User talk:Woodroar/Archive 4

Reliability of source
Hi Woodroar! I saw you recently made a comment in the source reliability noticeboard and I wondered if you have 5 minutes to help again with another item. I've been having a problem with a book that makes a false quotation of another book. This latter book is all over the internet and can be immediately checked by anyone. But if you're busy i don't want to spam you :) thanks! El Huinca (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied at the RSN here, though I'm not sure it was the answer you would have preferred. :) I would caution you going forwards, however, that your message above would be considered canvassing and is not looked upon favorably. There is nothing wrong with asking editors to comment, as long as you a) ask neutrally, and b) avoid asking specific editors who you feel may agree with you. For example, you could say "please see this discussion regarding the reliability of a source" on an article talk page or a project page. But words like "false quotation" could get you in hot water. Just a head's up. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I asked you (which to my point of view is equivalent to "random people") because I wanted unexpected results :) El Huinca (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I figured that was the case. Just be careful, though. We see it as "asking two random or recent editors", but others may see it as "specifically asking only two editors in order to push a particular POV". Now you and I know you weren't doing that, but it can come back to bite you. As far as RSN goes, I hope some other editors chime in soon. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate
I'm also wondering why you put a Gamergate notification on User:DBachmann's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the user commented at Talk:Gamergate controversy. I notify everyone, when possible, whether or not I agree with them. I apologize if this isn't something we're supposed to be doing, but I thought it was. Woodroar (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an unpleasant necessity of this kind of sanctions regime that we have to make sure everybody who makes any kind of edit in the area covered should be made aware of the sanctions before they proceed. Traditionally this is done with a neutrally worded template. --TS 16:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that everyone needs a sanction notice, but I will point out that given there is a case at the moment and we expect a proposed decision soon, unless you have reason to think an editor may be a problem you might want to wait. I normally wouldn't given anyone a sanction notice unless I thought they were unaware of the sanctions and might be a problem. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the single edit was not great: decrying a lack of objectivity while linking to KnowYourMeme, a misreading about the content and focus of the article, and veiled accusations of bad faith. Nothing sanctionable, obviously, but that's how several previously-sanctioned editors started. My goal is to AGF myself while getting editors up to speed as quickly as possible. I glanced quickly at the editor's Talk page, saw comments going back 2 months, a MiszaBot template but no indication that anything had ever been archived, and also no indication that the user has pending changes reviewer status, let alone the mop, so I figured the notification would be appropriate. I will take your advice and exercise more caution going forward, however. Thank you, and Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good response on his talk page. On thinking about it, these are going to be more and more common, and as you said, don't on their own make someone involved. Only being involved makes you involved, to state the obvious. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
--82.136.210.153 (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cynicism
It's not worth trying to add/remove/replace/edit talk pages from throw-away accounts. Focus on the goal, not the process. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. I generally try to ignore hit-and-run comments elsewhere, but with Gamergate they always lead to ridiculous arguments that only waste everyone's time. I'd rather just hat or remove them and move on. Plus, there have been cases in the past where someone suggested an edit that obviously and egregiously violates policy, nobody bothered to respond, and later they come back to change the article. Of course, it ends up in an edit war, because when they're reverted and told to discuss changes, they legitimately say that they have. Oh well.
 * And thanks for the link. Someday I will have to contemplate the nature of human stupidity. But not today. :) Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sasha Hostyn
I looked back at the esportsearnings.com site and it appears they might be using Liquipedia to verify her birth date. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Video games, so I'll concede to your expert take on the site I sourced and revert my edit. My guess is that she had it posted on her Facebook page but her personal page has been deleted. Pink Fae (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, probably Facebook or maybe even paperwork for a tournament. She's gone from avoiding the media entirely to reluctant interviews, so maybe we'll have better sources soon. But then again, I can understand why transgender women (and men) may avoid releasing information that could lead to them being harassed or worse. Anyways, thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As a transgender woman myself, I can understand this as well. I was very shy when I was her age as well. :) Pink Fae (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Bud
Sorry bud but first hand research from somebody who has actually spent a lot of time in the game is far more reliable than the cover definition. I know how the game works and those interested deserve to know what they're getting into. Wont stop changing the definition until it remains the accurate truth. Dislike it? Then change the game itself so my definition is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.39.126 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I don't work for Goodgame Studios, nor have I ever played the game. But we don't allow original research on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I stopped thinking you worked for them a while ago. However I don't really mind what your policy is on original research. This is something I know to be true and the only person who needs to know this for me to make these changes is me. As long as I know what I say is true I will be changing the definition to match an accurate description. This isn't opinion this is fact about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.39.126 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you
I'm a wiki noob but I found something weird in an article while researching something and saw you were last person to edit it, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Unfortunately it's about video game journalism so...put on your hard hat. :)

Section 2.2 ends with a sentence: "This conclusion was later refuted by the review's assigning editor, citing proof of the reviewer's completion of the game.[38]" The link does not seem to include any proof of the writer having played the game he was reviewing. It actually states that a hardware crash destroyed the possibility of recovering said proof.

Also, link [41] seems to be dead now.

I'll probably never follow up on this post, but you seem to be a respectable wiki editor so I trust you'll at least look into these 2 slight flaws in the article. 75.87.121.155 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the head's up. I removed the section: the article made a strong accusation of a breach of journalistic ethics where the source came just short of implying it, and all of it was based on a self-published source which should never be used when it comes to claims about living persons. The sentence about the rebuttal also said things the source didn't, and it was self-published as well. The whole situation needs to be covered in high-quality, reliable sources before we can summarize it.
 * Also, I added the tag to source 41—well, actually 39 now—so hopefully someone can track down the article. If I find some time tomorrow I can look as well.
 * Thanks again. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm
If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable". --37.152.19.197 (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Cantr has been deleted three times, twice in 2006 and once in 2011. I did not participate in any of those deletion discussions, including the single AfD discussion. I removed your link today because we generally don't link to red-links (i.e., non articles) on list articles, especially to former articles which were determined by the community to fail our notability requirements. As far as deletion discussion etiquette goes, I thank you for your suggestions but I am very familiar with the process. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Massively multiplayer online game
Hello,

thank you very much for your feedback. I am very sorry for the inconvenience as I am relatively new to this kind of activity. Third party sources - understood. Will do my best to avoid these kind of mistakes in the future. Just that I took a look at Runescape reference and thought it is ok to use your own websites.

I also have a question - how is the suitability of a reference source checked? What are the requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate ook (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * good questions. Identifying reliable sources has some guidelines, but we look for things like this: editing staff and editorial policies (fact checking, for example), author staff and author by-lines (as opposed to crowd-sourced/database "articles"), and being widely cited by other reputable sources. When it comes to video games, we have a rough list of reliable/unreliable/situational sources at WikiProject Video games/Sources and a Talk page to discuss that list. I agree that the Runescape reference is inappropriate, so I've also removed that claim. To be honest, a lot of that article is in poor shape and really could be cut back. :( Anyways, if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. The Welcome message on your Talk page will also have a lot of information to get you up to speed on editing. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

JournoList
With regard to this JournoList reversion and the associated edit reason "rv per policy and consensus": would you please point me to the URL(s) at which this information is documented? Or is it just distributed across the JournoList talk page? Am I correct that the above cited revision is the last act in an edit war that had gone on for a while? Thanks. Deicas (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct. The relevant discussions are Talk:JournoList through Talk:JournoList on the Talk page—though it's really just one, long argument—which ended with User:Sy9045 getting blocked for edit warring. An IP continued edit warring for a while that day as well, and there were two more reverts since then, all geolocating to the same area. As you said, my revert was the last. Woodroar (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I'd like to see the JournoList member list included in the article but I understand that the issue was/is contentious.  Would the appropriate why to initiate the discussion be 1) me undo-ing the deletion and; 2) you redo-ing the deletion and; 3) taking the issue to an RfC?  Does this make sense?  Thanks.
 * Deicas (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't suggest adding the list, as it was removed (at least partially) and stayed removed on BLP grounds. (See this BLPN discussion for more about that.) If you sincerely feel that the list belongs, I would suggest working to gain consensus on the Talk page. An RfC is an option, sure, but pretty much everyone is going to ask why you didn't take it to Talk first. Woodroar (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll read  this BLPN discussion and give thought to starting a talk page discussion.
 * Deicas (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Underlight
I posted some images of one article on Articles for deletion/Underlight from a magazine that I personally posess. I am trying to find it but there was another magazine that had done a review (2-pages in that case if I recall correctly). I would appreciate any advice you can provide for cleaning up the sources on the article page. I have played this game since it first launched, and it is personally upsetting to see it's history be flagged to be deleted. I would be fine with removing content from the page that you see as unfitting.KoiUnderlight (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * the Computer Gaming World source is what we're looking for, though it's a little short. If we can track down that PC Gamer you mentioned at the AfD, I would personally be satisfied with notability requirements and would also help to rewrite the article around the available sourcing. I'll do some looking for it this weekend. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I googled "PC Gamer" "Underlight" and sadly wasn't able to find anything. I think we've got enough sources to meet WP:N, but of course a 2-page article from PC Gamer would help immensely if you can find it! (Feel free to tell me to knock off the pinging if you've got the hang of your Watchlist.) Woodroar (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Woodroar, I'm sorry about the pinging, I hadn't realized that I could use the watchlist to keep track of the conversation. I'll stop pinging you, thanks again for your help and your advice. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries! I was actually wondering if I was bothering you by pinging you on these replies, haha. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not bothering me at all, by all means ping me if you have any questions or need any help finding additional sources for game articles. I tend to do a lot of searching through web.archive.org and other sites to find info on old games that I loved, even when it's frustrating at times with all the broken links and images. Thanks again! KoiUnderlight (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Moonlight Productions
It's my profile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjit mahali (talk • contribs) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * it's your profile, yes, but user pages aren't meant for advertising. In fact, Wikipedia itself is not for advertising, which is what every single one of your have been. I would strongly suggest working on the encyclopedia before you're blocked for spamming. Woodroar (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discogs
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=discogs&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 So you're going to be removing discogs from the whole website theres the link.Im cool with it being removed but if it bothers you that much you certainly want to try and be consistent. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a job for a WP:BOT. Woodroar (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl 1.jpeg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl 1.jpeg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava
Hi Sir,

Kundan Srivastava is notable youngest activist in India and author of women issues novel. He is still fighting for Crime against women since 10 years.

He was honored universal humanity award 2013.

His all reliable sources is accepted according to you but you can't gather his information as a notable person. I would like to urge please look into his article and I beleive he is facing controversy because of his work.

I hope you will consider his work and notability

Thanks!

Syd4tech (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe you have me confused with a different editor. I reverted your addition of a draft article at WT:BLP, a policy discussion page (and not a place for draft articles). I would suggest following the advice left for you at Draft:Kundan Srivastava: search for high-quality published sources about the subject, not primary/self-published sources or sources that simply mention his name in passing. I hope this helps. Woodroar (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Guild Masters
Hello Woodroar. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Guild Masters, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. Ged UK  14:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Guild Masters is a browser game, not software. A7 does apply to web content, and the db-web template specifically mentions browser games. In fact, I've probably nominated dozens of browser games with that template over the years. I hope you'll reconsider. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think that must have changed and I didn't notice, I'm sure it didn't use to specify browser games. OK, I'll accept that it's not software, but the claim of being the first Spanish game to be Kickstarter funded is still probably enough of a credible claim to pass A7, plus the number of sources (even though most of them are quite brief), especially the www.zonammorpg.com/ one. That's not to say that any of those sources will stand up to the GNG, but overall I think it's enough for A7. Ged  UK  12:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ralpherns discussion on Consumption Function Post
Hello Woodroar, how should I post a new very important economic theory development that was presented to the economic community through this book? How should I post something that many commercial and university's editing companies denied publishing arguing that, in present economic crisis situation, they could not publish it if the author was not a very well-known one or the author did not grant the selling of five hundred copies of it? How could I present this economic theory improvement without a bit of self mentioning if I am the one who developed the theory and the one who created the mathematical workarounds to solve the important problems that prevented Friedman, Modigliani and many others from using it in the real world economic policy developments? My point of view on the economic theory presented tries to be as eclectic and neutral as possible, just presenting the new formula there. What would have Keynes done in life if he had had to introduce his economic thoughts in Wikipedia? Ralpherns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralpherns (talk • contribs) 00:49, 29 November 2015
 * You're probably seen it already, but I replied on your Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Graal Online
I find it highly suspect & arrogant of you to just collectively assume wholly the power within yourself to decide that Graal, one of the iconic original MMOs from the 90s pre mid-millennial popularity with a richer, more robust history than nearly any other MMO there due to being an actual collaborative effort of quality worldwide developers—now housing endless servers with hundreds of thousands of players for mobile platforms—is "unremarkable". You might consider an entry to lack references, but to simply decide that something is unremarkable and remove it like this is an absolute abuse of your power. Just because this game isn't your flavor doesn't make it any less relevant to the dawn of MMOs. But I can already see your response in advance; some closed-off self-assured, "I'll do what I want your opinion doesn't matter. Haha. Goooodbye!" Why are you even on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.88.92 (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because it wasn't sourced to a reliable source and because the community has already decided that Graal Online isn't a notable subject. If you have any questions, please read those links as well as WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL first and then get back to me. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Virtonomics
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Virtonomics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yannis Livadas
Dear friend i just left a comment for you concerning the page "Yannis Livadas". Please feel free to write me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Mike (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll reply at your talk page. Woodroar (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Please expalin yourself on that, Mike Mike is no longer valid since it is deleted; so what is the basis of all that? Since it is matter of validity concerning the facts i would like to receive a fully detailed report on that. Yet if am not permitted to participate into Wiki, let me know in order to self-delete my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Alltheway (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 March 2016
 * As above, I'll reply at User talk:James Alltheway. Woodroar (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl v2 1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl v2 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Pat Robertson and Anita Sarkeesian gamergate
Hello. In the part where i said ultra-christian nut pat robertson on that talk page, i changed it to instead say ultra-christian pat robertson. perhaps calling him a nut was a bit over the top, but he did make statements about video games and they are noted around the internet. Ultra-christian means christian extreamist, it's just a cooler-sounding way to say it. I did remove the nut part though. As per the part about my friend and Anita's status as a gamer, it is not speculation on my part, it comes from the fact that I am close friends with the cousin of Annie and with everything going on about her, the topic comes up a fair amount. We both indeed know Anita (he's her cousin after all, and I hang out with him a lot) and I've even been bowling with her several times when she came up to Canada a while back. I refer to her as an outsider because that's what many criticks refer to her as, and I use it in the context of the fact that she does not play that many video games. She does game, but not as much as her supporters believe and not as little as gamergate That sattement int he 2010 talk where she says "i do not play vieo games" was a bit of an exageration on her part because she does. However, she's exagerating when she alsy says that she is an avid gamer. That's where I'm coning from on that level. believes. We don't usually bring it up because I only ever see her when she's up in Canada, and then it's only when we have a bowling night. Thus the topic of her status as a gamer doesn't come up because we're too busy enjoying ourselves, so I tend not to bring it up. Regardless, I do not claim that the article should reflect what my friend and I know about Annie, rather, I agree it should reflect sources. However it should not b eworded in a pro-feminist or anti-feminist way. Refering to all the backlash she received twards her kickstarter as "harassment" tends to have a bit more of a feminist leaning than a neutral leaning. I had suggested a slight wording change that would acknowledge both the non-harassment and the harassment in this phrase: "which received a wave of backlash and sexist harassment against sarkeesian" instead of "received a wave of sexist harassment against Sarkeesian." because the way it is now looks as if all the backlash was harassment, which it obviously wasn't. Anyway that's why I undid your changes. I took out the word nut about Pat Robertson and advise you to leave the part about my friend in tact or at least acknowledge the point in a reply rather than a terse redaction. Nobody likes terseness. thanks Eric Ramus

199.101.61.70 (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some quick replies, because I'm short on time:
 * You have to understand that article Talk pages are not a forum to discuss the topic or our own personal knowledge or analysis, especially when living (or recently deceased) persons are involved. Our BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even on Talk pages, and unsourced negative information should be removed. To be completely frank, your opinions (or mine) about Pat Robertson and Anita Sarkeesian don't matter, and attacks or gossip simply don't belong. Even excessive positive discussion about a person (or anything!) is frowned on, because we're here to build an encyclopedia, not anything else.
 * "Anita Sarkeesian doesn't play video games" is a very common, very tired attack against her.
 * The "I don't play video games" or "I'm not a gamer" criticisms are also not only an exaggeration, they're taken completely out of context.
 * Your desire for "pro-feminist" and "anti-feminist" balance is not how Wikipedia works. You've mentioned WP:POV before, but I suggest that you read that entire page, because POV/NPOV doesn't apply the way you think it does. In short, NPOV means that we must accurately describe the facts or opinions of reliable sources (not our own analysis or interpretation of them, as mentioned above), and that we balance them proportionally. In other words, if 10 sources were "pro" and 10 were "anti", it would be split 50/50. In reality, essentially all of the reliable sources covering the Kickstarter discussed the sexist harassment against her. Sure, I've read some "anti" claims or opinions, but it's all from unreliable sources and therefore something that we don't consider.
 * I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What about the term ultra-christian. You can't redact that, unless you're going to redact the word sexist, because like ultra-christian or christian extreamist, sexist is an oppinion too.
 * Eric Ramus
 * 199.101.61.70 (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall having seen "ultra" redacted anywhere, but it wouldn't surprise me. Like "far" in the case of "far-left"/"far-right", it implies that there's an acceptable amount of being Christian/left/right and that person is beyond it. It's a judgement that we shouldn't make outside of a sourced quotation or the claims of numerous reliable sources. In the article, we characterize the harassment as "sexist" because that's what the overwhelming consensus of reliable sources say. Unless I've missed something, all uses of "sexist" on the Talk page are in terms of that reliably sourced content already in the article, not random personal opinion and certainly not attacks directed at named living persons. Woodroar (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Brazilian punk rock etc
was thinking about coming back to this and wondering if you had had any special thoughts about it. We talked about it about a year ago. Just looking for a place to start, no biggie if you haven't, just wanted to take you into account Elinruby (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew more about it! My experience with Latino punk is mostly limited to Los Crudos, and the few pieces of "music journalism" were issues of Maximumrocknroll I found at venues waiting for the bands to start playing. I can't say I recognize a single band/artist at Punk in Brazil, either. A Google search turns up the usual blogs and not much more. I feel like these scenes don't get much coverage until a few bands get huge, which draws journalists to cover them. But I could be totally wrong. Woodroar (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate talk page
Thanks for the thoughtful critique of the draft presented there. I keep meaning to dig in a bit, but life intervenes. I find your contributions probably render anything I would say redundant. Dumuzid (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do what I can. I've also been busy with extra-Wiki-cular activities but somehow got the time to dive in. It was probably by neglecting other, more important things, which I don't recommend! Woodroar (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, hello
I've been a member since 2011, but I've never received a message like the one you left for me. Could you explain plz? Thank you. - Scottwindcrest (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure! It's a standard notification that articles related to the Gamergate controversy–"(a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed"–are subject to discretionary sanctions to minimize disruption. In other words, it's a "head's up, these articles tend to get heated so please make sure you're familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines". It doesn't mean you've done anything wrong. Although I would suggest reading WP:BRD, which contains plenty of good advice regarding collaborative editing. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-Twinkle
I didn't know about that, but thank you, I'm trying to serve Wikipedia from vandalism. I will be more careful.--Marlo Jonesa (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Infinite Flight
Firstly - thanks for the mature way you went about your message. Secondly, I do ,however, believe you made a mistake as this change has been requested for a long time and I have attempted to adhere to ALL guidlines and have made the necessary changes. Please give me specific changes and I'll be more than happy to accommodate you. With regards to the infinite Flight page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wren Jago (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that you have repeatedly requested the changes but–and I'm going to be frank here–they're never going to stay, as I already explained in my reply at Talk:Infinite Flight one week ago. Your suggested edits violate many of our policies and guidelines, most importantly the need for reliable, third-party published sources and reflecting what the sources say (especially summarizing proportionally according to those sources). For the third time, I'm going to strongly suggest that you read our guidelines on articles about video games. Please also remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). 18:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have made a mistake on re-editing the article “Infinite Flight”. The bit I added was up-to-date info on the late send update. I put a citation to an announcement of the update on the offical Infinite Flight Community. You removed it saying it wasn’t a reliable source. However, the citation was to a announcement by the Developers of the app. I think that was a reliable source and I may re-add it. Thank you, AerospacePal 10:07 UTC 19/10/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerospacePal (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you've replied here and at your talk page, let's continue the discussion at your Talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Zoë Quinn's PGPs
Hi Woodroar,

In the last several months, you've participated in a discussion on Talk:Zoë Quinn about which preferred gender pronouns to use in the article. So I thought I'd give you a heads up that I'm starting a WP:RFC to hopefully resolve this issue! You can find the relevant discussion here.

Regards. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm currently writing my !vote right now. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Role-playing game
A lot of people who type "Role-playing game" in wikipedia expect "Role-playing video game" without searching for that term in current "role-playing game" article. Why is shortcut for video game genre removed? It will be nice to have fast access link for the term when they type "Role-playing game" for video game genre in the search bar. EchoBlu (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi EchoBlu! I understand where you're coming from, but it's simply not feasible to link every form of RPG in the note at the top of Role-playing game. As mentioned in that article, "role-playing game" refers to endless varieties of tabletop games, live action games, and video games. We don't mention them all because the article does that. But we do disambiguate in a note, which is standard for cases like this. We also specifically call out video games in the lead and body of the article itself, and Role-playing video game is one of the top search results for queries such as "role-playing", "roleplaying", and even "roll playing" in the search box. If users can't find that article, then they're actively avoiding reading and there's not much we can do about that. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand, Woodroar, but I don't talk here about disambiguation. "Role-playing" is disambiguation link for that term. I am talking here that in gaming people don't use "Role-playing video game", but simply "role-playing game". "Role-playing game" is synonym for "Role-playing video game" in gaming world. Sure, you can always go on disambiguation page to find link you want, but it will be more intuitive to have direct link for term you already typed correctly, from gamer perspective. When I type "role-playing game" and get this page, I simply don't search for the "other forms of role-playing", I search for the 'other forms of Role-playing games'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoBlu (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, I never say "role-playing video game" when I'm talking about the video games I play. But I also don't say "tabletop role-playing game" when I talk about pen-and-paper games. And the (few) LARPers I know don't say "live-action role-playing game", either. The term "role-playing game" can apply to many distinct subjects, each with their own article, and we can't mention them all in a note. Especially when they're mentioned in the lead of that very article.
 * Please also remember to sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). It's also considerate to use the "Show preview" button, especially when leaving messages for other users, as we are often notified every time you make a change to the page. Thanks, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting edit.
Greetings Woodtalk, Much regards to some of the content you have edited as per wiki guidelines. Requesting some edits on the articles San Jaimt & Gipsy.cz. Some unattributed quotes & plagiarism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinerdism (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I didn't see any unattributed quotes on either of those articles. If you're concerned about that or plagiarism, you'll want to start a discussion at Talk:San Jaimt or Talk:Gipsy.cz, or follow the procedures outlined at WP:PLAGIARISM.
 * Please also remember to sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). It's also considerate to use the "Show preview" button, especially when leaving messages for other users, as we are often notified every time you make a change to the page. Thanks, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 05:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

classifying "advertising" in external links
Hi Woodroar,

Just got your message that some of my recent edits may be construed as advertising. I am linking specifically to translations of mythology/religion that do not appear in the external links section of the pages I edit. It's true that these translations do appear on my website, but my website is not monetized, and I'm pretty sure that many other sites linked to in from the pages I am editing are also personal sites, and/or from other people (such as Sacred Texts.org) who are merely and lovingly trying to curate our oldest and best stories, and making them available to readers. Let me know if this makes sense.

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordandsilence1979 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though the site isn't monetized, your edits are considered external link spamming, a form of advertisement on Wikipedia. They're also a breach of our conflict of interest policies because you own the site. I didn't check every link, but several of them appeared to be copyright violations, which we should never link to. (Translations are derivative works and therefore copyrightable.) It's best if you let other, uninvolved editors discuss these links on the article Talk pages if they'd like to add them. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Woodroar, thanks for replying. I've been down this road before & know there's little sense in arguing a point. But I've never understand the almost fetishistic glee of Wiki editors deleting things. Paying attention to what I've looked at on Wiki in the past few days, I found hardly anything touching religion, poetry or literature that hasn't included copywritten material, whether within the page as fair use, or in link. Do what you must I suppose, but you have to see a difference between linking to a personal page that includes, say, translations from the Tao Te Ching that other links on Wiki and other webpages don't present nearly as comprehensively, and links to somebody clearly trying to sell something. In one sense everything, including Wiki, is all one huge advertisement. I would hope that intent and motive count for something, but alas I guess not.
 * One example suffices: you removed a link to my site where readers could download .pdfs of the 13-volume set The Mythology of All Races, from that set's page on Wiki. There are maybe a few thousand people in the world interested in these books--why shouldn't Wiki be a place where they can go to find links to them? The same .pdfs can be found at Archive.org, but it could take hours to sort through all the scattered .pdfs they have, to actually find them all, and to find decent scans. All I've done is saved people trouble, but somehow this is self-promotional, and "advertising." There are grey areas in the realm of advertising and self-promotion, without which Wiki would be useless.
 * Wordandsilence1979 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)Tim


 * I understand where you're coming from, I do. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of links or media files or a great number of other things. Yes, sometimes we'll link to sites where readers can find a book that's in the public domain or a translation of an important work. But that's always on a case-by-case basis because we have to consider factors like (a) does the content infringe on anyone's rights or require third-party programs to access, (b) is the site known for making quality content or reliable translations, (c) is the site commercial, does it display advertisements, or even track its users, (d) is the site stable or could it redirect to malware next week, (e) does the person requesting the link have a conflict of interest, etc. And sure, some editors ignore all this and add infringing content, taking advantage of the fact that we're nearly all volunteers and can't catch all of it.
 * If you feel that a link at The Mythology of All Races is appropriate, by all means start a discussion at Talk:The Mythology of All Races and see what other editors think. (It looks like another editor there has already complained that your link is incomplete, by the way.) Or you can ask at our external links noticeboard, where you'll probably get a faster and more comprehensive response. I can't be sure what the consensus will be, of course, but I bet you'll find some resistance simply because it's your site and there's a prominent Amazon advertisement (that ad-block won't block, by the way) selling your book. Or that Princeton University Press sells one of your linked texts for $180 and gives a publication date of 1955, so it's probably not in the public domain.
 * Another option would be to link via Template:ISBN, which produces this: ISBN 1372641203. That gives readers a variety of ways to find the book. :) I hope this helps but let me know if you have any other questions. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing content
Really, you should keep your hands to yourself instead of running around playing God deciding what is relevant content and what is not, considering Graal Online predates your Internet relevance, has 100,000 players daily, and has its own page on Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graal_Online As it stands, there is no end to the stream of egocentric Wikipedia editors looking to debunk anyone's edits simply to exercise public control, adding their two-cents about things they know nothing about. You should be banned from using this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollos bow (talk • contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The general consensus within WikiProject Video games (an open group of editors interested in articles on video games) as well as discussion at Talk:List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games has been to link only to games with articles on the English Wikipedia. The existence of an article on the German Wikipedia doesn't at all matter here. The English and German Wikipedias essentially function as separate sites, with (mostly) separate editors and separate policies and guidelines. The German article, for example, doesn't have any sources, which breaks our own general notability rules. In fact, Graal Online has been deleted for lack of sources on the English Wikipedia so many times that we've blocked it from being recreated. Hopefully games journalism sites/magazines and other sources will write more about the game and then we can remove the block. Keep in mind that we're not here to write about whatever we want, but to summarize what reliable, third-party published sources talk about. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I duplicate content
Hi, I restored the comment by dlthewave, and just saw your post on their talk page. It appears that the comment wasn't in the closed section - it probably got duplicated as a result of an edit conflict (already happened earlier today, though it was the entire AN/I content then, not just one section). Please let me know if I made a mistake by doing that. Thanks! BytEfLUSh Talk 03:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, just noticed you thanked me for the edit, so I guess all is good. =) BytEfLUSh Talk 03:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * yep, thanks for fixing it! I'd walk you through my reasoning for thinking the thread was closed, but it really makes no sense in retrospect. Probably a sign that it's time for bed, haha. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Snow Crash
Hi! I am new to Wikipedia editing and edited Snow Crash page and you deleted my edition stating it was trivial. I am not here to berate you for it, rather ask you for a better explanation so I do not make this similar mistake again. I added it because I believed the comparisons between Snow Crash and Ready Player One are seen and on the wiki page for the Ready Player One (film) it makes mention of a critic noting the similarities. However, this was missing on the Snow Crash page and I wanted to include it.

On another note, any tips for a new Wiki editor? How to do things, what to do and what not to do?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely, Randyvuxta (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Randyvuxta, and welcome to Wikipedia! I reverted your edit for two related reasons, because the source didn't look "reliable" to me and because the similarities didn't appear to be a "significant" viewpoint. I'll explain:
 * On Wikipedia, most of our content should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In other words, we're really just here to summarize what's already been published by peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers, books from respected publishers, etc. That does sometimes mean film review sites, but I'm not sure if The Film Stage meets those requirements. We do have a noticeboard to discuss specific sources (WP:RSN) but it doesn't look like that site has ever been evaluated there. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable, but the fact that The Film Stage hasn't come up at all in 10 years tends to indicate that it's not well known at all.
 * In addition to simply summarizing what reliable sources say, we aim to do that proportionally to the number of sources saying it. If many sources say something, then it should be covered in depth. If few or even one says it, then we shouldn't devote much space to that claim, if any at all. So I didn't mean to imply negatively that your edit was trivial, more that the comparison between Ready Player One and Snow Crash didn't appear to be a significant viewpoint based on that single questionable source. You can read more about these policies at WP:V and WP:NPOV. WP:NOR is also a (related) core content policy.
 * It looks like someone else (not me) removed the same claim from Ready Player One (film), so others probably feel the same way. That being said, if a number of high-quality sources make that comparison, perhaps it's something to include on Wikipedia. If you can find these sources, I'd probably start a discussion at Talk:Ready Player One (film) and Talk:Snow Crash to see what other editors think about it.
 * I'm sorry, that was much longer than I'd intended! I'll leave a welcome message on your Talk page with some important links to our policies and guidelines plus the Wikipedia Adventure. I'd probably start there if you're interested! If you have any questions at all, please let me know! Woodroar (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Post Rock bands list
Hi Woodroar

I made some changes to the wikipedia list of post rock bands. You apparently deleted my changes. Why I made the changes is because, I've noticed that there are no Twin Cities post-rock bands listed on the list. I was attempting to remedy that as we (the twin cities) have a decent sized scene with bands that are more accomplished then many of the other bands that are listed. Obviously I'm new to editing wikipedia. Could you help me update the bands list page the correct way?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartfork1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your message! In most cases, subjects should have standalone articles about them prior to being added to list articles such as List of post-rock bands. I'm not sure if those bands you added should have articles, but you can read more about our "notability requirements" for bands—in other words, should the band have an article written about it or not?—at WP:BAND. If you think these bands meet the requirements, I'd suggest reading Your first article and then write the article if you're up to it! If you have any other questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Jamboflo
Thank you for dealing with this. I reverted his edit in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (corrected noticeboard - 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)), but when I started looking at the contribution history last night, I decided I didn't want to deal with it then (it was my bedtime and I was in pain). most of the questionable edits were years ago, so I didn't see a big rush. The user seems to be naive about the whole thing, adding his name to articles without linking to his own article. I guess we wait to see if he engages. - Donald Albury 14:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * no problem at all! As COI cases go, I figured his was relatively minor: he just mentioned his CD and some of his students plus a band he was in, it's not like he filled the article with puffery or added Amazon links or anything. Like you said, it's probably best to see if he engages at this point. I hope you're feeling better! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Amie Wilkinson and associated articles
Thank you, Woodroar. I dropped the business on the BLP board because it looked like a warm potato, and was uneasy with the COI. Your interpretation was the correct one (thanks also to for the page protection). Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for bringing it to BLPN in the first place! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
non-notable, WP:WTAF, also unreliable sources

Slashdot may be a grey area (does it have editorial oversight? well, kind of) but why is Tweakers an unreliable source? As for Cxbx-Reloaded, it's afaik the best Xbox emulator in existence and currently actively developed, making it silly not to mention it. There is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urytyPoH6ag "CXBX Reloaded The NEW OG-XBOX Emulator tested out!" on YouTube] but that probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source either. I don't understand why I couldn't find any gaming website writing about it, it's probably down to my search skills. Your "WP:WTAF" note is just dead wrong, I didn't wikilink any of the entries. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexis Jazz! First, you're absolutely correct that you didn't wikilink any of the entries. What I meant was that you added entries that don't have articles, but I really should have said that. After a number of discussions at Talk:List of video game emulators, we only add entries with articles—in other words, emulators that pass WP:GNG. This is for a variety of reasons, including WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT (especially WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
 * But onto sources! I checked WP:RSN for previous discussions about Slashdot before reverting, and the consensus is that Slashdot is unreliable because its news is user-submitted and it has no reputation for editorial fact checking. Tweakers looks like it has some kind of editorial team but, like Slashdot, anyone can register an account and submit news. The Cxbx article is sourced directly to the developer and it's a trivial article without any fact checking, so we really shouldn't use it here. As a source, it's on par with a press release, really. Now if a staff journalist at Tweakers wrote a full review that included vetting claims by Caustik, that might count as a reliable source. We'd still need multiple reliable sources to support an article for Cxbx before we could add that article to the list, though.
 * When searching for sources, you may find WP:VG/RS helpful. Under "Locating reliable sources", there are two custom Google searches to find articles. I looked for articles about Cxbx and found a few hits, but they all appeared to trivial or non-independent. (You're welcome to look yourself, of course.) I hope this helps! If you have any questions, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "but, like Slashdot, anyone can register an account and submit news."
 * In that case, reliable sources do not exist. At all. The New York Times also has an option to submit news tips. Really any source that listens to whistleblowers is unreliable by this definition. All a reader can do is submit a link and optionally include a short quote. After that you get a message that says "May the force be with you and your news submit. We don't discuss ignored submissions" or something along those lines, in Dutch, the Star Wars reference remains English. All the news writing staff is paid and you can't just send in your self-written article and have it published. Alexis Jazz (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is in who writes the article and the editorial process that goes into publishing it, which is what makes a source reliable. Yes, anyone can submit tips to The New York Times. That tip goes to a professional journalist (typically an editor who assigns the article), the source is vetted and an article is written by a professional journalist (often with some back and forth with an editor or editors to confirm that the article is worthy of publication), the article is edited and fact-checked by professional editors and fact-checkers, and it's finally published. Except not really "finally" because there are post-publication editorial processes like issuing updates and retractions. That's the entire point of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we talk about in WP:V. At Slashdot, literally anyone can write a post and it gets approved by whoever at Slashdot is approving posts that day. They're not professional journalists, there's no Masthead with an editorial structure, there's no editorial policy, no vetting of sources, no fact-checking. You or I don't "write an article at The New York Times" by submitting a tip. On the other hand, you or I do "write an article at Slashdot" by submitting it. It's a huge difference and it's why we allow The New York Times but not Slashdot as sources. Woodroar (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * All valid points and I can understand why Slashdot isn't considered to be a sufficiently reliable source, but I was talking about Tweakers. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know about Tweakers, that's the issue. I would guess that most Wikipedians haven't ever heard of it. The site has never been discussed at WP:RSN and you only brought it up recently at WT:VGRS. To their credit, there's a Masthead with actual editors and an editorial policy, meaning they (ostensibly) follow some journalism standards. Yet they still publish—or published—claims without vetting or fact-checking based on information from a developer. That's not great. WP:V says to use "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" so we should also look at how other media view them. Is Tweakers widely quoted in mainstream media? Have they won any journalism awards? Are they influential outside the Dutch-speaking world? Do they publish updates or retractions? Have they published controversial articles? These are all things that we need to know. Now keep in mind that the first section of WP:V is WP:BURDEN: "[t]he burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We're all volunteers here and most of us don't speak Dutch. If you feel that the site is reliable, you need to prove it at WT:VGRS. Most editors here wouldn't know the first place to start looking for this kind of information. Woodroar (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I had missed your reply. Well, Tweakers did get more professional over the years. 14 years ago it wasn't really unprofessional but from a journalistic standpoint it left some things to be desired. I answered most questions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Tweakers is easily the most notable technology website in The Netherlands. If the mainstream media needs to know about online security or bitcoins they often call Tweakers. Alexis Jazz (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I missed your reply at WT:VGRS! Thank you for the articles you linked there, I've updated my !Vote accordingly. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Infinite Flight
S Aces of the ace (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * what can I help you with? Woodroar (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I recently add a reliable source but remove it I don’t know why Aces of the ace (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Infinite flight page is outdated and need to be edited since now it features global flight which allows you to fly all over the world. It also has new planes: CRJ-200, CRJ-900 and CRJ-1000, TBM 930, MD-11, DC-10, MD-11F and DC-10F Aces of the ace (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * we haven't included that information at Infinite Flight because it has not been covered by a reliable, third-party published source like a reputable games magazine or website. You can find examples of reliable sources for video game content at WP:VG/RS or read WP:IRS for general information about finding quality sources to reference. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you help me Aces of the ace (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked for reliable sources and didn't find anything past 2016. If a reputable source discussing the current patch does show up, feel free to mention it at Talk:Infinite Flight and we can consider adding it to the article. I hope this helps! Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)