User talk:TalonCzar

Upon further review it seems like the ClubBanished source might fall under 'unreliable sources' on Wikipedia due to being a 'fansite' (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#Fansites). Please take a look here and consider noting these as an unreliable source.

Wikiuser1173 (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the updates based on my feedback. I appreciate you taking the time. I noticed another reference problem you are introducing: "There have also been several instances of former GM members being banned for cheating after abuse of their powers was discovered, putting into question the level of oversight that GMs receive from the staff team at large."

This seems to include your personal subjective view of the situation, and the reference references a single staff member being removed from the game, after it was discovered through an audit, that there was abuse taking place. However, you reference 'several instances'. Please take some time to update this or provide another source.

Wikiuser1173 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Wikiuser1173. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.

Hi there, you seem to be editing in some changes to this wikipedia page which create a POV problem for the page, along with some bias. I have some examples to help you correct this: "Topics raised by former and current players often include criticism of its extremely dated and often bug-riddled codebase, large number of missing features common to the cyberpunk theme (decking, matrix use, etc), and widespread abuse by its volunteer staff team of their positions for their own personal gain, including allegations of sexual assault and predatory behaviour."

You are citing an entire reddit search history for 'Sindome', which is very unspecific. I have reviewed this search history and a number of Reddit posts and see a single user 'Ephemeralis' criticizing the codebase as bug riddled and extremely dated, though this person does this on multiple occasions, that does not constitute multiple sources. The specific Reddit thread might be a better reference. Here it is: https://www.reddit.com/r/MUD/comments/ecqr2o/should_i_play_sindome/fbk71j5/?context=3 It also seems to include a response from what appears to be one of the game creators, effectively debating the claim being made in your wikipedia edits.

You also should consider counter sources which provide a more complete picture, here is an example: https://www.sindome.org/bgbb/game-discussion/new-game-features/-2019--year-end-improvements-wrap-up-376/ which seems to describe dozens or more improvements and bug fixes made in 2019, which are coming directly from the game creators and are not second hand information.

You are also using a website as a reference and basis for some of the content edits (clubbanished.com) which appears to be a website intended to 'dox' the creators of Sindome, by a group of people who have admitted to being removed from that community. This is not a respectable source and you should consider calling that out, otherwise you are not providing a whole truth, but rather a biased one. The article has a POV problem, and the POV being introduced is not one of objectivity but of subjectivity.

Another issue with POV comes here: "Sindome's rigid "anti-OOC" discussion rules have been described as being a tool wielded by the administration to silence critics on their platforms, preventing players affected by instances of abuse from speaking up or discovering that they're being taken advantage of. [4] In addition, these rules have reportedly been flaunted by members of the GM team themselves in the past, with many public incidents of such spilling over onto associated social media sites. "

There doesn't appear to be a reference to it spilling over onto social media sites-- aside from Reddit, which was already cited earlier. Also, you are not linking to the actual rules of the Sindome community to provide context. You could do that with a reference to: https://www.sindome.org/rules/

There appears to be a good amount of discussion around why the rule exists both on their own forums and on Reddit, which you could reference. There is also a reddit thread debating this issue more generally, but which has a post from one of the Sindome admin with their thinking behind the rule, which you could reference here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MUD/comments/e98kui/ooc_contact_rules_and_why_you_should_get_rid_of/fap8uos/?context=3

These are just some examples, but hopefully you find them helpful!

Wikiuser1173 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Wikiuser1173

August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Sindome has been reverted. Your edit here to Sindome was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.reddit.com/r/MUD/comments/fr3fzq/a_warning_about_sindome/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. 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) 02:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)