User talk:Vanessaezekowitz: Difference between revisions

Hello, I saw your reverted my maintenance using reasons which are not valid. Firstly, Because Minecraft is notable and meets Wikipedia policies, does not mean Minetest does. References are counted towards notability. Minetest has 4 references and Minecraft has 98 references. They are not a lot hence one being notable does not mean the other is. Also because people play or write the game, does not exclude Minetest from having to use references. I will be monitoring the article closely and when I (or another Edits one who has not edited the article yet) removes the templates, that is it. Please do not remove them claiming they were sorted. When you reply, Please place {{Tb}} on my Talk page. Thanks John F. Lewis (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, John: Are you a Wikipedia administrator or senior editor of some kind? If not, you do not have the authority to dictate to others what shall and shall not be considered grounds for "notability", nor have you the right, in that case, to "monitor the article closely".

Second, from Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." (a similar statement appears later in the same article). In other words, if someone's claiming something that might be controversial or which would cause someone to say "that's bull".

As none of the content of this article falls under those categories, and none of it consists of a quotation from another source, the citing rules do not apply. Ironically, the next sentence after the above cautions the writer that an article may be challenged without enough sources.

Furthermore, the number of references an article has speaks nothing of the reliability of the websites/sources from which those references are taken. This is especially true if an article is still under construction. If you'll observe the history of the article, you will notice it's only been in existence for a matter of several hours, so we simply haven't had enough time to hunt down enough good references. Not to mention the article is far shorter than the one on Minecraft, so expecting even a comparable number of references is ludicrous.

Finally, Wikipedia's Original Research guidelines clearly state, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." (and similar wording elsewhere). In other words, citations are NOT required to prove an article isn't OR.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to ask, John: Are you a Wikipedia administrator or senior editor of some kind? If not, you do not have the authority to dictate to others what shall and shall not be considered grounds for "notability", nor have you the right, in that case, to "monitor the article closely"." No, I am not. But to my knowledge there is no Wikipedia Policy stating 'Only an Administrator or Senior Editor can judge an articles Notability' or 'You must be an Administrator or Senior Editor to Watch a page.' There is no policy on this as this is a free Encyclopedia. Hence, Any user can make these decisions. In addition, It doesn't how long an article has been on Wikipedia. If it does not show notability or is shown as original research, an editor may express their concern of the article. Also a editor has the right to keep those tags in place until they feel they have been sorted. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can claim to have that right to "make these decisions" and to "keep those tags", then by definition I can as well. Hence, I am removing them and they stay removed until a neutral, third party with no connection to either Minetest or Minecraft decides that they should be re-added. And again you claim this might be original research. This article does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for original research because it contains no information that can't be verified by the game's usual sources - namely the official website and the heavily-moderated forums thereon, as well as the author's blog. I realize these would normally not be considered valid sources, but what else are we supposed to to? Invent new websites on which to publish this information? Pray that someone big like Wired or Slashdot covers it? No. That's not a fair request for a project that's only been around for 2 years.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a neutral, third party with no connection to either Minetest or Minecraft decides" I have no connection to Minetest or Minecraft. I don't use the Minetest software, participate in its community, and the same with Minecraft. They are valid maintenance tags. I strongly recommend you work on the article in the User space or the AfC namespace. The article has only 5 references. Two actually show slight notability, two are primary and one is Github. Remove them if you wish, But they will either be reverted or taken to either Disputes or a Speedy/AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vanessaezekowitz! I appreciate your efforts but removal of maintenance templates without discussing or any strong base is not appropriate. I echo what John has said above but disagree about the article getting Speedily deleted. The article lacks in WP:GNG. The reasons are:

1. Large amount of data is unsourced
2. The article uses primary sources
3. No coverage in third-party sources is established to get its notability.

At present, the article fails criteria of notability as there is lack of "Significant coverage", "Reliable sources", "Sources (mention in press releases, books, magazines, getting reviews, etc)", and "Presumed". The article is failing in four out of five criteria for WP:N thus, keeping the tag is an appropriate step. The article can possibly be deleted via an WP:AFD but not WP:CSD. Please also read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OWN. The reason why we add the tags is that, it adds the article to some special catogery from where willing editors get a chance of improving the article so there is nothing wrong if an article is tagged with such things. I don't want to sound rude but frequent removal of tags may be considered WP:EW and one can receive a block if the practice is continued. I hope you understand and do not remove the tag again. If there are any doubts or problems, feel free to ask. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• grumbles incoherently* I give up. THIS is why Wikipedia is hemorrhaging contributors and losing valuable content left, right and sideways - there are too many rules and they're too strict for the nature of the world wide web.

Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]