Virtrium
|
July 2009 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): googlepages\.com (links: http://www.google.com/gwt/n?source=pagecreator&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.virtrium.com-a.googlepages.com%2Fhome (redirect from http://www.virtrium.com/)).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Istaria edit
Hello, Virtrium. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted, 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:
- You need not declare your conflict of interest, but we recommend it.
- Do not edit articles about yourself, your organization, or your competitors. Do not edit related articles. (Exceptions.)
- Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or create a draft in your user space.
- Your role is to summarize, inform and reference — not to promote, sell, or whitewash.
- If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject.
- Have us review your draft.
- Work with us and we'll work with you.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
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. Woodroar (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
October 2013 edit
I have removed the "Content Updates" section at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted. Version history lists are considered inappropriate content; prose summaries and development history are acceptable, but preferably referenced by reliable, third-party published sources.
In addition, as I noted above, you have a clear conflict of interest in editing the article. As such, you should limit yourself to non-controversial edits such as removing vandalism. Addition of content to the article should be proposed on the Talk page, and it's best even with consensus to let someone else add it.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Re: "Content Updates" removal
- The version history list provided is a non-biased, general summary of changes to Istaria. Below are links to wikipedia pages with similar version history lists on wikipedia:
- I'd like to request that the list be added back in, or please make suggestions on what edits are needed to bring the list in line with Wikipedia guidelines / standard of use set by other pages.
- The current page has significant content for the game Horizons - which is different from Istaria. After the assets were purchased in 2007, and changes began to re-sculpt the game, the name was changed to reflect this. I've tried removing the content related to Horizons, but the edits were removed. Can you help to make this article more accurately reflect Istaria / separate out the content to accurately reflect Horizons?
- Much appreciated for your checking Wikipedia articles to ensure accuracy and reflect guidelines. Virtrium (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- You'll find a list of inappropriate content for articles on video games—which includes "[e]xhaustive version histories"—at WP:VGSCOPE. (Projects that govern other software, such as iTunes, may well have different guidelines.) A prose paragraph of highlights could be included, but we should allow independent/third-party sources judge what's important to include. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines helpful as well.
- If you'd like to request help with the article, drop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. I think you'll find that by suggesting some independent sources, we'll be able to flesh out the Istaria time so the article isn't so focused on the earlier development. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link to the wikipedia guildline. I'm pretty sure that page is saying to not include "exhaustive" lists, such as every minor patch or revision. The list removed was only major versions, not an exhaustive list of every minor version or patch.
- Please see the following wikipedia pages for examples of other games that also include lists of major versions:
- I'd like to ask your help in how to best revert the current page to a Horizons page, and then create a new page for Istaria. If you can provide guidance, or make the separate page, I can then reach out to players for help in compiling and building a new Istaria page with proper references. Thank you again for all your help. Virtrium (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The articles on Dungeons & Dragons Online and EverQuest include a simple list of expansions, which, in the case of EverQuest, include links to separate articles. There is no spammy/unencyclopedic language and no links to press releases. Ultima Online does get spammy at times, but a list (at least) is justified to support (again) links to separate articles. If Horizons and Istaria are truly different games, it would be best to have separate articles. If you would like help working on the article or second opinions on the version history, feel free to start a new section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've corrected the updates history, following the same format as the Dungeons & Dragons Online page. The format is now simple and has no description that could be considered biased. I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria you've outlined above, in trying to eliminate the "spammy/unencyclopedic language", and any bias of the description text. I've left the references in place, since it seems something shouldn't be listed unless it's got an external reference (so it's not considered opinion). I'm going to start work on pulling together the major update history from the previous development teams, so those can be added to the article and to further expand the development history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtrium (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2013
- I've reverted your edits again. I'm going to be very frank here: you have a very clear conflict of interest at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted and should not be editing there except in a very small set of circumstances. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#COI at Istaria: Chronicles of the Gifted, so feel free to continue discussion there. Woodroar (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've corrected the updates history, following the same format as the Dungeons & Dragons Online page. The format is now simple and has no description that could be considered biased. I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria you've outlined above, in trying to eliminate the "spammy/unencyclopedic language", and any bias of the description text. I've left the references in place, since it seems something shouldn't be listed unless it's got an external reference (so it's not considered opinion). I'm going to start work on pulling together the major update history from the previous development teams, so those can be added to the article and to further expand the development history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtrium (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 October 2013
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Since your contributions aren't explicetely promotional despite being mostly within the realm of "conflict of interest", I want to clarify this is, at the time being, exclusively a username-based block, because your username violates our policy both because it represents a company instead of an individual and because it implies shared use amongst Vitrium's staff. I would urge you to request a rename & unblock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)