its a user editable web encyclopedia.
admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.
admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.
YES EXACTLY! I mean if its obvious that additions do not relate to the subject or topic, or are infringing copyrights or plagiarism, then that justifies editing... but to edit something that is perfectly legal, in a moral and knowledge sense, I think they go way too overboard on wikipedia...its a user editable web encyclopedia.
admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.
*waits for Proto to psot a WoT full of jargon* :lol:>.< that sounds like communist speak.![]()
Since then, I have vowed never to even add an letter to Wikipedia again.
I want to be on the OP's side, but I also know theres two sides to a story. Maybe there were some grammatical or style discrepancies in the original edit you provided? The administrator/mod may have just looked at it and did a quick edit without giving it much thought (the university/college professor/TA syndrome). If you can post it here, maybe we can take a look at it as well?
Fixed even more.Since then, I have vowed never to even add a letter to Wikipedia again.
Thanks for that. I just use Wikipedia lightly so I didn't know there was that option. I can't help but wonder if Mdkcheatz did a better job formatting than your link would suggest. Perhaps the original would be better still.
i somewhat agree. if the article was written in a neutral manner, rather then first person it would probably still be on there.Thanks for that. I just use Wikipedia lightly so I didn't know there was that option. I can't help but wonder if Mdkcheatz did a better job formatting than your link would suggest. Perhaps the original would be better still.
Having viewed it though, I think I can see why the edit was made. First as some mentioned, Wikipedia and other encyclopaedias are not meant to be manuals for software and a reference of the feature and a pointer to where to find more information would suffice. Secondly, the style in which it is written, at a glance, seems to differ from what an educational piece is usually in.
For example, if the yellow highlighted part is what you wrote, I would firstly eliminate first person and second person usage. Although thats what may have been provided by Gent, it would probably have been wise to edit the guide first to make it fit the mold of most educational pieces. You could have then presented it to Gent to verify your version's integrity.
To be honest, I myself would have eliminated the second last and last lines as well, as they were to act as support for the guide which has now been trimmed off. Now they are superfluous and serve no purpose.
He doesn't own the property rights for the art, animation or images used in the game, whether its your own photo, copy or not. You have a right to execute the software in your copy, you have some rights regarding fair use, but never does it say that you own anything else.or something like that even though it was his own legally bought copy and he took and uploaded them himself.
Since that falls under fair usage, and Wikipedia rpefers to only use such when it is strictly necessary, if it's not an important addition to the article's content you can expect it to see it deleted.you can upload such images as long as they are low quality and are stated to be demonstration art.