Jump to content

User talk:Kajicat: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Kajicat (talk | contribs)
Line 18: Line 18:
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.
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. [[User:Kajicat|Kajicat]] ([[User talk:Kajicat#top|talk]]) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat
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. [[User:Kajicat|Kajicat]] ([[User talk:Kajicat#top|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, [[User:28bytes|28bytes]] ([[User talk:28bytes|talk]]) 23:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


== Invitation to take part in a pilot study ==
== Invitation to take part in a pilot study ==

Revision as of 23:48, 14 April 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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]