User talk:SoWhy

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

A Barnstar for you!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you so much for helping me with this edit(https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Malvika_Sharma&diff=1011141352&oldid=1011090370&diffmode=visual) some weeks ago. It was my first article then and you stopped it from deletion. I was so unaware of WP and was unable to reply you. It is good now. So It's my late thanks. :) Siddartha897 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Just doing my job, but thanks Regards SoWhy 16:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Fallout New Vegas

Hello SoWhy,

I wanted to discuss the reversion of the edits I made. To be honest, I thought I had my citation in there. I also wanted to ask about what is considered verifiable. See, part of me was reluctant to put in citations like the game itself. Because most of the information I get is usually directly from the source. I didn't mean to be unconstructive in any way with my edits and I was doing them in good faith. I actually don't understand which part was original research (or is citing the game originally research? IDK)? I just started editing a week ago so I am still learning the steps a bit.Thank you for your time--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: Games can be used as a primary source for things that explicitly happen in them (see the article Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos for examples, specifically the references "story #" and reference no. 8 which is the game itself and which is used to verify gameplay information) but as WP:OR explicitly warns, you cannot include a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves (emphasis added). In this case, you therefore cannot write that there "seems to be an intended ordered" (sic) if the game does not explicitly mention this order. Hence, per WP:SYNTH you instead need to find a reliable secondary source that confirms such an order. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 17:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Oh! I see! I didn't mean it come off like that. I tend to be really wishy-washy on the intended order. I guess I should have worked on my wording better. In the games, the release order is the story canon because it has an overarching story. I used the term "seem to be an intended order" because technically you can play them in any order, but the DLC release order is the intended story order. The game confirms that with the first three DLCS talking about a nameless courier and Lonesome Road is where it is revealed. I hope that makes sense. I appreciate the time you are taking to talk with me about this.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: I see where you are coming from but again, that is strictly speaking your interpretation. The DLCs do not explicitly state that they should be played in order nor do they say Lonesome Road is the last in any order. That is the point of the Original Research policy. If you wish to write about how the order of release has in-game significance, you need to have a source that explicitly says so. It's been a while since I played NV but I'm pretty sure you are correct that they can be played in any order and the game does not actually make people play them in the order of release. Regards SoWhy 18:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Yeah, you can play them in any order. I understand what you mean though. Since I have your time, I was wondering about verifying information. See part of the info that I was going to link comes from this article. https://novusbars.com/fallout-new-vegas-dlc-order-the-exact-order/ It is true in the game that they do have a level scaling system that can affect what DLC a player can play at the time. I think that's why I thought that was the official order (I played the game with the DLC instantly installed so I did the DLC in that order). Is that source considered a verified source? and would putting information about the leveling scale be original research if the game actually tells you the level scale itself? Thank you so much for your time/ --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: The WikiProject Videogames maintains a list of reliable sources for video game articles at WP:VG/RS which also includes a lot of information on how to assess a source for reliability. Based on this, I don't think a food blog meets those requirements. You can use this custom Google search to only search sources on the aforementioned list. As for level caps, as I said above, if the game explicitly says something, you can use the game as a source. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

{re|SoWhy|SoWhy}} Thank you so much. I can add the information about the levels then. Also thank you for the resources. That helps out a lot. I am sorry if I am taking a lot of your time but can I ask another thing? I put an edit on another page and I wanted some advice. If you don't want to, that's understandable. I really do appreciate that you are talking to me and helping me out. Mostly cause it makes me a better editor. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: No problem, feel free to ask. I'll try my best to help although I'm not the most experienced writer. Regards SoWhy 20:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I actually was put information about a DLC because it lacked a story section (while others had them). It mostly was about what starts the DLC, which comes directly from the game. Someone told me that was original research. It confuses me a bit because that is the only way to start DLC and is shown every time you play. So I am wondering if stating how the story starts is considered original research when it's directly in the game. I just trying to understand the logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PricklyCactus2 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: It shouldn't. If it is clearly in the game and thus everyone can verify it by playing, it's not original research. Can you point out which edit you are talking about so I can see for myself? PS: You don't need to use {{re|SoWhy}} on this talk page, users automatically get a notification when you edit their talk pages. You do need to sign your posts though (the {{re}} template does not work without signing either). Regards SoWhy 06:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you. That's a good thing to know. The edit/reversion is here. My computer didn't load my citations so I tried discussing it with the person who reverted it (to clarify that citation is supposed to be the game). I think my wording didn't help (still learning how to write in the wiki). However, when I talked to them, they said regardless of it's in the game, it's original research. I know the first edit about Broken Steel is written well and it is seen in the game. The Pointe Lookout one's writing doesn't sound objective (which is my bad) but that is the canon as well. It's become an odd situation, to say the least, with the editor not giving me a straight answer and telling me to leave wikipedia. They said I was putting too much detail but the other DLCs have detailed plots, which is why I was adding to Pointe Lookout. I want to learn to be a better editor, but the conversation with them got me nowhere on how to improve my edit (which is why I am asking you). Thank you again for your time --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@PricklyCactus2: I have to say I do not really get what Ferret saw as problematic there. The "The story arguably begins"-wording is subjective, true, but I'm not aware of any rule that forbids you from citing the game as the source if the details can be found in the game nor any rule that DLC story details cannot be mentioned (the WP:VGSCOPE guideline cited does not mention that either). If you are interested in editing the Fallout articles, our fellow editor Anarchyte might be able to give you more specific pointers, seeing as he made Fallout 4: Far Harbor a featured article. Regards SoWhy 12:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tailing the Tomboy is an unmarked quest outside of the main quest line of the DLC, and is optional. To state it starts the story, "arguably" or otherwise, is OR. "The Local Flavor" is the first quest in the main quest line and is given to the player directly via notification shortly after the DLC loads. This quest pretty clearly starts the story, since it leads you to the point you would even meet Catherine. Finally, my statements to the user were not about this one specific edit, but in reflection that they had multiple fan/plot edits reverted across several articles. -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, unfortunately I wouldn't be much help with the plot for other Fallout articles. Truth be told, I've never played the series. The plot section in Far Harbor was initially copied from their Wikia (now Fandom) page and then over the next few months we worked down to a more suitable section. On another note, I agree that "arguably" should not be included. It is an inherently loaded statement if it cannot be sourced to an outlet that also claims it's "arguable". I can give the prose of the article a lookover later this week if that would be useful. I wouldn't be able to comment on the accuracy. Anarchyte (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I said before, I am new to editing on the wikipedia. All my edits were made in good faith. Again, I cannot speak about my other edits that got reverted. However, since you were the one who reverted my edit on Fallout 3 DLC, I can only really talk to you about that. Based on this, I just made a mistake with the wording when it came to the plot so I should be able to write it properly knowing that since it is the start of the story. I don't understand how this system works but if my issue was that minor on this article, it could have been just edited instead of claimed as unconstructive. After all, you just said it started the plot. I understand if you had issues with my other edits but based on all the discussion I had about them, it was honest mistakes in a citation or lack of understanding. My other edits to game pages haven't been an issue, only a handful that I am trying to learn from.--PricklyCactus2 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. I said Tailing the Tomboy does NOT start the plot. It is not the first quest given nor part of the MQ nor mandatory. Please understand I've never suggested your edits aren't good faith. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello SoWhy:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Edits to Talk Page

Thanks for the notice. My edits to the Talk:Domain hack were 1) adjusting the language of (my own) comments to be more clear and less hyperbolic and 2) re-ordering of the page while maintaining the order of conversation. Conversations on the same topic were splitting up into sections on the same thing, and I moved them together while maintaining the same order. Both changes help the discussions. I am allowing the clarification of my previous language to be edited. Can you double check what I stated and revert? And/or let me know how I can proceed to help. 24.89.203.192 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Both are not allowed. Talk pages are supposed to be a record of conversations. If you refactor comments or move them somewhere else, the record will be broken. Replies might no longer fit the comments above them or might even sound more negative than with context. So even your own comments (assuming they are your own) should not be moved or changed. Per WP:REDACT: But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. If you remove parts of those comments (again assuming they were your own to begin with which we cannot verify since IPs can be used by multiple people over the years), comments by others will no longer fit the original comments. Those comments you edited were more than 10 years old. Just leave them be. Regards SoWhy 11:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that modifying comments could distort the replies as they were made on the original comment. In my defense, I performed due diligence and verified the discussion remained intact on both sides, and only removed unnecessary hyperbole. What about organizing the whole page? My edits categorized similar discussions together, without modifying the conversations. The talk page was easier to process and would lend itself a path for future additions to be well organized. Should I still not have done this? 24.89.203.192 (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Talk pages are not governed by the same rules of legibility as articles. If discussions happened in different places and they were not immediately moved when that happened, the preserving of the talk page's record takes precedence. If you believe there are too many discussions to make the page readable, especially if those are pretty old, archiving the old discussions is preferable since it removes clutter without destroying the record (just like what happens on this talk page for example, see the box on top). Regards SoWhy 14:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing me. I was not involved day-to-day as all the talk was happening; When I came back years later, I thought I would help and clean it up. The talk page is so chaotic. The re-organization (I thought) was nice, but I was not aware Wikipedia's strict nature on these adjustments. I understand why they would want to maintain a clear record of conversation though. I see that archiving is just moving the conversation to clear up the main talk page. So, I will leave it as is. Thanks for the help. 24.89.203.192 (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NewspaperArchive.com

Hi SoWhy - I've got a quick question about NewspaperArchive.com, and I'd be very grateful for any help you can offer. A couple of years ago, you approved a request of mine for access to it through the Wikipedia library; I never ended up using it at the time, because the person I was collaborating with already had access and was already familiar with the site, so she did the legwork there. I'm working on another article now, and would like to be able to use the site myself. My application (number 10202) shows as 'Sent to partner': what is the next step for getting access? I didn't ever receive an e-mail from them with log-in credentials, and if I log in using my Google account, I don't seem to have access (it invites me to start a 7-day trial). Apologies if this is all explained somewhere obvious - I'd be very grateful for a link to a help page rather than a specific response. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 10:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Access granted through TWL is good for one year, so your subscription most likely simply expired. You can request a renewal by logging in at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/, clicking on your name (left below the title), navigating to "My Applications" and then selecting "Request renewal" for the resource in question. Regards SoWhy 11:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - I've done that now. Should I expect to receive an e-mail from them, or should I expect to be able simply to log in through Google and get access? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: You'll get an email from me with your login details once it's done, might take a day or two though. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Email received, thanks for your help. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah - on closer inspection this morning, I see the e-mail said that my request had been approved, but that I'll get the log-in credentials in a week or two. Looking forward to receiving those in due course. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

After seeing this I did the "renew" thing on my account as well (although I'm still able to login as usual). Hopefully it won't change my password. Do we have to "renew" all these resources every year? (JSTOR, etc.). I appreciate your work on this end of the project SoWhy - thank you. — Ched (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ched: I cannot speak for other resources but you can check for an "expiry" information in your account (like NArchive.com has). @Girth Summit: I was confused at first, yeah. Accounts are generated manually, so I have to wait to hear back from the resource. Regards SoWhy 12:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)