Shimdidly

Re: Some help please.

I created a subsection on the article RuneScape for "notable users" as shown below:

Notable Users

Over the course of time, there have been several players in the game that have attained popularity. Some have created fansites that they associate with their RuneScape identity, while others simply stand out on the highscore system. Some of them include:

Zezima - Currently holds as the highest ranking player within the highscore system. He began playing between late June and early July year 2001. Zezima has participated in an interview on both tip.it and Rsforums. He and his friend created a website for one purpose among several to dispell many rumors that have circulated around about his character and status in real life. He had attained considerable popularity in both being the first player to attain 99 in every stat in the game, and maintaining the highest rank in the highscore system for a respectable amount of time. His name is featured on a t-shirt bearing the words, "I Pked Zezima." He is also noted in over a 1,000 videos on the popular free video sharing website YouTube. Due to this broad reputation, many rumors float around both within the game itself and other websites. The same person behind Zezima also used to play a game known as Triple Triad x, in which he was able to maintain a rank within the top four players.

W13 - Gained popularity for creating a well known fansite, namely Zybez. W13 also created RuneScape Community, a popular message board for the Runescape community gaining on average 225,594 hits per week. His name is briefly mentioned on a news update on the offical RuneScape site. He is characterized by an unequipted player wearing a yellow partyhat. His account was permanently banned, possibly from being stolen.

With no debate on the actual legitimacy of this section, I would like to understand the legitimacy of the arguments that have been used to remove it, and I quote:

"There are no reliable sources covering these notable players (indiscriminately compiled statistics don't count). Unless someone provides some sources to establish notability, the section should go. :::-Amarkov moo! 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, we dont need unreferenced cruft - • The Giant Puffin • 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)"

Why did they mention "no reliable sources" ... "Unless someone provides some sources to establish notability" ... "we don't need unreferenced cruft"

How was this section unreferenced? I referenced the heck out of that section (as you can readily see). Any way you can help me understand (what the heck) is going on, and why I was accused of not referencing the section (when I did), will be greatly appreciated, thank you for your time, Nicholas. Shimdidly 19:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Dear Shimdidly: Firstly, my apologies for the delay in responding to you. What you have experienced is a common issue, and I can understand your frustration at having experienced this. I will try and explain the issue here as best I can.

The first problem here is whether the material is noteworthy for inclusion. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability sums up the method by which we determine this on Wikipedia as follows:

"A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability."

In the case of the material you post above, the trouble is that although it is obviously relevant within the particular domain of the subject matter within RuneScape - and is notable within that community, I assume - it is not, unfortunately, notable in the outside world. In other words, information on these players is only considered within the particular subject matter rather than being generally worth including in an encyclopaedia; the information is not notable within the context of the Wikipedia project as a whole. This "granular" information is frequently referred to as "cruft" by Wikipedians (a term I strongly dislike, however) as it is only relevant, and for the most part meaningful, within its own subject domain.

An issue that goes hand-in-hand with this question of notability is the nature of the sources available to reference the information. In the case of "first hand" sources - as in, the players themselves writing about themselves, or game-specific sites referring to these players - these are not academic in the sense of being external observers analysing the information; they are, as it were, primary statements of the material in question. A similar problem of this information being of high relevance to people within the RuneScape community, but not being known outside of that sphere, occurs here, in that these are not sources external to the matter at hand. Wikipedia:Reliable sources states:

"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book."

This is because of the issue over veracity - since it is, as it were, "vanity publication" - and also because of the problem of notability indicated within that material not necessarily matching with the overall notability of that information outside of its own context.

Probably the best way of summing up the answer to your question would be as follows: Consider a reader of Wikipedia who had no knowledge of RuneScape, or even the generalised field of gaming. What would be of relevance to them? It is highly improbable that the users prominent within that gaming community would be what they would be interested in; it would be the overall facts, as opposed to the minutiae, that they would wish to find out about. When writing Wikipedia articles, it is always better to consider it from the point of view of the "target audience" versus that of the subject material participants (in this case, I am assuming, such as yourself). And so, in this case, the arguments advanced by those users you quote above are valid, although myself I would have thought a little further comment to inform you of these issues would have been a helpful addition. I hope this answers your question. Should you need any further help, I am at your service. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Boredom. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SparrowsWing _(talk) 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I must have been bored Shimdidly 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Shimdidly/Zezima

Is User:Shimdidly/Zezima still of any use? It mostly seems just vandalized by anons for more than a year. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone help?

My account was just blocked for socking? How do I get unblocked?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Shimdidly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not associated with "Claimjumperpete" and I'm not exactly sure how I got blocked. I used to edit at school, at public libraries and at home, so it might be a reason, I dunno.

Decline reason:

As I am not a checkuser I cannot comment on the evidence, but it was described as pretty solid. Only another checkuser can review the evidence behind this block. You would do better to try and email the unblock list or contact one of the checkusers. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Proposed deletion of Zany Fruits

The article Zany Fruits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable; lacks significant RS coverage. Unsourced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Yates

The article Dan Yates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability contested for over five years; links barely pass BLP-PROD.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)