Wikipedia troubles - again

[Lone Wolf]

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.

What else would you expect from the Judeomasonic Wikipedia? Everything is controlled by the Jews nowadays

 

[nody]

I thought only Israel and Amerika were 'controlled' by Jews...

So what is the truth? No 6 million Jews wiped out by 'Hitler and the Holocaust'?

What are you? White Supremists?

 

[onedreamer]

the wiki user is a jerk but in this case I think that we shouldn't care because Civilization is history not alternate history. While it is true that the game inevitably takes a different path from real history, the definition of alternate history games is slightly different. Yes, it could be achieved by a Civ scenario made by a user, but a scenario is not the game.

 

[Leoreth]

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.

I don't think there is any truth to be inserted by someone calling himself "National Socialist" (also abbreviated Nazi). I'm glad that wikipedia's community still works on the important topics.

 

[Rhye]

We're now officially in the middle of the edit war - thank you everyone for your support.

the wiki user is a jerk but in this case I think that we shouldn't care because Civilization is history not alternate history. While it is true that the game inevitably takes a different path from real history, the definition of alternate history games is slightly different. Yes, it could be achieved by a Civ scenario made by a user, but a scenario is not the game.

I think that, RFC aside, Civ is the game with the biggest number of alternate reality user-made scenarios.

 

[Leoreth]

I also think that, while the examples listed there suggest otherwise, a game allowing players to influence and create an alternative history are even "more" alternate history than those who simply put the player into an alternative history setting and let him act according to it.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Some other busybody who has some righteous-sounding rules for himself deleted the edit because of "peacockery" and I just discussed his behavior in a scathing reply. Somebody back me up please.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

And this Eaglestorm guy just edited out the whole section that I started on his talk page regarding his breaking of WW rules...talk about being obstructionist. These people are just plain idiotic.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Well, I added it in again. Let's see what happens.

 

[Alexius08]

Some other busybody who has some righteous-sounding rules for himself deleted the edit because of "peacockery" and I just discussed his behavior in a scathing reply. Somebody back me up please.

Did he mean this? They're pretty sensitive to text that sounds like advertising.

To Rhye:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.
2. If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.

 

[Rhye]

Did he mean this? They're pretty sensitive to text that sounds like advertising.

To Rhye:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed, because Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.
2. If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant.

No advertising, you could delete RFC and leave Civ, for all I care. But the presence of RFC strengthens reasons for Civ being included in the article.

 

[Alexius08]

No advertising, you could delete RFC and leave Civ, for all I care. But the presence of RFC strengthens reasons for Civ being included in the article.

If we could cite sources for stuff we add, then it might stay at the page. Depends mostly on how other editors perceive the citations.

 

[Rhye]

Now that I think about it, there is also Broken Star as a clear example. I'm adding it.

 

[nody]

What about Next War and Final Frontier?

They both play in the future, like the Fallout series which is also mentioned.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Unbelievable--all this idiot says is "rvt peacock edit" without any discussion.

 

[astrognash]

I think we're winning. Check the history: Eaglestorm edited the page, and changed some stuff, but he let Civ be. **Knock on Wood**

 

[AnotherPacifist]

So the guy has this on top of his talk page:

This is Eaglestorm's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Eaglestorm.

And he says "Don't tamper with my talk page." Unbelievable s#@%.
But I think he's giving up.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

What about Next War and Final Frontier?

They both play in the future, like the Fallout series which is also mentioned.

Final Frontier and Next War are ages in the future. It's not alternate history for a few hundred years.

 

[BurnEmDown]

The Fallout series is considered alternate history because the plot begins at 1970s, when a nuclear war devastates the world.

 

[nody]

I loved playing Fallout 3, BTW.

Don't know what I should play first the coming fall: Civ 5 or Fallout New Vegas (same engine as 3).