Hi Snakester95! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Czar. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. czar ⨹ 06:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've never actually used the User Talk bit so I'm not sure if I'm doing this quite right. My edit wasn't promotional, I added it as the spot needed a reference. However, I couldn't find a great reference as that one unfortunately is a bit older. I removed the October 2014 part as I don't believe that's correct as they're referring to an event that occurred that is irrelevant. It's up to you whether or not the edit stays, I don't represent that website. I actually despise their use of advertising cluttering the page. Snakester95 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows the systematic inclusion of "trustinplay.com" links. That usually points to a conflict of interest. In any event, there are many other reliable and vetted sites to use as references—the list is at WP:VG/RS. WP could certainly use your help adding vetted references to articles, but please refrain from adding "trustinplay.com" links, as they will all be deleted. czar ⨹ 07:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That I understand, however in the case of the edit you removed, it would not be considered advertising or promotional. In the cast of "trustinplay.com", is it okay if "trustinplay.com" has an exclusive news story to then use it as a reference? Or would it be better to wait until a larger media outlet reports that news? Snakester95 (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's promotional is the systematic adding of links to a specific, unreliable site, not necessarily whether those pages are themselves promotional. This aside, we only use sources that have reputations for editorial control and fact-checking (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources), so it would not be okay to use "trustinplay.com" even if they were the exclusive source. If it's an important fact, a reputable outlet will pick up the report. czar ⨹ 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the heads up on the whole situation. One more question if you don't mind me asking! Can an author from a reliable/reputable outlet use their article as a reference or would this still be self-promotion? I could see it still being self-promotion, but on one side it's also a matter of getting information out to others. I'm curious if it'd be better to just let things do whatever on their own. Snakester95 (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a conflict of interest (COI) to add one's own publications. (The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline has more on situations like this.) It's most important to be here to build an encyclopedia and not to find an audience for one's own work. The best solution would be first to declare the nature of the potential COI on the article's talk page and second to propose an edit via that talk page. If someone else thinks the change is worthwhile, they will add it to the article, and the talk page message is preserved for anyone interested. czar ⨹ 18:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Right now I'm honestly just looking to figure out how to make sure the correct source of the information is referenced rather than another outlet sourcing the same fact. Of course as we mentioned, this still depends on the original source being reliable, but in the event that both are you'd still want the original source. Sorry about all the questions! Snakester95 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry—I'm happy to answer any questions and I hope to see you around. You might be interested in some of the conversations and open tasks at WT:VG. On preferring original sources, see below czar ⨹ 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the record, since I did it after having posted that message, I ran through my old edits that were removed and filled them in with reliable sources. There's one I couldn't quite find another source for, but I'll leave it to be safe. Snakester95 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I don't have time to verify them right now, but I'd just add that a secondary sources are preferred over primary sources almost always. Primary sources are straight from the company, but secondary sources from independent outlets are supposed to exercise editorial control over company claims. They're the most reliable. There is a custom Google search linked towards the top of WP:VG/RS that will help you easily find secondary sources for whatever fact you're attempting to look up. czar ⨹ 19:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know on the search and the conversations/open tasks. Fortunately, most of the edits I replaced were directly from the companies except for I think one that was from a reliable source and business domain; which is a plus. Either way, thanks for all the help, and sorry for the mishap! Snakester95 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Game Science shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You seem to repeatedly remove the references to a specific content. --Cold Season (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a talk page regarding the two sources that were removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Game_Science#Unreliable_sources_are_being_used Snakester95 (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snakester95! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Date formatting in citations, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]