108.31.92.88

February 2023

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, HQ (video game), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. A lot of the sources were in a private thread, which was removed by the person that did the takeover. That's why I wasn't able to include them. Otherwise I would've. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I just added a section to the talk page to help clarify things. Please feel free to write me or AlmNack if you have any more questions or concerns. Thanks. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to HQ (video game). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

How is adding the official name of HQ Trivia considered vandalism? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at HQ (video game), you may be blocked from editing. Twitter is not a reliable source, and screenshots are even more unreliable. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

How are we supposed to provide sources from a since deleted group that then? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, the obvious solution is to not put the info in... LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Information about a player takeover of a popular app? Have you even heard of this app before, or are you just editing page of subjects you've never heard of? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't add unsourced information. See wp:Unsourced information is not valuable. Especially Having nothing is better than having something bad Adakiko (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at HQ (video game). Adakiko (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We're trying to add sources. You keep saying to remove the sources that we're adding claiming that they're unreliable, or very unreliable. The info that we're adding is info only 8 people are aware of. So we don't have anything but screenshots to provide because the takeover was by a group of only 8 people. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Me and @Adakiko have been trying to tell you multiple times that screenshots are not reliable for this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's why we had removed those. That's when I got a warning saying that I could be blocked. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Especially when the very simple text screen shot was uploaded minutes before the content and citation was added. Adakiko (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the pic was uploaded and taken right before the source was added because we were planning on using it thinking it would be be a good source. However, as stated, when I was told it wasn't a good source, I quickly removed it Not sure how you want us to validate our claims if you want us to remove all the sources we provide. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I saw your comment on your taklk page saying you heard about the upcoming documentary, and I just wanna confirm this info, neither me or AlmNack are affiliated with that documentary. Can't speak for the other page editors. We're just big supporters of HQ that sad that it appears to be gone. This documentary was annoucned mid last year, and the release date was just recently revealed. We were involved in the player takever though, and are aware of the website takeover, that's why we added it in. I can say anything as far as those other editors, but evidently they're just trying to help support us. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

HQ (video game)

I removed your additions again as they did not cite a wp:reliable source. Using your own knowledge is wp:original research, isn't verifiable and should not be used on Wikipedia. Essentially, it's better to not have it on Wikipedia than having content that can't be checked. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 11:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

We added some more sources to validate our claims. Hope this is enough verification. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and I see those other edits, and they're not me. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nonsense at HQ (video game). Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I don't see why I'm the problem when the last few edits aren't even me. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI policy required notification to all parties mentioned. Adakiko (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thanks for the clarification. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 10:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

So I'm blocked for trying to stand up for a somebody that was basically being attacked by another user? How does that make sense? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

You're blocked for calling someone an asshole - it's as simple as that. Folk are allowed to ask you what your association with other IPs/accounts is - that is not uncivil. Calling people obscene names is. If you repeat that kind of behaviour when the block expires, the next block will be substantially longer.

To answer the question you posed at the ANI thread - yes, if and when a reliable, secondary source reports upon the takeover, then we can report it in our article. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say they couldn't ask the question, I was just trying to say the way they put it was rude. That's all. That's the only reason I said what I said. I agree free speech is there though, so I can respect that, and sorry that I got a bit heated. Thanks for clarifying the info about being able to be posted. My only other question is, would a single article talking about it be enough to use the whole section that I had written in this revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HQ_(video_game)&oldid=1139273296? I appreciate you taking the time to explain this. I wish other editors, and even other admin could be as friendly as you. All the other admin I've came across on here have not been nearly as nice as you, even with the block. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess the 'tell the class' thing could be interpreted as being condescending, which isn't altogether appropriate. It's not as bad as straight-up name-calling though, which is never OK.

I'm going out now, but I'll come back and look at the sources used in that diff later today. One thing I will draw your attention to is WP:COI - you have admitted to being involved in these events, so you should not be writing about them here. You should use the article talk page to propose changes, maybe using an edit request, and disclosing your connection to the events. Please don't make any more changes to the page directly. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing where I'm coming from with the comment. I feel like both parties should be penalized for that. I understand if I am as well, but they shouldn't get away with that with no penalty, just saying. Thanks for looking into the article more clearely, please let me know what you determine. As for the editing, I'll refrain from editing the page for now. I understand the COI concern, but the prolem in this case, even with the COI is only people that were apart of the team would be able to talk about the behind the scenes of how it went down. I mean, yeah, anybody could state that it had happaned, but they wouldn't be able to give a play by play of how it went down, which some readers, (probably more super fans, more than regular players), would likely be interested to know. As far as both I and AlmNack though, we have no relationship to the game itself besides being players that love, or loved the game. The only exception to this was the shortlived player takeover. Other than that, we aren't involved with them in anyways, besides playing the games, so that shouldn't stop us from being able to talk about something we're knoledglable about. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Something else I also forgot to say in my last comment is, that I was just trying to defend my friend. I wouldn't of said anything like that if he hadn't been attacked like that. Isn't that a fairly normal thing to do, to try to defend your friend? Now, maybe I did take it a bit too far, but still, I felt like he needed somebody to stick up for him if you get what I mean. I'd also like to thank you for taking the time to have this discussion, rather than just block, and then ghost me. So many people would just block, and ghost users, it's not even funny. So, this dialugue was very helpful and important in my opnion. Lastly, the only reason we kept adding those section was because nobody specifically said, the only sources allowed are journalist sources. We've, or at least I had specifically asked what we should use, and nobody had answered the question besides for saying unreliable sources, etc. If somebody took the time to just say what you had, all of this craziness likely would've been avoided. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, there's a lot to unpack there. I'll start with the difference between a snarky comment and a direct insult. The relevant policies are WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Making snide, sarcastic or condescending comments in discussions is a violation of CIV, but in practice they tend not to be things that we block people for immediately. What normally happens is that we ask people to stop it, then we warn them, then we might ultimately apply sanctions if they just can't get along nicely with people. Direct personal attacks, on the other hand, are usually dealt with using blocks. You're welcome to stand up for your friend if you think people are being unfair to them, but you need to do it without name-calling.

Now, on to the question of content. Let's step back and look at the big picture for a minute, because that will hopefully put some of the other policies I'm going to talk about into perspective. Big question: what is Wikipedia? It is not a news outlet, and its editors are not investigative journalists. It is not a journal of history, and our editors are not scholars writing the history of the subjects that interest them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is to say that it is a tertiary source of information. Our articles should never contain information that has not already been published elsewhere: our mission is to summarise what reliable, published sources already say about a subject. Even if something is true, it has no business being in our articles unless it has been published somewhere else. Accepting that is key to what I'm going to say next.

Now, you say that only people that were apart of the team would be able to talk about the behind the scenes of how it went down. That is exactly the kind of thing that we do not want in an encyclopedic article. Writing about stuff from your own personal experience is original research, which has no place here. The fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone does not mean that it's a good place to record events that you think are significant because of you were a part of them; if scholars and mainstream journalists haven't seen fit to write about something, that's a good indication that it simply isn't significant enough for us to comment on.

So, onto sources. You can read about this in depth at WP:RS, but the long-and-short of it is that the best sources are typically peer-reviewed scholarship written by established academics and published by respectable presses. They don't always exist for all topics though, so then we turn to things like journalism, where it has been published by a respectable firm with clear editorial policies and a reputation for fact-checking. That CNN film, when it's released, would likely be a good source to use to expand the article, and if it mentions the player takeover, then some stuff could be added about the takeover supported by the film. But you shouldn't be the one to add it - you should propose something on the talk page, and allow other editors who were not personally involved to consider it.

One more thing, before I go. One thing that we have to consider when thinking about how to write content is considering how much weight to give particular aspects of a subject. It's a judgment call, and it's something that can be difficult when you have a COI. In the version of the article that you've linked to above, the section on the player takeover takes up about half of the entire 'History' section, implying that it was by far the most significant thing ever to happen in the history of the game. I haven't actually read the article or any of the sources, and am not expressing a personal opinion on this matter, but can you see why someone who was not involved in the takeover might think that it shouldn't be given that much coverage in the article even if reliable sources were to report on it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the name calling situation. I respect that and understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me so I could understand it better.

Thank you as well for clarifying what the purpose of Wikipedia is. i guess I always thought of Wikipedia as a source of information to provide with useful information on a various subject. Meaning sometimes it would be good or beneficial to add stuff to an article that might not have been written about in other places. With that being said, I understand and respect that I'm wrong on this, and that only stuff that already are made public are able to be included in these articles.

As far the the upcoming documentary, I'm not sure if the player takeover will be included based on when it was filmed. My question with this is though, how would we even use the documentary as a source, as my guess is it would likely be uploaded on the CNN website, and to watch it on the CNN website, I'm guessing you'd have to sign in with a cable provider in order to watch it. Based on all of this, not sure that type of link would really be a good thing to use as a source. Of course, it might be uploaded to YouTube, and if it is, then the YouTube video would likely be the way to go, but if not, would it just boil down to if articles talked about that based on the documentary, or how would we wanna handle that?

As for the HQ player takeover itself, you make a good point, I had made it take a lot of the history section, as I thought it was unique and interesting for people to learn about. With that being said, as far as your direct question, was it by far the most important thin to ever happen in the history of the game, the answer to that is definitely no it is not. There are plenty of other important things that happened with the game which in most are probably equally as important if not more important than the takeover. It really depends on what specific situation we'd be talking about. Based on this, I can understand what you mean as far as how it looks to a viewer that may not know anything, or very limited info about the game to begin with. I also wanna take a moment to say thanks for being honest, and revealing that you didn't actually read the article at the time of writing the response, as that is a question I sometimes wonder when my work gets reverted on any given article. It also feels annoying when you take the time to write something you think is useful, only to see it removed by editors that don't know much if not anything about whatever the given subject is. It really gets on my nerves, and it really makes no sense to me. So my point is, the fact that you revealed that, means a lot to me, as a lot of editors I don't think even bother to read stuff before they revert things. I can see where you're coming from though with something taking up so much room, makes people wonder if this really is the most important thing for people to know, which is the case in some circumstances, but I don't think it is in this particular case, so I can what you mean by that taking a look at the bigger picture.

Lastly, this isn't of an urgent matter, but again I don't think the following is getting enough attention by any admin, so that's why I'm addressing this to you as you are and admin, so I'm hoping you can take a look into it and hopefully give the issue the attention it deserves. Can you please either end semi protection on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funland_(Rehoboth_Beach,_Delaware), or set the semi protection to expire at or around the same time as this article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach? The article is missing some important information that doesn't appear to be being added in. I know a lot about the park, as I'm a big fan and supporter of it. I don't have any sorta COI with it, but I will admit I guess I do have a bit of a COI with the player takeover of HQ, due to being on the team that helped with ideas and everything for it. Anyways, back to Funland. This article is missing a ride list of all the rides it has. It appears people did eventually remove an outdated version of it, but never updated to reflect the correct list. I've taken a look at the history of the page, and it doesn't appear to have editors that know anything about the park are really editing it. All they seem to be doing is removing another editors work, so I don't see a edit request being very helpful, so instead of doing an edit request, I'd rather just edit the changes in so people can actually see them. I hope you understand where I'm coming from this. Anyways, if you could make the page editable again, that would be very helpful, and much appreciated. Also, can you move the page to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach, as much like the other version of the article I gave you, I don't think the Delaware part is needed, and it's a bit overkill to have that, as the only Rehoboth Beach is in Delaware. Thanks for your time, and I look forward to hearing back from you. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I will answer the third paragraph for you; it's perfectly fine to use sources that are locked behind a paywall. So long as the cited material actually exists in the source, of course, even if another editor does not have a subscription to wherever the CNN film is hosted, they can request someone else to do so instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So it would be OK to give the direct link to the documentary on their site, even if all users wouldn't be able to watch it as well? 108.31.92.88 (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes to using that CNN source. Please use a proper citation. See help:referencing for beginners. A CNN citation would not warrant |url-access=subscription on {{cite web}}. If you are replying to a specific person(s), I would recommend using wp:notifications. The {{ping}} wp:template, for instance. Adakiko (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi again - I'm not going to take any action over at Funland_(Rehoboth_Beach,_Delaware). The content that was removed was deemed by several experienced editors to be unencyclopedic, and improperly sourced. Now, you can head over to the talkpage of that article (I see you have edited there, so you know how to do that) and make the case that it should be moved to a new title, or that some new content should be added. Again, though, this is all going to come down to sources - you need to find high-quality sources talking about the park, and then propose that some content be added based on those sources. If you want the article to be moved to a different title, you can propose that too. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I can confirm there are plenty of reliable sources for a good number of the changes for Funland. There is a book specifically written about the park. That had been used for multiple different sections of the article, but at this point, looks like all of those have been removed. Not sure how a book is considered an unreliable source, as it's not just some random person voicing an opinion. A lot of research has to be done in order to write a book. The ride list can be confirmed based on the list on the site. Don't see how that would be unreliable. Same with their schedule. As for the Haunted Mansion walkthrough, there was an article source for that, however, that was made a long time ago, so that's in my opinion probably not a reliable source. There are YouTube videos of it. I have a few videos of it that I could use as a source if YouTube is acceptable, but those videos aren't uploaded yet, so I can't use them quite yet. As for the name change, yeah, I suppose I can propose that change over there. Taking a look at the last big edit to it, a lot has changed since then, so I think it would very hard for an editor not knowing anything about the park to be able to really work on it, at least unless an updated draft was made first. I'd be willing to do work on that draft, but I won't be able to do so if I can't edit the page if you know what I mean. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Adakiko Although I can't say I've ever seen a paid streaming service video being used as a source before; if you need to subscribe to that platform to see the cited material, would that count as needing |url-access = subscription? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That is above my knowledge of how to even add that, so if it would be needed, somebody else would need to take care of that. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you for for the information. Not sure like I said anything about the takeover will be included in the documentary, but it's good to know that the direct link would be approved as a source if it is. 108.31.92.88 (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---