User talk:Kajicat: Difference between revisions
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
::I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's not being covered by reliable sources. Or if it is, you haven't offered a link for it. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
::I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's not being covered by reliable sources. Or if it is, you haven't offered a link for it. [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::My source links straight to The Video Game Critic himself. Seems pretty reliable to me. It shows him questioning his actions, and other readers/users engaging in the conversation with him. Pretty reliable. It happened! There are many other pages on Wikipedia that are aren't sourced as well as what I'm providing, or not even sourced at all. I feel I've provided excellent sourcing.[[User:Kajicat|Kajicat]] ([[User talk:Kajicat#top|talk]]) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Kajicat |
Revision as of 17:12, 6 May 2011
Welcome!
Hello, Kajicat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The Video Game Critic
Please keep in mind that you cannot add statements like "Many of The Critic’s reviews have been considered unprofessional, offensive, and possibly homophobic" to an article unless you supply a reliable source where someone is saying this. Linking to the VGC site itself is not sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I get it! You don't like the Video Game Critic, and may have opinions that are justified; Wikipedia is not the place for this though. Refer to 28bytes suggestion above: if the New York Times prints an article making the claims that you are pushing, then it belongs on Wikipedia. Please stop with reinserting that bit, so here's a somewhat friendly:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
And the article may get locked eventually. Let me know if you have any questions. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have edited the "Controversy" section as you requested. It is very middle-of-the-road and informative. It is also cited very well. Please check the citations. Thank you! Kajicat (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
- Thanks for your message. The problem is still the lack of reliable sourcing, I'm afraid. People on forums can and do complain about lots of things, but we really can't use that as a source, even if their complaint is valid. 28bytes (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand. The sources I am citing are directly from The Video Game Critic himself, and from his actual website. Both sources are from "user-generated" sections of The Video Game Critic site, but one was officially authored by The Video Game Critic himself, while the other source had The Video Game Critic as a contributing author. Being the creator and author of that web domain, The Video Game Critic is a credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff. The Video Game Critic himself is making a claim about his reviews being possibly offensive and/or homophobic in nature and is asking his user base for their opinions. There is no questionable doubt over the authenticity of the source, as the claims are written directly by The Video Game Critic and found on The Video Game Critic's website. All sources I have provided directly support my writing, which is neutral. Would it be best if I do not put it under a "Controversy" section, but rather place it promptly within the correct time line under the "Reviews" section? Are my web citations incorrect? Please tell me what you think would be the best fit for my contribution to this article. Thank you very much and sorry for any misunderstandings. Kajicat (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
- I understand your frustration, and appreciate your considered response. I think the best thing to do at this point is to get an outside opinion. If my interpretation of the sourcing policies and guidelines is correct, perhaps someone else can explain it better than I can. And if my interpretation is wrong... well, it's always good to learn new things! I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I invite you to participate and comment there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- As a side note, both you and I have reverted three times. Reverting a fourth time usually leads to a block, so let's neither of us do that while we wait for the noticeboard discussion to be resolved. 28bytes (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The Video Game Critic again
Hi Kajicat. I and a few other editors have told you this before, but it looks like it didn't sink in, so I'll try again. We'll be happy to let you make the addition you want to make to the Video Game Critic article as soon as you find a reliable source that discusses the controversy. Forum posts by some guy named 'Moonman' don't count. A story in Wired, or 1UP.com or IGN would count. Go find one, then we can add it. If none of them have covered the controversy, then pick one and ask them to. Once they do, we can reference their story. 28bytes (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hello 28bytes. Moonman really exists. He/she is a user on The Video Game Critic's forum. The source I provide goes to a real message board, at The Video Game Critic's real website. This happened. The other link also goes to The Critic's very real forum and website, and features The Critic himself as the topic creator, asking his readers and other forum members if his making fun of "gays" and "homos" constitutes as "gay bashing". This too actually happened, in our reality. I didn't create a "Controversy" section, but instead put it under the "Review" section. It's less about accusations of homophobia and more about confusion as to whether The Critic should continue his making fun of "gays" and "homos" or not. Would you like me to shorten it to one sentence? I have many more sources to use from within The Critic's very own reviews if you want more sources to strengthen this occurrence more so. I'm sorry if you're a fan of The Video Game Critic and feeling the need to defend him.Kajicat (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
- I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's not being covered by reliable sources. Or if it is, you haven't offered a link for it. 28bytes (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- My source links straight to The Video Game Critic himself. Seems pretty reliable to me. It shows him questioning his actions, and other readers/users engaging in the conversation with him. Pretty reliable. It happened! There are many other pages on Wikipedia that are aren't sourced as well as what I'm providing, or not even sourced at all. I feel I've provided excellent sourcing.Kajicat (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Kajicat