User talk:Woodroar/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Woodroar. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Epic of Gilgamesh

Hello, Woodroar. I'm aware of the dates in the history section. As far as I can tell, my edits agree with them, and I'm not trying to make any substantive factual changes to the article as it stands. I'm confused about two things, and maybe you can help me out.

1) In general parlance, as far as I know, the "Epic of Gilgamesh" means the unified, standard Akkadian version of the poem, not the various Sumerian Bilgames precursors (which are mostly unrelated to each other and not epics in any meaningful sense anyway). Again as far as I know, this is not in any way controversial. The infobox, if it has the title "Epic of Gilgamesh," should presumably give information on that Akkadian version, not the (comparatively obscure and little-translated) Sumerian precursors. Otherwise it would seem something like dating Shakespeare's Hamlet to 1220, saying it was written in Latin, and attributing it to Saxo Grammaticus.

2) The languages that the various versions are written in is a hugely important bit of information, and the opening before my revisions made no mention at all of Akkadian, the language of (by far) the best-known version. Clearly, we don't want people coming to the page and finding no mention of the language of the most important version without going all the way through the history section. It's already hard enough to get over people's misconceptions that the standard version was somehow in Sumerian (a very, very common mistake for students).

I looked for discussions of this problem on the talk page and couldn't find much, but if there is such a discussion and I missed it, please let me know so I can see (and participate in) the discussion. Otherwise, if you don't mind, please let me know what you think of the two points, or where I'm getting them wrong. I am not the most experienced editor and I'm learning new things here all the time. Thank you for your patience! PhainetaiMoi (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey PhainetaiMoi, thanks for the message! I suppose I've always thought of the Epic as a collection of tales written over hundreds of years and eventually compiled into a mostly-coherent narrative. In many ways like the Bible. But I'm not so sure about setting the "written" date as its date of completion or canonization. In the case of the Bible, that would give us c. 3rd century CE for the New Testament (which is about events that were said to have happened two centuries previously) and c. 7th century CE for the Masoretic Text (two to four millennia previously). Personally, I'd be in favor of a date range for that field, as well as mentioning both Sumerian and Akkadian in the language field. But that's just me. Ultimately, we should write whatever reliable sources say about it, not our own opinions. We should also take this discussion to the Talk page so that other editors can chime in. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Florence Foster Jenkins

I generally don't get involved with categories, but your edit summary here intrigued me. As far as I can tell, Florence Foster Jenkins never sang an opera in her life. I think of her as a concert singer who sang, inter alia, operatic arias. Does that make her an opera singer? I think not, though of course it may be close enough for Wikipedia purposes. - Nunh-huh 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Nunh-huh, that may certainly be the case—I know very little about her and haven't yet seen the Streep film—but I reverted the removal of that category because she's described as "the world's worst opera singer" right in the lede paragraph. I did some googling and found that it's a fairly common statement: The Independent, The Guardian, The Paris Review, The Seattle Times, and JSTOR Daily all use some variation on that phrase. It's even used in the title of a biography reviewed in The New York Times. I think one could argue that being a bad thing might mean you're not actually that thing, but I don't know if there's a precedent for that on Wikipedia. Anyways, if you feel strongly about it, we should probably take this to the article Talk page to see what others think. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not something I have strong feelings about (I find the implementation of categories renders them more or less useless, so it's hard to care one way or the other), more of a thought exercise. How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Answer: 4. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. Similarly, calling someone who's never sung an opera - never sung a full role, with other cast members, on a opera house stage, but who's sung arias in a concert hall - an opera singer doesn't make her one. Even if a lot of people do it. Nothing to do with quality, only reality :).... Anyway, I'm not focused on action, just musing. - Nunh-huh 01:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit?

Hello. You have reverted my edit in "List of massively multiplayer online games". The game has 3d rendering, and it is in the browser. So why would it have been reverted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alej0hio (talk • contribs) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Alej0hio, thanks for your message. It was MrOllie who reverted your message, which you can see in this edit. You're certainly welcome to ask him why he reverted you, but I can guess that it was because Wikipedia does not yet have an article on Krunker.io. Per discussion at Talk:List of massively multiplayer online games, we only include subjects with an article on Wikipedia. If you think that Krunker.io might quality for an article, you should first read our general notability guidelines and consider starting an article at Articles for Creation. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to the removal

Hello. You removed Godville from "List of massively multiplayer online games" with comment "not multiplayer, not really even single player".

Please don't be wronged by looking at the title "zero player game". You can actually play it, and it is a multiplayer game - all "heroes" live in one virtual world. It has multiple Coop and PvP modes, where you can interact with others in realtime. Just a few examples: coop dungeons, sailing, pvp arena. By wiki definition "A multiplayer video game is a video game in which more than one person can play in the same game environment at the same time". I believe it should be on that list.

188.170.198.115 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, third-party sources calling it a multiplayer game, feel free to add it back with a source. (See WP:VG/RS for more about sources.) I wasn't able to find anything. Both Wikipedia and the Godville wiki—neither of which are reliable sources for our purposes, by the way, because they're entirely user-generated—stress the fact that the player doesn't actually control the hero at all. The game runs perfectly fine without any player input at all. But it really comes down to what reliable sources, they'd need to call it a multiplayer browser game before we should add it to that list. Woodroar (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the game may runs perfectly fine without any player input. But it doesn't mean there is no way to actually playing and controlling your character, or to interact with others.

1. It is a browser game, it can be played in a browser (screenshot, also it says so right on the frontpage).

2. It is a game, the player can interact with his character (book source "Buttonless: Incredible iPhone and iPad Games and the Stories Behind Them", second paragraph).

3. It is a multiplayer game, your character can interact with other characters ("You can interact with what’s going on by typing in text-based commands to shape events and even influence other online players’ experiences." - The New York Times).

I believe The New Your Times is reliable enough. If not, I would recommend to spend 5 minutes to make an account on godvillegame.com and see all of it personally. 188.170.198.133 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I played the game years ago, back when it was first released. But our personal experiences don't matter on Wikipedia. Content needs to be based on reliable, third-party published sources and we must accurately represent what those sources say without reading into them or adding our own interpretations. The NYT source is careful to call not to call it a multiplayer game, only that you "interact with what’s going on" and "influence other online players’ experiences". If you can find reliable sources that specifically and unambiguously call Godville a multiplayer game, then great, go ahead and add that at Godville and List of multiplayer browser games. You don't have to convince me, you just need to find sources. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think I found another reliable source. (PCGamer called it "a text-heavy MMO" (with "massively multiplayer online game" tag) - so not only multiplayer, but massive multiplayer game. Which it is, because the game has one shared game world with hundreds online players simultaneously. 188.170.194.236 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

But even there they call it "a text-heavy mmo of sorts" which says it's not, at least not exactly. My own personal opinion is that the developers have been so good at pushing the "zero-player game" term that nobody wants to come out and call it anything else. It's like how basically every game was an MMORPG for a while because that's what devs called them, despite the fact that, for example, they couldn't support hundreds of players simultaneously or there wasn't meaningful interaction between players. It's possible that other editors might know of sources at Talk:Godville, but after a (cursory) search I'm rather doubtful at this point. Good luck! Woodroar (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edits to “Silmarillion” page and “Beren and Lúthien” page.

I don’t understand why my edits were undone with the reasoning if “reliable sources” when a simple google search shows the existence of these items.

Could you please clarify, as when I did the same edit to “The Fall of Gondolin” last year it went through without a problem.. SCB74656 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey SCB74656, good questions! I'm sure the works/albums exist, but Wikipedia has—by design—a higher threshold than "this exists": all content should have been covered by "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia is simply a WP:TERTIARY summary of other works, and any editor should—theoretically, at least—be able to verify that content by following citations. (You can get more information by following those links.)

As for why nobody removed your earlier edit, I couldn't say. It could be that nobody noticed it, or maybe nobody cared to do anything about it. We're all WP:VOLUNTEERs here, after all. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my contributions

Hello Woodroar,

Appreciate for sharing a note regarding my shares. I'm the Editor of the content that I've been sharing here in purpose or spreading the words. But didn't realize that I'm not allowed to share them as they might appear as advertisement. My apologies for that.

I'd like to ask you if there's any way to create a Wiki page for our website "NoobFeed.com" where I can share my publications along with other Editors who are publishing there.

Many thanks in advance for replying.

Best regards,

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vednor (talk • contribs) 04:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Vednor, thanks for understanding. As for an article about NoobFeed, I'm not your site would qualify yet. You can read our notabilities standards at WP:N (or WP:WEB for web content), but the short version is this: to warrant an article on Wikipedia, the subject needs to have been covered by multiple reliable, third-party published sources. (As in, other reputable sites/magazines would have to have written articles covering your site in detail.) For video game content, this often means coverage in some of the sites mentioned at WP:VG/RS. I'll be honest and say that smaller indie media rarely meets those requirements because (unfortunately) nobody writes about them unless they're...well, notorious for something. I did a little looking around and didn't find any coverage of NoobFeed yet, but of course that coverage could appear in a few years or even tomorrow, in which case we could start working on an article. If you know that such coverage exists—I'll admit, it's entirely possible that I missed it—you can then suggest we start an article at WP:SUGGEST. Our conflict of interest policies would strongly advise you not to write the article yourself, because it's basically impossible to be objective about ourselves. I hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Woodroar, Thank you for clarifying the policy. I totally understand your view and will keep a note of this from now onward. One final question. When we interview someone, and if that person have a Wiki page, can we share that interview in his/her page at the reference section? Thanks in advance for replying. Best regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vednor (talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Interviews are often acceptable as external links, as long as they're interesting and there aren't too many of them. But you adding them would definitely be seen as spamming. You can read more about this in our guidelines on external links, especially the section on advertising and conflicts of interest. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For you clear explanation at Talk:Sad Puppies Doug Weller talk 18:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

added some items

Hi. I added two new items to the list in List of multiplayer browser games. Hope that's okay. let me know any feedback. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Sm8900, I'm sorry but I had to revert your contributions. The browser mode for RuneScape has been removed and it doesn't appear that Black Desert Online has ever been playable in a browser. (It's available for PC, Xbox One, and PS4.) I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello. Question about relevancy and notability on articles. There are a near infinite amount of articles on Wikipedia that are stubs with no notability. Moti Island and Tychów Nowy are two good examples. They both have one source each and are completely irrelevant. What makes them okay and my Aardwolf article not? Or are they not okay and we should flag them for deletion? I'm trying to learn about the logic beyond Wikipedia, and it still just doesn't make sense. It sorta feels like its an elite club where the established members just sorta get to enforce the rules when they decide to. Hopefully you can help clear it up. Thanks! Bluedude588 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Bluedude588, good question. We have general and specific notability requirements on Wikipedia. The general notability requirement is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In essence, if there are enough reliable sources covering a subject to write an article about it, then that subject qualifies for an article. (There may be exceptions or reasons why we wouldn't want to write an article, like WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E, but that's another topic.) Then there are specific notability requirements that vary by subject. For example, the notability requirements for geographic features say that "[p]opulated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Or the notability requirements for music say that says any band with a certified gold album is notable. If a reliable source even mentions a populated place or a band having released a gold album, then we can create a "stub article" even without finding other sources. Now you have to understand that the subject-specific requirements were written in the early years of Wikipedia, when there was a bigger drive for more articles than better articles. That being said, there's still a presumption that, if people live in an area or a band releases a gold album, then surely someone, somewhere has written about it. That may not always be the case, but it probably is 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, what makes subjects notable can't always be refined into a requirement like that. There are probably thousands of books with a "list of populated places" or a "list of bands with gold records", but you're not likely to find a "list of games that pioneered some feature" because that kind of claim really requires more detail. For those types of articles, we need to fall back on the general notability requirements. I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yep that does help. Thanks! Bluedude588 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hi Woodroar, thanks for all you do on Wikipedia, and for all your help at BLPN. My you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. (and if you don't celebrate Christmas please feel free to take that as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there.) Zaereth (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth! And the same to you! Woodroar (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Dec 19

I note you have yet again remove vast tracks of material. I am going to suggest you stop before you are prevented.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed negative/controversial claims sourced to tabloids, court documents, and self-published sources, which is exactly what WP:BLP says to do. I even attempted to retain content by citing reliable sources that were already present in the article. I stand by the edit and welcome any kind of scrutiny. Woodroar (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jnes (emulator)

I was the one who restore the article. This is a notable emulator and is among the main NES. This emulator rose to popularity due to its simplicity. I've added 4 additional sources its has been mentioned as "The Best NES Emulator for Windows" as well as, "JNES is the most popular emulator, and for N64, Project 64" it has been compared to Project64. These three sources are reliable and give significant coverage. Gameranx, LifeHacker and the book source. This passes RS and GNG, but not not necessarily VG:RS, however emulators are software and not a video game. The claims these sources make are significant, give these sources can you withdrawing the nomination and open a merge discussion? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valoem, thanks for the message! I did check those sources before nominating the article for deletion, but went ahead with the AfD because I don't think it meets the GNG. Lifehacker is probably reliable—at least it's been brought up at RSN a couple times and several editors have given reasons for considering it reliable—but two sentences about Jnes is not significant coverage. Likewise, the book only devotes two sentences to Jnes. Gameranx has been found to be an unreliable source at WP:VG/S. Even if this weren't the case, it spends only six words on Jnes. WindowsAble and Windows Report appear pretty unremarkable as far as sources go, and they (again) don't cover Jnes in any significant detail, only 6 or 7 sentences. I'm sorry, but I really don't think the emulator meets the GNG at this time. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The general issue is that emulators receive less coverage than major video games, those source do pass RS and a paragraph from multiple sources is generally enough to pass GNG. This would do better as a merge, but no merge target yet, there is definitely enough notability given the claims of the sources as one of the top emulators and most popular to have inclusion in this encyclopedia is some form. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Having less coverage relative to other subjects is a good indication that we shouldn't have an article on that subject. Don't get me wrong, I love emulators and have used them for something like 20 years. Though I haven't used it (yet), Jnes looks great! But we can't ignore our core content policies because we feel that a subject doesn't get the coverage it deserves. I think you'll find my reading of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG to be in line with community consensus. (See WP:Articles for deletion/DeSmuME (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/XQEMU, for example.) But you're always welcome to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Jnes (emulator)! I hope you understand! Woodroar (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The situation regarding some of these emulators is this, they are definitely notable enough to be merged with a parent article, but might not have enough substance for a standalone. I've looked at the other two emulators and have also found enough sources to pass GNG. For example XQEMU has [1], [2] and [3] among many other sources, DeSmuME has [4] and [5] (less notable better to be merged but enough information for a merge), these sources are giving the subjects significant coverage particularly the former when has many sources. In regards to Jnes, and the other emulators I think there is an argument for retaining articles and at a minimum a merge target as per WP:PRESERVE do you not agree? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, but you're certainly welcome to bring those articles to WP:DRV. A courtesy ping would be appreciated if you do, since I'm not currently watching that page. Woodroar (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

text based browser games - The Grail Lords

Hello Woodroar,

On 26th of August I've tried adding The Grail Lords to the wiki list of text based browser games. I noticed that you did made my attempt to add the game to the list undone for being non-notable.

Having very little experience with contributing to Wikipedia I was wondering if there is a way to have The Grail Lords added as one of the text based browser games. The game exists for over 14 years and has a small but dedicated community and I believe it's worth being mentioned.

Yours sincerely,

Gerard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:D30:D000:C439:F3E4:D5EB:6EE0 (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerard! In order to get listed at List of text-based massively multiplayer online role-playing games, The Grail Lords would need an article on Wikipedia. And to qualify for an article (we call that being "notable"), there would need to be significant coverage of the game in reliable, third-party sources. That means games/technology journalism, books, journals, and so on. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any good coverage of The Grail Lords right now. But if you're a fan of the game, you might know of some sources we could use.

If you're interested in looking for sources, I'd suggest reading our general page on reliable sources and then our our specific page on sources for game content. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and kind reply!

I don't think there is much notable coverage from a reliable source about the game available but I will see what I can find and if possible add a new article on Wikipedia.

Stay safe and have a nice weekend ahead.

Gerard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:D30:D000:C439:F3E4:D5EB:6EE0 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes indie game developers spend all of their time on the game and never get around to promoting it, which means that games journalists never hear about it. It's too bad! Anyways, have a great weekend and stay safe, too! Woodroar (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: Ray Davies personal life edit

Hey, I noticed you undid my edit about his sexuality and I agree that maybe "bisexual" may not be the best way to phrase him expressing his attraction to men on multiple occasions in interviews, but it seemed like the least clunky way to put it and is the definition of "bisexual." If you have any ideas on a less simplistic way to express that info, please suggest it. Do you think adding the specific quotes from the interviews would be better? I just didn't want to make that the bulk of the section and noticed that someone previously had already simplified it as "Davies is bisexual", so I thought that was the best way to go. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.120.80.58 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Ray Davies#Bisexuality. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Brie Larson

You've had ample time to respond, but have not. How DARE you speak to me like I am new. How DARE you speak to me like you are staff. You are NOT staff. You spend your time on wiki bullying editors, without care for refs.

'We don't really have staff'.. in fact yes we do have staff:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/Active I would enjoy to hear their thoughts on your habitual bullying of other editors.

Dava4444 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Yes, that includes Administrators. If you believe that I'm bullying you or another editor, please start a discussion at ANI. I welcome the scrutiny into my edits. Woodroar (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Unlawful Editing

I am providing notice to you of my concerns reguarding your unlawful edits to the page of Eric R. Braverman. Who is paying you to edit the page of Eric R. Braverman? If you do not cease and desist I will escalate this dispute to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtmohyi (talk • contribs)

@Dtmohyi: See WP:No legal threats and WP:Assume good faith. The latter is a foundational site policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Dtmohyi. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

About adding the Ryujinx info

It's emulation, it doesn't matter whether Ryujinx has an article or not, it works, and run games, that's what matters. And this is why people should know there is another Switch emulator which is able to run some games YUZU couldn't. If it is about links, then let's just leave Ryujin as pure text, as long as the info is delivered. Islandking2000 (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a directory of useful software or information that you think is important. Our goal here is to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources say. For emulators, that typically means games/tech journalism and books from reputable authors and publishers. If nobody is talking about Ryujinx, that's a good sign we shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added more sources stating Ryujinx is reliable, check the Draft:Ryujinx page, and compare the Yuzu page when it was first approved to be published, "nobody is talking about Ryujinx"? Really? There're articles, videos, discussions about Ryujinx, just like Yuzu.

Also, maybe you forgot the fact that the List of video game console emulators page has been delivering the info about Orbital, oh, so that's the emulator "nobody is talking about" becasue it barely runs any commercial games, and it's certainly not recommended by "games/tech journalism and books from reputable authors and publishers", so it's "a good sign we shouldn't, either", but there it is, did I scene double-standard?

And for the last, it's not I who think Ryujinx is important info, it's I who play the emulator..... with mods someone created for it. Which raises another question, did you even download Ryujinx, run it, and fact check yourself before you remove the info?

Islandking2000 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yuzu (emulator) was moved from Draft space before it should have been. It was nominated for deletion within days, and was kept only because editors found coverage in reliable sources that weren't in the article. It's still a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources and doesn't really meet our policies and guidelines.

I have looked at Draft:Ryujinx and the sources you've added to List of video game console emulators and none of them are reliable. I suggest reading through our guideline on reliable sources, a list of reliable, unreliable, and situational sources for video games, and a similar list for general content for more information on the types of sources we're looking for. Because of this, I've removed mention of Ryujinx again from the emulators list.

I actually hadn't noticed that Orbital was mentioned in the emulators list. The additional sources added there are also unreliable, so I've removed mention of it as well.

I haven't run Ryujinx, and it wouldn't matter if I had. As I've already mentioned, we don't do original research on Wikipedia. We base our articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that's all. Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad I let you recognize a good chuck of 956bytes unacceptable stuff within an tiny 2,745 bytes of a page just somehow stayed invisible to you for half a year later since 2020-03-13, good eye and good find. Maybe you should thank me for this.

OK, but my friend you yet missed another one, you said Engadget is unreliable. For you? A veteran editor, two mistakes in secession, I think you own my an apology for reverting my edit no?

I have reverted the page again, and this time, do check before you try to lie to me about you "looked at the sources I've added to".

Islandking2000 (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm a volunteer here like almost everyone else. I'm also not omniscient, obviously. So yes, thank you for pointing out the Orbital mention that I'd overlooked. But be civil or go bring this up with another editor. Also, please thread your replies for easier reading and accessibility.

Engadget and WCCFTech were already evaluated the last time Draft:Ryujinx was submitted for review, and the draft was declined because Ryujinx was only mentioned in passing. That's also true of the Nintendo Life source. Our general notability guideline calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and the sourcing does need to meet all of those requirements at once. Now that doesn't mean we're requiring three books just about Ryujinx, but I think most editors would agree that 7-9 paragraphs (per source) about the subject is sufficient. That means we ignore short news posts, roundups and "top 10" type articles, news that mostly quotes the developer or someone else, press releases, and so on, even if they're published by an otherwise reliable source.

In most cases, the standard for list articles about video game topics is that entries should have an article on the English Wikipedia, or they should meet our general notability guidelines. Because the draft has been rejected multiple times, it wouldn't qualify at this time. If you'd like to build a consensus to include it, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Talk:List of video game console emulators or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Woodroar (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are right, if there's any offence in my previous discursions, I apologize. Sorry about that.

However, I want to point out that although the Engadget link couldn't grant Ryujinx a dedicated page, the link satisfies a non-trivial mention, and thus you are wrong to revert edits about Ryujinx in List of video game console emulators page. Islandking2000 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The source is 2 paragraphs long with a broken video, and it says nothing remotely close to "is capable of running games". It was specifically called out as a trivial source (Ryujinx is still only mentioned in passing in Engadget) in the most recent review of Draft:Ryujinx. At this point, you're ignoring policy-based objections from multiple editors, so I would suggest reverting your edit. Woodroar (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar:, Could you tell me why Yuzu and Citra, which don't pass the notability test, have dedicated pages for years, and are allowed to mentioned in List of video game console emulators page? Islandking2000 (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yuzu (emulator) has marginal coverage in Tom's Guide, Gizmodo, and BGR, plus a dozen or so trivial mentions in reliable sources. Personally, I don't think that's sufficient, but there was no consensus to delete the article. Citra (emulator) has marginal coverage in Ars Technica and Kotaku. I'm guessing the results would be the same. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I may have missed something, the reliability page you gave me earlier doesn't include Tom's guide, Gizmodo, nor BGR, if you can point me to those. And, afaik, usually three significant mentions in reliable sources is the standard used by video game project, not marginal, not two. So no Citra does not qualify.

There's also PPSSPP, how does it satisfy the reliability standard, and why does it be noted in the list page? Islandking2000 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm just saying why the articles exist—and therefore why they appear on the list—not that I agree with it. Read some of the "drama boards" like WP:ANI and WP:BLPN. You'll find editors willing to fight tooth and nail to defend basically anything. Woodroar (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Never said I'm interested in the drama boards, why link me those? I made it very clear all I asked is to show Ryujinx in the list. Let's stay on the subject yes? Why do you not file deletion on Citra page because it clearly does not satisfy three significant reliable coverage threadhold, and why does the PPSSPP page pass the notability test, and why does it be noted in the list page you've been monitoring? Islandking2000 (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Because I doubt it would be successful and I'm not going to waste my time. Woodroar (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Infinite Flight Page

Hi! I've been following all the flight simulator Wikipedia pages for a while and I thought I would start to input. Infinite Flight seems the least well done, so I thought I would add some simple changes to it.

I'd love some feedback on it if you can! All of it included fair sources that were not press releases, at least as far as I could tell! I tried to make sure they were notable for everyone, as I know some things might not be that popular out of the Flight Simulator world. I'd love to work on the X-Plane one too!

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims, thanks for your message! Unfortunately, I've had to revert most of your edits as those weren't really reliable sources or were talking points from interviews. On Wikipedia, we only summarize claims from from independent/third-party, mainstream or reputable news organizations, scholarship, and the like. In short, sources need to have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which we can usually check by seeing if they're cited by reliable sources. And for the most part, that was not the case with the sources you provided. However, there was one source—Windows Central—which is cited by reliable sources and is one that our Video Game article project recommends. (I'd recommend checking out WP:GAMESOURCES for more video game sources, WP:RSP for specifics on other sources, and WP:RS for our policy on sources in general.) Now since that Windows Central source was a review of the game itself, I summarized it in the Reception section of the article. I've also left a Welcome message on your Talk page with links to learn more about Wikipedia. I hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey. That makes sense! Can I query a few things so I can resubmit a good version. I have edited a few other pages now to get a better understanding, including a few things on the Xplane page.

I noticed how other flight simulator pages get to use the community forums or developer pages, along with the social media of the simulator. Would I be able to do this for Infinite Flight? I’ve just stumbled across their developer timeline after looking at the Xplane one too and it has information that would be great for the page, including technical information.

I also was just reading through the links you suggested. Firstly, thanks for the redirection. I missed reading them before editing! After doing further research, it seems Infinite Flight have both the aforementioned Developer Timeline, but also technical blogs, and a rather extensive manual/guide for users. WP:GAMESOURCES seems to suggest that these would be fine for most of the technical sections of the game.

I’ll see what there is for the reception section if that all works out! Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims: I wouldn't say that other pages "get to" use those sources, only that experienced editors haven't noticed and removed them yet. Another editor just brought up X-Plane (simulator) today at Talk:Infinite Flight and that article is in terrible shape, to be honest. We need to rely on reliable, third-party published sources, so no developer/publisher blogs or interviews or game guides, no niche industry blogs unless they're widely cited by mainstream reliable sources, etc. X-Plane in particular may need to be rewritten from the ground up based on reliable sources, if they can be found. And if they can't be found, then the article should be deleted. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the quick reply. Would I be able to run a few sources/sections past you here before submitting just to make sure they are okay? It will only be a line or two here and there. Happy to just submit something if not. Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If they're about Infinite Flight, you should probably bring them up at Talk:Infinite Flight for transparency and so that everyone who's interested can discuss them. If they're more general questions about editing, your own Talk page or the Teahouse are probably best. I can definitely answer questions here, too, but you'll probably get more and faster answers at those other places. Woodroar (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. Have a great morning/afternoon/evening! Allflightsimsaregreatflightsims (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, and same to you! Woodroar (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Mike Lindell

Hello Woodroar, Thank you for your input on these updates.

Please clarify your reasons for removing the label for conspiracy theorist for Mr. Lindell on the Mankato, Minnesota page - as this is why he is well known as a national figure. He is currently listed as the CEO of a pillow company, which is not the reason for his notoriety. His own wikipedia page references his position as a well-known conspiracy theorist. The attempts at clarifying his reason for being a notable person was not out of an attempt at a personal attack - but at the actual reason for his position as a national figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.200.6.3 (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edits for several reasons. First, our neutral point of view policy requires that we faithfully summarize what reliable sources say about subjects, and they tend not to describe Mike Lindell as a "conspiracy theorist". In fact, I checked stories at the top of Google News results and couldn't find any that did so. Sure, plenty of articles mention that he promotes conspiracy theories—which we cover at Mike Lindell#Attempts to overturn 2020 election—but not to the point where they label him a conspiracy theorist. Unlike, say, Alex Jones, where reliable sources are consistent about that label, to the point where it's in the first sentence in our article about him. Second, our biographies of living persons policy requires that we take great care when editing articles about living people, and unsourced or poorly sourced content must be removed immediately. Ultimately, any claim that someone is a conspiracy theorist should be supported by high-quality reliable sources, and only if the subject is widely described as such. And that doesn't appear to be the case with Mike Lindell. Woodroar (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Woodroar. Replying from a separate IP. I have trouble finding a reliable source that focuses on his career as the CEO of a pillow company, and not on his promotion of conspiracy theories. I would challenge you to find a recent reference from a reliable source which focuses on his role as a CEO and not as his role as a promotor of debunked claims about the 2020 United States Presidential Election. I would suggest that Wikipedia omitting his national fame as someone who promotes conspiracy theories would be disingenuous and frankly akin to a lie by omission.

The New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/business/mike-lindell-mypillow.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/us/mike-lindell-mypillow-dominion-voting.html

PBS Newshour

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/stores-drop-mypillow-after-ceo-pushes-election-conspiracies

NPR

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/26/960679189/my-pillow-ceo-mike-lindell-permanently-suspended-from-twitter

CBS

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-permanently-bans-mypillow-guy-mike-lindell/

Marketwatch

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-has-permanently-banned-the-corporate-my-pillow-account-after-founder-mike-lindell-posted-from-it-11612286764

Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/newsmax-cuts-off-mypillow-ceo-mic-election-conspiracies-video-2021-2

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/mike-lindell-mypillow-trump-white-house-martial-law

2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a couple things to unpack here. Our Neutral Point of View policy says to summarize "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", not only what's happening now. In fact, our explanatory page WP:RECENTISM specifically warns us against focusing on recent news. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. That being said, even if we did look exclusively at recent sources, the articles you mentioned prove my point. None of them call Lindell a "conspiracy theorist" as far as I could tell. Instead, they refer to him as the "My Pillow CEO", "My Pillow founder", "founder of MyPillow", "the company’s founder and chief executive", "C.E.O. of MyPillow", "the MyPillow guy", and so on. The only instance I could find of "conspiracy theorist" in any of those articles was The Guardian talking about Sidney Powell. And that actually says a lot, The Guardian using that term for Powell but not Lindell. Look, I'm no fan of Mike Lindell or Sidney Powell or any of these people, but we're here to summarize what the sources say, not add our own opinions. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a hill that I plan to die on - but it's a bit contrived to claim a significant distinction between someone who "promotes conspiracy theories" and a "conspiracy theorist."

Calling recentism in this case is a stretch given that his widespread notoriety didn't precede the 2020 election. I think it is unlikely that that an encyclopedia-oriented historical view of Mr. Lindell will focus on pillow sales rather than his personal relationship with the President of the United States.

Furthermore, it's significant here that Mike Lindell wasn't even added to this page until 1/26/21 - 8 days ago, after gaining notoriety for meeting with the president to promote a conspiracy theory. I think the page in its current form clearly misrepresents Mr. Lindell as a simple CEO of a pillow company. 2601:282:100:6350:A9DC:9D39:FF77:EC2F (talk)

I get where you're coming from. But there are plenty of adjectives that describe subjects and we can't include them all. We have to focus on what the core identity of the subject is—as identified by reliable sources. In many ways, it's like calling someone a racist or just someone who has said or done or believes racist things. A grand wizard of the KKK? Sure, they're a racist. Being racist is basically what they do. But most people don't make a career out of being racist. It may seem like a trivial distinction, but we have recognize that distinction because it's there in the sources. I should also mention that our article on Lindell was created in 2017, when he was known as a pillow company CEO who made wacky commercials. Virtually everyone editing Wikipedia is a volunteer, so it takes time to write articles and link them around. As we say around here, "There is no deadline". Anyways, I agree that Lindell's profile has changed significantly now, but we can't lose sight of the bigger picture—or ignore how reliable sources choose to write about him. And if that characterization shifts in the future, we can always update our articles to reflect that. Woodroar (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Luigi De Falco and H2biz

Both Luigi De Falco and H2biz scream non-notable and undisclosed paid editing to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose the deletion of this page. It's clearly a self published résumé. Also, no page in Italian of this "notable" Italian guy.Can you please assist me with this? Mobydick98 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobydick98 (talk • contribs)

Hi Mobydick98, I'll try to find the time, yeah. But I would also like to wait and see if anyone else replies at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luigi De Falco. Woodroar (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Juniperus virginiana

I added the data and a Ref, thanks for spotting my unfinished edit.--Stone (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you so much! Woodroar (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Question

what prompted you to send me a message that asks me to include references etc? There was nothing specific and no mention of any 'infraction'...I only sign in once in a bluemoon so pls. don't expect answers right away from me. Hazael bc (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

Hi Hazael bc, the message was about your edits here and here. Both added references to the Institute for Creation Research blog, which is in no way a reliable source. Woodroar (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate the notice. I'll work to ensure that article and my future edits follow it. --BananaYesterday (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

BananaYesterday, thank you very much! Please let me know if you have any questions at all, or would like me to take a look at the article after you've worked on it. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Article "LowTierGod" - still requiring removal of the name from the Infobox

Hello, thank you for cleaning up the article LowTierGod, and especially for removing the unsourced claim about the name "Dale Emanuel Wilson". I just want to point out that the claim still exists in the Infobox of the page. The claim was displayed in two places, the introductory sentence, and the Infobox. Could you please also remove the claim from the Infobox also?

Thank you once again for your voluntary work on the articles.

Incidentally, the Infobox of the page also states that the person was "born in California, United States". This claim is likewise not supported by any valid sources.

Shortscircuit (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, I totally forgot about the infobox! That has now been removed. Woodroar (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Now that the article has been cleaned of the unsourced claims, it is more obvious how thin the subject matter is. This was the reason why I had initally sought deletion. I think that special attention needs to be placed on this article so that the unsourced claims cannot be added back into it after the semi-protection period ends. Shortscircuit (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Shortscircuit, it's on my Watchlist and—I have to assume—several other editor as well, after getting mentioned at ANI, BLPN, etc. I agree that the article is thin because there's not much coverage there, but I'm not sure if it's thin enough to support deletion. We'll have to see if other editors find more reliable, independent sources to add. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal clarification that is important to me

In my judgement, euphoria is an epitome of sickness. I think only true cruel rape and snuff enthusiasts enjoyed this game. It's important to me that you'll know this. I was looking for thorough criticism about euphoria but only found incidental quotes. I have not dispaired of finding these, though. euphoria is a dangerous bundle of good, even excellent production of a deeply immoral content - a bit like120 days of Sodom but in my opinion even worse - because euphoria's outright intention is to induce sexual arousal from extreme sadism. My curiosity had the better part of me to play euphoria, and the excellent writing kept me trough a repulsive and traumatizing experience - this is exactly what I would have conveyed in the article if I was a "reliable source", which I'm not. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

אילן שמעוני, I understand. Enjoyment of problematic media and/or creators is complicated and everyone's line is different. And that's only enjoyment—there are plenty of other reasons to engage with media that we don't even enjoy. I mean, I get involved in plenty of BLP articles on Wikipedia where I find the subject detestable, but I still want the article to be encyclopedic and not some rant against them. So I get it. While I disagree with your arguments at the AfD, I certainly don't think you're a bad person or anything because of it. Woodroar (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 😊 אילן שמעוני (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On another side note - I'm pretty sure that the sources will not be authorized, but a serious attempt to put an important article must be done. For all the little hope there is to it, I hope the article stays. There's a problem with too-binding sourcing policy that fail to approve this article, however it is the policy. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

אילן שמעוני, be careful what you wish for! Most amateur games websites are awful. There's no fact checking, no separation between news and opinion/editorial and gossip, no labeling of sponsored content or articles based on press releases. That's probably great for developers, because they can pay for coverage, pay for "game of the year" awards, pay to run unsubstantiated rumors about their competitors, etc. But I certainly wouldn't want to read that. Wikipedia would be unrecognizable, no better than your average internet forum. Just something to think about! Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But... all this points have been proven moot for LewdGamer... 🙄 אילן שמעוני (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

אילן שמעוני, have they? I just skimmed through a few dozen articles and virtually all of their "content" is repackaged press releases, either quoted without attribution (which is sketchy) or rewritten (which is even sketchier). They have sections for censorship and tech news, editorials, comics, but they're written only 3 or 4 articles this year. Compare that with their press-release-driven "gaming" section, which has at least 40 product announcements this month alone. That's the definition of churnalism. Woodroar (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Note of thanks

I just wanted to send you a small note of thanks regarding our discussion on John McGuirk. Obviously we didn't come to an agreement, but I found your contributions civil and perfectly pleasant, even where I didn't agree with your points. It was particularly nice given that was not the standard of response I had received up to that point. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you as well! I'll be the first to admit that assuming good faith and remaining civil can be difficult at times—in other cases, at least, not this time—but it's definitely the right thing to do. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Just as an addition to this, given the current circumstances. What is the protocol here if B simply refuses to accept that a source does not say what he wants it to say and keeps adding it back? He's just spamming stuff on the Talk page now, and refusing to comment on your suggestion every time it's put to him, and it feels like he's actively trying to disrupt and derail. I'm new, so maybe this is just how things are done here, but it doesn't feel constructive and I'd prefer a solution rather than having to response to someone multiple times because most of their comments have a negative accusation against me inside it. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, a few things, and please excuse me if I'm too honest here:

First, I agree that the source should probably be (or stay) removed. I'll add my thoughts at the article Talk page shortly. But before we do anything, I want to hear what other editors think and see if a consensus emerges.

Second, you should really step back and let discussions happen. You don't have to respond to everyone. We're not operating on a deadline and we're also (mostly) volunteers, so it can take some time to develop a consensus. And if that doesn't happen, we have ways to get more input, like WP:3O or a noticeboard. But you've made more than 45% of the edits and added more than 47% of the text at Talk:John McGuirk, plus you've started discussions at BLPN, NPOVN, RSN, and at individual editors' Talk pages. It may seem like you're inviting more input but what's more likely is that nobody wants to get involved now. I've found that if you start a discussion and nobody responds right away, give it a few days or even a few weeks.

And third, if you do have a conflict of interest, it's not too late to disclose it. Your focus on this single issue was questionable before, but the timing with this source update is beyond suspicious. The best way to prove those suspicions are unfounded is to go edit other articles for a while. And while I (now) agree with you about removing the DCU source, I also understand why editors like Bastun might not have any good faith left. We have a saying, "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact". While we should always approach disputes with good faith, it's not a finite resource—and there are occasions where it's entirely appropriate to drop it.

As always, if you have any questions, let me know! Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No need for any apology on the honesty front, I'm always happy to hear it. On stepping back I do take your point, but I think a fair amount of that is me responding to comments with rather direct comments about my conduct. I had actually stepped away for a while and had thought the RSN and NPOVN discussions would have ended whilst I was away. On my focus on the article I had originally just signed up because I saw something I thought was clearly wrong and I, rather naively, thought I'd pop in, change it to what I thought was supported by sources, and be on my way. I accept your point on the timing, but I would also make the point that if I was acting in bad faith I would have been smart enough not to bring it up the first day it was changed. On good faith I don't think Bastun started with any to lose, but that may just be due to how we ran across each other.

Just as a general question on Wikipedia it seems like there are far fewer editors than I had expected, on Irish articles particularly, has that always been the case or have I just been looking at smaller articles? Perpetualgrasp (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The number of active editors increased rapidly and peaked in early 2007, declined to early 2013, and has been slowly increasing ever since (but not to 2007 numbers). You can see a graph here and tinker with some of the parameters. But editor count definitely varies by subject too. There are probably more editors interested in subjects like Pokemon and wrestling than articles about most nations. Also, a great deal of content gets added by anonymous/IP editors as well—the last I heard, they add more than 50% of the content on Wikipedia, though a significant amount of that gets removed as well. Woodroar (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I had really expected there to be more editors .That was actually part of why I took the far-right thing to the other noticeboards, I had assumed the McGuirk page was basically a dead page based on the low number of people there, but it looks like I just overestimated the number of active editors. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't help that most of the article creation is done—in a lot of fields, at least. Barring new developments or sources, the important and/or popular articles are essentially finished. Now it's less about "creating" and more about "fixing", which isn't as exciting.

Anyways, if you're interested in finding articles to work on, I recommend joining a WikiProject. We've got regional projects like WikiProject Ireland and WikiProject Northern Ireland, for example, or just go to Wikipedia:WikiProject and search for something. You're much more likely to find active editors who know more about the specific subject. They're also a great resource for outside opinions if you're involved in any more disputes.

I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)