User talk:R9tgokunks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:49, 27 June 2018

Justice League

I just wanted you to know that the information you wanted to insert was removed from the lead. First, the lead summarizes and shouldn't be a house for unique information not present elsewhere in the article. Second, the article wasn't identifying it as a "bomb" in the sense that you were using it when you linked to that page. It was using the term as a symbolic reference for the film not performing better, not that it didn't make money. They kind of go out of their way to point out that if it was any other franchise, it would be considered a success, but because it's Justice League it's considered a "bomb" simply because it didn't make a billion dollars. They weren't actually comparing direct costs to revenue ratios and we shouldn't be presenting the information as if they were. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Bignole, In modern times, the phrase 'box office bomb' is used liberally for any film that does not make what is expected, see "The Mummy", "Blade Runner 2049," "King Arthur", and "Justice League." -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The very page you link to says that it's more than just simply not making back what it costs. Again, the issue not about whether it lost money, the issue is two-fold: The lead is not the place to introduce unique information that isn't present in the rest of the article, and Forbes was talking about how Justice League compares to other franchises and because of its hype is considered a bomb, not because of actual money lost. That's my point, they go out of their way to point out how it's made as much as many other films that cost similar, but it is not living up to reputation. You cannot insert that into the lead for sensationalism when there isn't context to explain what Forbes is saying. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, User:Bignole. The fact is that Justice League is a box office bomb, and this is well reported as a simple Google search indicates. In 2017, the term has been used liberally for films that grossed more than their budgets but did not perform as expected. See Blade Runner 2049, King Arthur, The Mummy (2017 film), and Justice League. Here are many sources calling it a box office bomb, and the term 'box office flop', which links to the same wiki article:

1.The Atlantic calls it a 'flop.'

2.Uproxx calls it a 'bomb.'

3.Screenrant calls it a 'box office bomb disaster.'

4. [1] Forbes does, as sourced before, and no it's not a "joke" as you claim: "Justice League is somewhat unique unto itself in terms of being able to make so much and still be considered a bomb."

5. Vulture calls it a 'flop.'

6. Business Insider calls it a 'flop.'

7. Observer calls it a 'flop.'

8. toofab calls it a 'flop.

9. Express calls it a 'flop.'

etc.

I notice you frequent your time on articles pertaining to DC products. Do you happen to work for DC or Warner Brothers? Perhaps you should take a break from editing DC related articles as you are letting personal interests get in the way of the mission of Wikipedia. It's quite a conflict of interest and goes against the rules of Wikipedia. See: WP:COI. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't presume to know me based on what I edit. It's unprofessional and uncouth to accuse me of having a COI because you think I work for something I don't simply based on my edits. I have also edited tons of Horror related articles, do you assume I work for those companies as well? Please don't try to distract the discussion with baseless accusations.

Second, you clearly keep missing my point. I never said the film was or was not a bomb. What I said was that (and I'll try to make this clearer for you):

1) The lead is for summarizing an article NOT for inserting unique information not present elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD

2) The way Forbes is talking, you're presenting the information without context and Forbes is clearly talking about the film in relation to its performance and other franchises, not simply the Xs and Os of budgets. Yes, it has failed to make its money back. Not disputing that, nor disputing the actual label of "bomb". I'm telling you that you are misattributing what Forbes is saying by trying to make it seem as though they are specifically talking about cost and revenue. It's much more than that and you can see that from reading the whole and not title grabbing.

In conclusion, what you should surmise from this is that you need to develop the box office section more to reflect what you're trying to add instead of simply taking the shortcut approach and throwing it in the lead (where it doesn't belong, because the lead is for summarizing). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, per this discussion, I will add that information via the sources i have amalgamated into the box office section, and then after I will reinsert it into the lede, as it is very notable, and currently isn't mentioned at all on the article, which i find sinister. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Landis

Your edit does not match your edit summary? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot, I'm sorry User:NeilN ! I didn't know you already removed it. I assumed something went wrong with my editing. I was in the process of removing it when that happened. No malicious intent! I've also messaged that user on their talk page letting them know it goes against WP:BLP and WP:RS.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually EEng who removed it. Do you want to undo your edit? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops. I see that now. I don't think I can at this point because i've made a few more edits attempting to add past information, with good sources, such as Newsweek. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

The reason why I think this is better suited as a category is because it only has one column, and your reason might not apply because the template could be added to other articles. ToThAc (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milo Yiannopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leslie Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message

In regards to the sources please find the links below! I'm not to sure how to edit all this but feel its important.

Thanks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bright-screenwriter-max-landis-accused-of-sexual-assault

https://screenrant.com/max-landis-sexual-assault-harassment-allegations/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.53.220 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nemetsky National District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halbstadt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic languages

Hello. There is a dialect continuum from the Low Franconian to the Central Franconian and High Franconian languages via Limburgish. Limburgish was already affected by the High German consonant shift and is already transitional between Low Franconian and Ripuarian. Also, Low German has more Ingvaeonic (North Sea Germanic) features than Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alternative for Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

Young Alternative for Germany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anti-Islam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative for Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, R9tgokunks. You have new messages at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States).
Message added 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stickee (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited On Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

English people article

But therefore wouldn't my addition hold true since ethnicity falls under association ("otherwise associated with England")? I only add this because the article implies that English people are only considered so if they are born in England; "native to", (native referring to ones place of birth and nothing else). What would you define as an English person and the difference between ethnic and nationality in this case? Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope to hear your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.249.70.183 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

category changes

Please stop edit warring with me. I am updating a category that you are interfering with. Charles Manson, Al Capone and many others are not in the category because they are not currently prisoners or detainees of the US government. If you desire to help with Wikipedia, perhaps you can add th em...if you can convince others that they should be included. Please stop your vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia policy. You are the one who is commiting vandalism. see WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is the REMOVAL of content. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my posting to your talk page? I explained earlier I am updating a category. You have decided not to discuss and have only threatened me with being a vandal and that I will blocked. Sir or Madam please stop interfering in my editing with such blatant disregard. I explained earlier the category prisoners and detainees of the us government is for current prisoners and detainees only. I have offered as proof the fact that Charles Manson and Al Capone are both excluded for obvious reasons though both served considerable time in US prison. Please communicate and do not remove my edits, nor my posting to your talk page. Thank you!2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains I am not a vandal and will not debate the issue with me. You removed my posting to your talk page and have continued to revert all my edits for the category in question. I do believe to remove talk page discussions on any talk page is a violation of Wikipedia policy and is in fact vandalism itself.

1. Vandalism is the removal of content, which you are doing. READ WP:VANDALISM. (I already stated that above.)

2. Wikipedia policy specifically states that users can do whatever they want to their talk pages. I can delete whatever I want. Also, you're complaining about me removing your post after I had re-added it, anyway. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content changes as the time changes. Please explain why the two individuals I cited are not included in the category? It is because they no longer fit the category. Perhaps, you should wait for a real answer rather than resorting to edit warring and vandalism. Thank youWell please reread the General talk page. Please use some sense man!

This IP is going through almost every article and removing the same category. R9tgokunks ✡ 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @R9tgokunks: As well they might; as they have explained on your Talk page, the category should not remain on the page of everyone who at one time was a federal prisoner indefinitely. Discuss with them, please. General Ization Talk 03:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you will assist me with reverting all the undo's that need to be done. Or perhaps you wish to consult with another higher up? I can wait. Though I believe the consensus right now is two to your one2602:306:8B8C:29A0:70A4:BD5C:FF8B:FDE4 (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Mark Rigg

I've added some relevant tags, sadly I don't have time right now to review this in more detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Danish colonial empire, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ada and Cong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Correctman (talk) 03:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Czechs and Germans[reply]

Hi! Czechs are not related to Germans. The only people in the Czech Republic who are related to Germans are Sudeten Germans, who are ethnic germans living in the Czech Republic. Czechs are a Slavic people. There are german minorities in France, Poland, Italy. That doesn't make the people living in these countries related to germans. It's only the ethnic germans living in those countries that are related. If u need more explanation. Dont hesitate to write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctman (talk • contribs) 03:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited County of Saarwerden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bockenheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. In the Low Saxon-speaking regions of the Netherlands, Low German is referred to as Low Saxon only, and in the West Low German-speaking regions of Germany, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Also in English, Low German is referred to as either Low German or Low Saxon. Only in the East Low German-speaking regions, Low German is referred to as Low German only. You might want to have a look at the version as of 14:58, 11 November 2017 before someone classified Dutch and Afrikaans as "Netherlandic". Also, it is strange that there is, since 18:51, 7 December 2017, a category "Standard variants" for the Low Franconian languages, when there are other standardized Germanic languages as well. And the West Low German dialects have more in common with the Anglo-Frisian languages than the East Low German dialects. Also, Dutch and Afrikaans are West Low Franconian. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images in signature

~~It should be noted that it is against Wikipedia policy to use images in your signature. Please alter your signature to remove the images as per WP:SIGIMAGE. Thank you.~~ Canterbury Tail talk 22:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just realized it's actually a Unicode character. Ignore me. Canterbury Tail talk 22:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Czech Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Collins

Name of the Czech Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Collins

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it reverted?

I don't understand, why was this reverted? I was not vandalizing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=HowToBasic&oldid=835976569

You defaced the article by reverting to an older version. It re-added a large amount of WP:OR, removed content, and removed a bunch of sources, which were explicitly added to improve the notability of the article. In both edits you used a misleading edit summary (Added birth name) and even when doing that you added obvious uncited O.R. (Michael Stevens is not HTB). You did it twice and you would have known what you were doing, so you can drop the act. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that the fact was still unknown. But thanks for letting me know about why my edit was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up at French people

This edit may not qualify for a 3RR exemption, because you reintroduced bad data. I am inclined to roll back all the way to the version from 25 April, once the article stabilizes a little bit; it looks like the IP edit on 2 May is where the bad data (like 6M French in Argentina) got introduced. —C.Fred (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: Thanks for the heads up. Do what you will. I want to get it back to where it was. R9tgokunks ✡ 06:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I seem to have rolledback to a revision by yourself. Was there bad data in that revision? R9tgokunks ✡ 06:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This edit by Odoures was actually a good edit. The population in Argentina is the easy data to track to the source. —C.Fred (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Czechs

Austrians and Germans were wrongly and boldly added by an anonymous editor. The more recent attempts to remove this part have been proper. Please see a discussion dating back over 12 months[2] still on display. Thanks. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alsatian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the link to Dhimmitude dot com is to an Islamophobic source and irrelevant to the argument about the weakness of the Cairo Declaration

It appears that you undid my edit which pointed out the problematical link. I am quite sure of the accuracy of my comment. Can you please explain more fully how my edit was not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.14.141 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you haven't been to Wikipedia before. Your edit was bad, in general. You didn't even delete the whole source and it left the article looking bad due to the spare wiki-syntax. Also, you didn't look at the source anyway. It states that it's a copy of an article David Littman (historian) published in Midstream. Plus, I'm not seeing how the site that hosts the article is Islamophobic. Also, you need to learn how to sign your comments R9tgokunks ⯃ 06:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is removing misleading information vandalism?

Care to explain? With specific reference to articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_for_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Vandalism, also read WP:CITE and WP:RS. Removing information that is well cited is vandalism. R9tgokunks ⯃ 19:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in both instances why they are not well sourced. In the second case it seems you didn't bother to check and just issued a warning because you don't like me or whatever. The behavior of moderators on this site is quite incredible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.239.181 (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with that block for personal attacks and disruptive editing, like I warned you about. R9tgokunks ⯃ 21:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Czechia

Would you please do kind an explain why is an official Facebook site of the Czech government something which you are deleting instantly from the article Adoption of Czechia? Thank you and regards from Basel, Swiss Confederation ;-) Helveticus96 (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I join this question. Who has the right to delete something, which is obviously undeniable, important for the issue and official without discussion ? It happened many times in this context. Heptapolein (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. I'd also like to know why this isn't allowed. The provided link seems like a reasonable way how show that the Czech Government somehow works in order to promote the name. The Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs use their Facebook account to communicate with the public. Is it not reliable enough? Oasis98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oasis98:, @Heptapolein:, @Helveticus96: You all need to read up on Wikipedia policy per the links I left on the talk page. Facebook links are not usable for sourcing on Wikipedia, anyways. R9tgokunks ⯃ 05:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Helveticus96:, per Wikipedia:BOTTOMPOST, you should always place new talk page comments at the bottom of others' user talk pages. Please start doing this. R9tgokunks ⯃ 05:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:MyAnimeList has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:MyAnimeList. Thanks! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roseanne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Deadline and Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to

read this.Best,∯WBG^converse 05:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familar with that. I stepped away after realising that. A fellow administrator brought it to my attention. R9tgokunks ⯃ 06:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:) It might be also prudential to note that a vandal-IP-hopper had created a misleading edit-notice for your t/p, which I've tagged for G3.Best,∯WBG^converse 06:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion of Only If (2014 Video Game)

Hey R9tgokunks,

I just received a proposed deletion of the article mentioned above, I've read that the reason is because of another banned account is sock puppeting. Is the propsal out of general suspicion?

I'm the video game's creator and acknowledged that when creating the article and tried to ensured no bias while editing by basing how the article is written to other game articles.

For verification reasons, my email is tarek@creability.co if you wish to further confirm that I am the game's developer who wrote the article.

Regards, Tarek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fromfame (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fromfame:. Well, you're weren't under suspicion before...this has to do with a different user entirely who had a history of bad editing. (User:Mayamaya7) They were blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET.

Also, Wikipedia has rules against editing articles pertaining to subjects you are close to... (see WP:Conflict of interest, WP:NOTPROMO) normally you're supposed to report a COI, sometimes continued editing with a COI can get you blocked from editing. Unfortunately, since you're the creator of the project and you created it's article, I think it bodes poorly for the article's status... especially because per WP:NOTABILITY we need significant coverage and sources. We don't have that in the sources. 1 source is the website for the company (see also WP:PRIMARY SOURCES), and another is Giant Bomb, which is a notoriously unreliable source. R9tgokunks ⯃ 04:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @R9tgokunks: I understand thanks for your explanation, there were references on the article to meta critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/only-if) and the steam's page (https://store.steampowered.com/app/298260/Only_If/) which sold 1.2 million units and had youtubers such as pewdiepie monetize it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGHn8Ksfxg).

Does having a COI still result in an article's deletion regardless of such references and an attempt at writing fairly?

I was motivated by this disclosure during the creation process: "Disclosing your relationship with the subject is important in both giving context and transparency with your edits. Additionally, it helps others assist you in making your content more suitable for Wikipedia." fromfame 6:46, 27 June 2018 (GMT)

Realm Royale PROD

I declined your PROD of Realm Royale. I don't see any problem with the article itself; there's enough sourcing and discussion to establish a degree of notability. It wouldn't qualify for CSD G5, given that the article has had substantial edits by others. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 290: / Line 290: @@
 :*Also, Wikipedia has rules against editing articles pertaining to subjects you are close to... (see [[WP:Conflict of interest]], [[WP:NOTPROMO]]) normally you're supposed to report a COI, sometimes continued editing with a COI can get you blocked from editing. Unfortunately, since you're the creator of the project and you created it's article, I think it bodes poorly for the article's status... especially because per [[WP:NOTABILITY]] we need '''significant''' coverage and sources. We don't have that in the sources. 1 source is the website for the company (see also [[WP:PRIMARY SOURCES]]), and another is Giant Bomb, which is a notoriously unreliable source. [[User:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'>''R9tgokunks''</span>]] [[User talk:R9tgokunks|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em red'>⯃</span>]] 04:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
+Hi {{ping|R9tgokunks}} I understand thanks for your explanation, there were references on the article to meta critic (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/only-if) and the steam's page (https://store.steampowered.com/app/298260/Only_If/) which sold 1.2 million units and had  youtubers such as pewdiepie monetize it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGHn8Ksfxg).
+Does having a COI still result in an article's deletion regardless of such references and an attempt at writing fairly?
+I was motivated by this disclosure during the creation process:
+"Disclosing your relationship with the subject is important in both giving context and transparency with your edits. Additionally, it helps others assist you in making your content more suitable for Wikipedia."
+[[User:fromfame|fromfame]] 6:46, 27 June 2018 (GMT)
 == Realm Royale PROD ==