IMPORTANT: Looking for an established wikipedia editor

[Nerochev]

It looks like someone is already on it, but I can say definitively that the guy doesn't have jurisdiction to remove content from articles like that, especially to the extent that he did so. It doesn't matter if he is an administrator or moderator, it goes against the Wiki editing guide, which is about as revered as a Constitution would be in a country.

My advice is to reverse his edits, then request the page be locked from editing, and then tell the guy to open a complaint or whatever they do for "conflicts of interest". He isn't allowed to simply remove content that he personally finds unsatisfactory, no matter his position. He needs to consult other moderators or senior editors to remove so much as a sentence unless that sentence is clearly not encyclopedic or relevant to the article (AKA vandalism, advertisement, etc.).

 

[lifelessgamer]

Try this, Its the discussions page and I think its the guy who deleted Rhye's stuff talking/typing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civilization_IV:_Beyond_the_Sword#rhye.civfanatics.net

 

[deanej]

I think it's interesting that they rate the article C class (in need of more information) and then resist every attempt to add more information (even going so far as to try to delete info). Also looks like it's mostly maintained by people that don't own civ.

 

[onedreamer]

To me, this sounded alot like an advertisement promoting RFC. If you want to have a section added to Wiki, it must be in a neutral point of view. I would post an example later on.

It can't be a conflict of interest since the mod is free. And it can't be biased/impartial since this mod doesn't confront with any other, so I fail to understand how there could be a neutral description, and I obviously don't write neutral point of view since saying it is simply ridiculous: a point of view is by its very definition NOT neutral.

the bottom line is that wikipedia is a great tool but it still fails sorely in many occasions, so like I said many and many times in this forum we shouldn't take it as seriously as we do.

 

[Rhye]

Now then, a few of the mistakes have been repaired.
But I'm asking you again about a few more things to fix, to any of you who's already a registered editor and agrees with the following:

1 - Search for "Mod (computer gaming)". Look history.
I did a service to all the Civ community, adding a paragraph about Civ, a game that has perhaps the most extensive modding production. A good reason for adding the paragraph was BtS mods. That, before the removal of the so-called "promotional material". I'd be glad to see it back.

2 - In the Civilization IV article, in the Official maps and scenarios paragraph, references need to be updated, cause the pages names have changed.
http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_Earthdescription.php -> http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4-Earth-description.php
http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_IceAgedescription.php -> http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4-Ice-Age-description.php
http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_Earth1000ADdescription.php -> http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4-Earth-1000AD-description.php
http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_GreekWorlddescription.php -> http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4-Greek-World-description.php

Or you can delete them all and add only http://rhye.civfanatics.net once, so that page name won't be a problem again, and it's not perceived as spam.

Actually, please add in Road to War the reference to http://rtw.apolyton.net/

3 - Civilization IV spanish and portuguese page. All the scenarios have been removed. Please restore them (fixing the links as in #2)

4 - Civilization IV italian, russian and french page are even more ridiculous. Only American Revolution and Road to War are listed, with (in italian only) their description that I wrote. Please restore the rest, fixing the links.
(and btw, in the russian wiki, FFH has its own page! I wonder why of this unfair treatment...)

5 - In the Beyond the Sword italian page, RFC is the only scenario with no description. Please someone (onedreamer?) add a couple of lines.



Hope the wikinazi doesn't wake up again when pages in his watchlist are changed.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

and btw, in the russian wiki, FFH has its own page!

Maybe we can get an ITALIAN wiki for RFC alone...

Also, there's no mention of RFC in Swedish on the BTS page even though the other mods are mentioned.

 

[onedreamer]

I had an account I used once to discuss the Italian People page in EN. with some fascist claims that most Italians are direct descendant from Romans, but I don't even remember the username.

 

[Lachlan]

Same things has happened to me when i wrote an beautiful article for Sim City Sociétés in French Wikipedia the bad encyclopedia...

I tried to be neutral, i wrote in good french but always deleted...
"Pourtant" i had not interest in game : i was just fan...

Did you know that Wikipedia is ruled by an industrial of an infamous domain ?

I knew it by Conservapedia

Wikipedia really sucks, i agree with you Rhye !

 

[Lone Wolf]

I knew it by Conservapedia

Whut lol.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Conservapedia was a homeschooled kids' project. The entries were so laughable that when the liberal blogs found it a while ago, they started adding random nonsense.

It's good for a laugh, generally. Unfortunately my internet isn't loading it right now for me to post some quotes, but check it out for yourself.

 

[civ_king]

Conservapedia is the only real Online Encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is done by obvious liberals who hate Americans and Democracy and want to bring Stalin back (warning that was an attempt at being someone who drinks Kool Aid by the gallon)

But seriously it is only good for laughs (it is made better by the fact that the people actually believe it)

 

[ZachScape]

Wikipedia is done by obvious liberals who hate Americans and Democracy and want to bring Stalin back

I'm at a loss of words...

The best way I can explain what I'm feeling is: You are my HERO!

 

[civ_king]

Palin President for Life!!!! we need real Americans in charge and not some evil Satanic God-hating Atheist Rapists

sarcasm

 

[ZachScape]

ooo... buzz kill....

 

[civ_king]

ooo... buzz kill....

 

[Arkaeyn]

Here's a famous one - conservapedia on the unicorn: http://www.conservapedia.com/Unicorn

The Unicorn is likely purely a mythical beast, commonly depicted as resembling a white horse with a single horn grown out of its forehead.[1] However, recently the discovery of a single horned deer is causing a reexamination of the unicorn issue

Yes, a re-examination of this most pressing issue. Go Conservapedia! Prove those commie wiki editors wrong!

 

[onedreamer]

I don't see what's laughable with this quote. I can quote REALLY laughable stuff from Wikipedia, such as italians being dark skinned and dark haired and eating pizza at least once a day, and being mostly direct descendants from the Romans. And this was only one of the many errors I found on Wiki although I am a very normal person and not a knowledgeable intellectual that can think to write an encyclopedia.
At least the fact of the single horned deer is true, it is a fact and not some "weasel words" like Wiki calls the stuff above about italians.

Here is the unicorn: http://www.pupia.tv/notizie/0003223.html

 

[AnotherPacifist]

The problem with wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone, but that's also its saving grace: Conservapedia and other non-liberal (because they're non-objective) wikis do not allow editing if it goes against the BELIEFS of the founders.

Now you might say that editors are always subjective and those harmful words about Italians are proof of that. Well, I think that there is more than enough truth out there and there are enough editors who will correct the biases of a few miscreants. Nobody seriously believes that all Italians are descended from Romans if they know their history. Just like regression to the mean, eventually the accepted truth will predominate, against extreme beliefs and practices.

I just read the RationalWiki's page on why the Young Earth theory is wrong, it's really eye-opening.

 

[onedreamer]

yep those entries have been removed and/or corrected after months long discussions
I would certainly think that Wikipedia is more reliable than Conservapedia or whatever it is called, just pointing out that it is a useful tool but not comparable to a real encyclopedia (although it is more useful and immediate under many aspects) and that it still must be taken "as is", to this extent I assume that Conservapedia also has some useful info in it so I wouldn't laugh too much about one compared to the other.

 

[Rhye]

I don't see what's laughable with this quote. I can quote REALLY laughable stuff from Wikipedia, such as italians being dark skinned and dark haired and eating pizza at least once a day, and being mostly direct descendants from the Romans. And this was only one of the many errors I found on Wiki although I am a very normal person and not a knowledgeable intellectual that can think to write an encyclopedia.
At least the fact of the single horned deer is true, it is a fact and not some "weasel words" like Wiki calls the stuff above about italians.

unbelievable! Can you give me the link of the page and of the discussion?


(side note: I'm still waiting for the list I posted to be fixed)