User talk:ForTheGoodOfAllofUs

December 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Stanley Parable has been reverted. Your edit here to The Stanley Parable was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/crowsx3/status/1467903388914495490) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit to Stanley Parable
Hello. It looked like you were promoting a non-notable blog. Now I see what you're trying to do, let me see if I can find a better reference. Ifnord (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing tips
Hi. I can see you're a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and just wanted to give you some guidance on citing sourcing. Firstly, I can see this is a common error you're making, but there should be no space between the prose and citation (it should appear as example not example ). My other piece of advice is that I've noticed some websites you have sourced in the past may not be considered reliable; a list of perennial and gaming sources that are reliable, situational, or unreliable can be found at WP:RSP and WP:VG/S, respectively. Please also take the time to look over WP:VERIFY. As a side note (WP:PSTS), citing a reliable secondary source means you do not have to then also cite a primary source, as you did in your edit here to Detroit: Become Human.

Happy editing! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the Detroit edit, the new source added information that is not on the first source (post-launch perspective). Sadly with Video Games information, news outlets often don't cover a lot of the developments and information, and is sometimes considered as a non-primal source of information within the gaming community as a whole (e.g. reviews not always reflecting well on game reception). I have recently made a more careful note as to the sources, if you happen to see me using an unreliable source be sure to notify me and I'll gladly fix it. Thanks for the tip of the prose and citation. ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was referring to the part of your edit where you cited a source mentioning that the game was released on Steam, and then also unnecessarily cited the Steam page itself. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that it's not the version you linked here. Also if you have questions on the newer Detroit edit you are welcome to discuss them in Detroit's Talk page. ForTheGoodOfAllofUs (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)