User talk:Eloipfeiffer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:37, 3 February 2007

Welcome

Hello, Eloipfeiffer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
ENeville 00:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Just because the site has a review of a game does not mean it should be linked.--Drat (Talk) 14:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to cite the reviews in the articles, as opposed to merely adding the reviews everywhere. Besides that, it may be viewed as a conflict of interest, as a review of your contributions show them to be solely concerned with adding links to your site. In a few situations, these links have been added to the top of the link section, and sometimes in the references section of an article; see items 3 and 5 here.--Drat (Talk) 01:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - EP

Upon viewing your site, I note that you do not actually critically review these products and productions, but instead provide summaries of various reviews, making it unsuitable for citing, as the individual reviews themselves would have to be cited where they are used as sources in the article.--Drat (Talk) 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the Metascores & edited descriptions, along with the release and background information is all created by the Metacritic staff. I don't see how this is different than an IMDb type of page. Any assistance would be appreciated.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eloipfeiffer (talk • contribs).

A check of all the links you have added since registration (yes, I checked all 150+ of them) showed release details little more that what is already available in the article (and trivial anyway), while the descriptions are either taken from the developer/publisher, or are trivial and/or plot summary and not really useful for an articlel; plot summary can be sourced from the work itself, and should not the focus of a truly encyclopedic article anyway. As for the metascores, they are, quoting from the site itself "a weighted average of all of the scores assigned by individual critics to that movie, game, book or album". You jave often added these links to indirectly related pages, such as linking reviews of a book in the article on the author. Regarding links like IMDB, those have been used for years as they often have a lot more than just simple release info (though some just link them regardless of worth). Besides that, just because other links are present doesn't necessitate that yours should too. As far as I know, there is also not the potential conflict of interest situation I described before.--Drat (Talk) 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. OK, sounds like you just want nothing to do with Metacritic on Wikipedia. I rather enjoyed participating in this project. I thought I was adding the to overall experience of your users, but I guess I was wrong. I'll avoid contributing to your community in the fututre. Best, EP

Hey, I didn't mean any offence.--Drat (Talk) 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, none taken. I was just a little surprised that you'd come down so hard on a site like Metacritic which so generously links out to hundreds and hundreds of other sites free of charge. We're solid netizens, yet you're so exacting when I post a few links on your site. Oh well. Like I said, I'll not run afoul of your rules. I'm just a little bummed. I had a different image of what you guys were about. But it's not your fault.