Wikipedia troubles - again

[Rhye]

It appears that Wikipedia is ruled by a lobby or something like that.
I tried to add a short paragraph about both Civ and RFC, in a very pertinent page - Alternate history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history#Video_games

It seems silly to me that Civ is missing in such page, and RFC makes Civ even more pertinent.
The change I made was immediately reverted by a user.
As I know that it's adviceable to first discuss about "controversial" changes, I kindly asked him why did he undo.
He deleted my question in his page again and again, quite rudely. Then, since communication is impossible, I tried to readd the text and he has just done undo again.

Anyone, please check if there's anything wrong in what I wrote (but I really don't think so) and readd it - especially if you are a registered user, he won't be able to oppose indefinitely.

 

[Leoreth]

And then they're wondering why the number of wikipedia contributors is declining

Sadly, I'm not registered myself, so I won't be able to help.

 

[Arkaeyn]

From the looks of the page, I don't think Civ or RFC really qualify as "alternate history" games. But that's an easy thing to say when asked, and whomever is doing the deleting is being a real jerk not to give any explanation.

 

[astrognash]

It's gone again. It might be beneficial to post the text you added here.

 

[Rhye]

From my point of view, with civ you reenact history and create alternate history situations. That's especially true for scripted scenarios, and for autoplayed RFC.

It's gone again. It might be beneficial to post the text you added here.

you can check the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=364223300&oldid=364196211

 

[nody]

F*ck Wikipedia, long live Wiki for Rhye's mods and general awesomeness!

 

[deanej]

This is one of the reasons why I believe Wikipedia should be dismantled and replaced.

Note to wikipedia: scholars are never going to consider you legitimate. Get over it and get back to your mission of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

 

[Ringan]

What a mess...they seem to be like this all over Wikipedia.

 

[Arkaeyn]

From my point of view, with civ you reenact history and create alternate history situations. That's especially true for scripted scenarios, and for autoplayed RFC.

I agree that this is a valid use of alternate history to me, but if you look at the other games discussed in that section, they're almost all plot-based games with settings that already exist in "alternate history." The player has no influence on the existence of the alternate timelines. Adding historical strategy games would completely change the focus of the section.

 

[nody]

I agree. I'd suggest to add a new section called 'Alternate Historical Strategy games'.

 

[Depravo]

It's got to the point I can't be fashed editing Wikipedia articles even to correct basic errors, never mind what's often appallingly bad writing, presentation and mangled references. When you're not combing through pages of ignorant horse crap you're being overridden by some OCD tallywhacker of a wikipaedophile abusing his Level 44 Fire Mage editing privileges.

 

[apenpaap]

Lately a bunch of idiotic supremos rule wikipedia with some really dumb unwritten rules, and even dumber interpretation of the written rules.

 

[Leoreth]

I recently read an interview with one of the early wikipedia members, and she was looking half amused, haf terrified at how over the top the current community can get over wikipedia's rules, which she and others wrote down casually and without much afterthought, thinking their intentions would be obvious to anyone.

 

[datu_urbiztondo]

"In the Civilization Series, the player guides a civilization on a macro-scale from prehistory to the present day. A huge quantity of user-made scenarios offer challenges set in specific historical periods. For instance, in Sid Meier's Civilization IV, the official scenario Desert War, set in the Mediterranean theater of World War II, features scripted events tied to possible outcomes of battles. Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, one of the official mods shipped with the expansion Beyond the Sword, is designed to mirror a historical Earth as closely as possible. As it features auto-play, entering the game in a later stage of the game will make the player discover an unpredictable outcome of this "Earth simulator", in which there may be a realistic alternative setting, as well as a completely unexpected geo-political map, such as a huge and influential Roman Empire in modern days."

It's actually right there.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

OMG of course it's right there because Rhye put it there, somebody took it away and somebody else put it back! (look in the history of the edits)

 

[Úmarth]

He's definitely out of order. Neither the article nor the edit is "controversial", so Rhye didn't need to discuss it beforehand (WP:BB). Eaglestorm certainly shouldn't have reverted a substantial, non-vandalism, non-BLP edit without giving a reason (WP:REVEXP). Removing Rhye's comment from his talk page was churlish, but acceptable, so don't try and restore it (WP:BLANKING).

Anyway, choked by bureaucracy and super-users as Wikipedia is, the way out of edit wars is still communication. I've started a section on the talk page to try and sort it out.

(By the way, quoting WP:XXX policy pages, as I've done above, is how you win debates on Wikipedia these days )

 

[Alexius08]

He's definitely out of order. Neither the article nor the edit is "controversial", so Rhye didn't need to discuss it beforehand (WP:BB). Eaglestorm certainly shouldn't have reverted a substantial, non-vandalism, non-BLP edit without giving a reason (WP:REVEXP). Removing Rhye's comment from his talk page was churlish, but acceptable, so don't try and restore it (WP:BLANKING).

Anyway, choked by bureaucracy and super-users as Wikipedia is, the way out of edit wars is still communication. I've started a section on the talk page to try and sort it out.

(By the way, quoting WP:XXX policy pages, as I've done above, is how you win debates on Wikipedia these days )

Maybe the lack of sources triggered the revert. The surrounding paragraphs didn't have references anyway.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

So I've quoted Umarth (hilarious profile on Wikipedia BTW) with the Wikipedia rules on his talk page, "discussed" it by added another line to the discussion, and reverted the changes. Let's see what this little spiteful man (woman?) will do next.

 

[Higher Game]

You think that's bad?

Try introducing a little truth on any page having to do with Hitler or the Holocaust. I swear they have bots that detect any editing that defies the Official History.

 

[LuKo]

There is no truth so you can't introduce it. There's just the Official History.