Fredrick Day

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast Thanks to me putting my name, I might get suspended from Wikipedia! Arrgh!quote> You will not be suspended - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ILIKEIT_votes.2C_Simtropolis

If anyone could find that UK gamer article or indeed any other magazine article - those would excellent sources. Someone has said that EA has named it the largest community online - has anyone got a link to where EA say this?

Originally posted by: 6underground So the French can't contibute to the France article? Or the Dubai workers to Burj Dubai?quote> Really good point. As Day said, we aren't even permitted to provide forum membership as evidence of popularity and notability because, somewhere in the past someone from a different forum falsified theirs. In essence, EVERYONE is tarred with the same brush. How charming..quote> Anyone can add to any article but it has to be based on reliable sources. Using your french example - "French people eat lots of onions and wear striped jumpers, I know this because I am french" - is an appeal to authority and is not an acceptable source. "The current population of france is 54,345,344 - the source I have provided for this is the official govt stats which I have taken from http://www.frenchgovt.fr" - is a fact backed by an acceptable source. As for the faking stuff - it's a not single site that have tried such things in the past, 100s have tried it. In one AFD I was involved in, editors were phoned at home by people claiming to be EU officials (which they were not). Regards Fred

Can one get anymore arrogant? But personal attacks asidequote> Eh? what personal attacks? KEEP IT because..... are the standard arguments that are often used in AFD debates, I just listed a few and then provided a link to the rest, this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions they are not things I came up with myself. Regards Fred

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso Heres a source for you, On the official Sim City site it says we are. Also PC Gamer UK had a 4 page artical on Simtropolis.quote> Do you have a link to the PC Gamer UK article? Is it in a print edition? from the sounds of it, that would make a good source.

I am coming to find you, frankly, arrogant and annoying.quote> Well I'll stop at this point then - I am just trying to explain in a factual manner how wikipedia operates in the way that it does. I'm unclear how that can be seen as arrogant. but Mr. Day has removed it in the vendetta he is persuing against us.quote> What vendetta? If I had a vendetta, would be trying to explain the types of sources that wikipedia would find acceptable? Can you really reconcile my action here with a "vendetta" ? I'd never heard of the site before today - what would be my reasoning for such a vendetta? Regards Fred

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot there's a reference that this is the largest simcity 4 fansite in the site software! Total Members: 184,566 (Logged in: 102, Guests: 151, Total Online: 253)quote> It's considered a circular reference - again, in the past, people have faked their membership stats (I am NOT accusing anyone here of doing that - just explaining the history of why wikipedia does not accept such numbers at face value) to appear more notable than they are, this is why references have to be from a 3rd party. Regards Fred

Originally posted by: Simfan34 Originally posted by: 6underground I encourage all ST Wikipedians to vote for ST to stay!quote> I would actually like to comment but, based on my observations of Wikipedia, they cannot handle criticisms, unfortunately.quote> Pity. Can you give it a shot. And a devlopment! Here's your reference!quote> I'm afraid that doesn't mean the requirements of a wikipedia reference for a number of reasons 1) It is user-generated - anyone can submit to the list, therefore as user-generated content it is not seen as indepedent. 2) It is a listing - as a listing, it indicates the site exists, nobody is disputing that - but people are saying it is notable - a listing does not demonstrate notability. Has the site been the subject of an article in any magazines? or on any notable gaming websites ? (such as IGN and the like). Regards Fred

[ For a "source" couldn't someone open a website with the membership numbers for all SC4 fansites?quote> It would be seen as a self-published source - wikipedia doesn't accept those because in the past, people were setting up websites making claims like "experts say product X is the best in the world" and then trying to use that as a circular reference to support their claims. Again as a rule of thumb - sources should be written by 3rd parties who have no connection to the site or other conflict of interest. Regards Fred.

Originally posted by: 6underground That's a red herring in this casequote> Not really, one of your own senior members comes to these forumsquote> We don't have senior members - there are pretty much only two classes of editors - general editors (like me) and a few people who have a couple of extra buttons called admins. Sure rules are rules but, this only proves the point that the vast majority of individuals working on Wikipedia in significant areas aren't really qualified to do so. quote> Which is why wikipedia is evidence-based - the article does not current contain any evidence that this site is notable in any way. That's the only thing we can currently judge the article on. I beg to differ, perhaps it just shows that no-one has actually gotten around to doing so? rather than a reflection of lack of data? quote> Well the article has existed for over a year (????), plenty of time for people to add such material. The whole point is that nobody at wikipedia is pyschic - we can only judge off what people add to the articles - if such sources exist - add them and the AFD is over - it's that simple. If nobody adds such sources, it will be removed. Also, is'nt that a highly relative term: "notable",how is it quantified and reasoned? Just because you or soem of your trigger happy admins have never heard of simtropolis does not mean Simtropolis isn't notable. Indeed, it is the largest Simcity community on the net. Fact.quote> This is not meant as an insult - 100s of articles are created every day where someone claims that something is the biggest, best, most notable X on the web (I am making no comment on this site, just explaining how things operate at wikipedia) - but how do we judge this? with reliable sources. Again - this problem will be solved at a stroke by adding reliable sources to the article that demonstrate a) it is the largest on the web (if you wish to make that claim b) That is notable (again as a rule of thumb - this is demonstrated by articles on notable websites and by notable media organisations - check the links I gave above). Regards Fred

is hardly brimming with expert admins. quote> That's a red herring in this case - the reason the article is up for removal is because it does not have a single source (not the forum itself, as it cannot be a reference for itself so don't bother adding those) that shows that it is notable in any way. No expertise is required to see that. As I mentioned in my previous post - the quickest way to save the article is to find and add reliable sources to (as a general rule of thumb - blog postings and other forum postings don't cut it) to it. If you can find multiple reliable sources the AFD is over. Regards Fred.

Hi - very briefly if you are going to head over to the AFD, here are a couple of pointers. First of all AFD is NOT a vote - so heading over there and saying any of the following is a waste of time keep it because I like it! Keep it because this other article exists! Keep it because I find it useful! Keep it because it's not doing any harm! none of those are useful responses in an AFD discussion - you can read more here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions For the article to saved, you need a policy based reason - at the moment, the reason that the article is going to be deleted is because it has no reliable verfiable sources. If you can find and add such sources then it might be possible to save the article. You can read more about what are considered "good" sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WEB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:V I hope this is of help. Regards Fred