, etc?

- is the website part of a larger well known organisation?

- is there evidence of spamdexing, paid promotion, AI-generated articles, etc. These are all red flags. Qcne (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again @Qcne. If you read the article, what do you think about the language/composition? JonJ937 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's written in an okay way, I don't see any issues with neutrality. Maybe my only concern is that it is written from a real-world point of view, when it is discussing a fictional organisation. Qcne (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks @Qcne. JonJ937 (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Qcne I have sourced the following articles, please let me know if they are acceptable sources. I will post the links below:

https://mashable.com/article/assassins-creed-odyssey-historical-figures

https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/11/17964372/assassins-creed-odyssey-best-historical-characters-socrates-leonidas

https://www.vg247.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-interview-history

https://news.ubisoft.com/en-us/article/22vdPhUVHV68b2FEjcotkW/assassins-creed-odyssey-the-game-that-greece-built

https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/15/assassins-creed-odyssey-athens

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/assassins-creed-odyssey-director-talks-story-and-r/1100-6459994/

https://www.eurogamer.net/three-hours-with-assassins-creed-odyssey JonJ937 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JonJ937. Most of them don't really mention the cult at all. They're good sources for looking at the development of the game, but not for your draft I am afraid. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Qcne I'm trying to get this right as I believe it is a decent article.

Would these be suitable references:

https://gamerant.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-kassandra-story-cult-kosmos-deimos-atlantis/

https://www.gamepressure.com/assassins-creed-odyssey/who-are-kosmos-cultists/zdb60e

https://www.thegamer.com/assassins-creed-odyssey-origins-ubisoft-plotlines-between/

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/AssassinsCreedOdysseyCultOfKosmos

thank you greatly for your assistance JonJ937 (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Qcne, I've scrapped the last article and am working on a new one. This game dropped beginning of the month, so hopefully i can contribute to Wikipedia. JonJ937 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to your last message, I missed it in my sea of notifications.

I do think starting on a more notable topic is probably a better idea. Check out WP:NVIDEOGAME which, though not a policy is a useful essay.

I'll also just add there are plenty of ways to contribute to Wikipedia without creating articles! In fact, creating an article is probably the single most difficult task a new editor can do - akin to performing in a concern when you've only just picked up an instrument for the first time.

We have plenty of newcomer tasks and improvements you could make. Check out SPECIAL:HOMEPAGE for some suggestions. Qcne (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Qcne, have to break a few eggs to make that omelette, so practice makes perfect. Even though the process is difficult, I am enjoying learning. Thank you for the resources and your help JonJ937 (talk) 04:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any time, just ping me if you have any questions. :) Qcne (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. JonJ937 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, JonJ937! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Qcne (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of gender to describe a character

@Blockhaj the edits I made to the last chapter section of your assassins creed Valhalla article were made to retain an element of objectivity and keep the same theme throughout your article. Please explain to me why they were reverted? JonJ937 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

They/them indicate several people or multiple personality dissorder (etc), which is not the case. Use he/she rather to indicate that the player can choose gender. Blockhaj (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how the use of they in this context could be seen that way please could you explain further JonJ937 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kim Belair (July 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheTechie was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kim Belair and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you recently removed content from Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I explained my edit at talk of the article. Have a look, before reverting my edit please. JonJ937 (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see the below note about edit summaries. Ideally every edit you make to an article has an edit summary to explain the reason for the sit you are making to help editors understand it.

As it appears another editor has already replied to you on the article talk page on why your proposed edit was not necessary as the current summary is in line with the sources, I don’t think there’s anything else needed at this point, other than the recommendation to consider using edit summaries as is our best practice. Happy editing :) Raladic (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Raladic (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)