User talk:NeverTry4Me/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Gaming Trend

Please don’t add Gaming Trend for review, on the sources page for video games, it’s considered unreliable. See this discussion. On the previous edit, I accidentally rv the edit too quickly before I finished writing the summary, so in the rv reason, “Gaming Trend” was displayed as “Ga”, sorry for the error. Thanks, and have a good day! VickKiang (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang for Reception section we need negative reviews too, otherwise it would be promotional article. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources need to be reliable first, and due weight considered. I don't see why you are adding unreliable refs, they aren't helpful. The refs provided have criticisms which I have expanded, it mentions that the components and game system received criticism. IMO adding unreliable refs aren't helpful, the reliable refs have critiques that were added in lede, do you have an issue on NPOV? If so, we can discuss, but IMO adding unreliable refs doesn't help. VickKiang (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang we have other reliable sources, from news search, to avoid the primary source. We should go for those. I was in hurry to balance the reception. Thanks for reverting. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, all coverage are welcome, but I recommend you read the ref reliability lists, so next time unreliable ones (per consensus, I actually don't think Gaming Trend is that bad, but generally unreliable is the listing, so IMO that should be followed). By the way, reliable coverage of games for BTG is low, so all help are welcome! VickKiang (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang low reliable, unreliable sources are highlighted in my settings. Hence It's easy for me to cite. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Relooking, I still find your edits confusing. You said that Dicebreaker, a generally reliable one, was an ad, but the marginally reliable GeekDad, a blog and primary source per WP page, is reliable? Per the review, Disclosure: GeekDad received a copy of this game for review purposes, so how is that indepedent but Dicebreaker isn't? VickKiang (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

VickKiang unless the consensus marked as closed with Admin's comment, consensus doesn't doesn't say final about reliability. For example, Republic TV is an unreliable source in Wikipedia. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is reliable or unreliable if the consensus is not accurate? By your own judgement on the reliability? Only Request for Comments need formal closures, others don't, so do you consider all other discussions as having no value as "consensus doesn't say final about reliability"? Yes, our opinions differ, and as GeekDad is not generally reliable, only marginally reliable, I only did a better ref tag, but I totally disagree with the statement, and I certainly don't want an edit war, as you are certainly a good faith editor. Many thanks for your contributions! VickKiang (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: The image will clarify you.

Red marks are not reliable. Yellow depends on the contributor of the article. Not marked can be used for citation. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I returned, but IMO your argument is contradicative. I will try to explain in two parts.

1. The colours are based on consensus on RSP, most discussions don't have formal closures. An example is The New Yorker, which doesn't have any formal closures. This IMO directly contradicts your statement ("consensus doesn't say final about reliability"), but all of your arguments are based on that.

2. It does not say that sources that are white should are reliable. RSP says A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is directly contrary IMO to your assumption that white sources are reliable. In fact, the script points out:

It does not cover every unreliable source out there. It is actually fairly bad at dealing with offline sources, like books and magazines. It does not answer whether a source should be used or not. It does not understand context. See common cleanup and non-problematic cases below for details. It is not perfect. See limitations below for details. See also the first 8 points of the CiteWatch disclaimer. It says that it is based on RSP, but that is only for a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. So this should not be the end of it all, I find it contradicative to me that you doubt the consensus that I linked, but only rely on this (which is very helpful, and thanks Headbomb for such a great script, but it only covers some sources). Concluding, I think you should look more at RSP and the guidelines before forming a conclusion. Many thanks for your help, I don't think this discussion will be going anywhere, since we both are pretty inexperienced editors, I have posted these at RSN, but please familiarise with the previous links. VickKiang (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Specifically, explain what you did here and why you're editing long blocked users talk pages for no reason. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae moreover, in Douglas W. Arner page, 13 refs in the opening line are not excessive? You think those 13 refs are aren't CITEKILL? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think adding a longer template to an already excessive line of sources is disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae I only added excessive link template for 13 refs and notability tag for refs like his own college profile, Bloomberg profiles(which is invalid reference) and some more valueless refs. If you think revert is rational, I won't touch such promo things again. Regards and with good faith _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

So...remove them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Praxidicae No, I won't touch that page. As per my common sense, the page creator has a COI with the page, as I read the article and the profile photo is clear evidence (695x740 px size) and crystal clear that it was provided by the article subject. :) _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae: I was trying to cite with refs, and saw Anecdotal evidence has it that they are trained to ambush up to five hundred enemy combatants with only two commandos employing M18 Claymore anti-personnel land mines facing the killing zone of the planned ambush route and triggered by remote control. in the article which is blatant Hoax. There is no military combat history where 2 commandos killed 500 enemies as claimed by the article. If it is not Hoax, then thank you for the revert. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk

Machine translations

Google Translate is not reliable, and it is not a good idea to link to machine translations of sources, as you did here. If a reader wants to run a source through translation software they can do so, but we shouldn't link to a machine translated version instead of the actual source. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Bonadea no issue, I shall remove the ref, as removing 1 link doesn't impact the weight of the article subject. Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sajid Mir has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sajid Mir. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 22:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)