ICE CHARGE – RED СУПЕРНОВИНКА 2011 года!!! Лучший в мире наркотик для СЕКСА!
- заказать на catchop.ru ! Абсолютно к каждому (крупному или мелкому) заказу мы прикрепляем пробник одной нашей продукции БЕСПЛАТНО! При желании получить пробник конкретного продукта, пишите его название в примечании к заказу!

First, you need cites and references. The more mainstream the better. And the more they directly and primarily discuss the topic of the information you are trying to insert, the better. So, for instance, an article in the NYT primarily about women game designers that prominently discusses D&D as an example would be perfect.

Second, fans are the most zealous protectors on wikipedia, and also, unfortunately, among the most hidebound and cliquish. I say that as a fan, of course! Thus they will in fact police “their” articles rigorously to eliminate what they find irrelevant. Cites like I discuss above can help. Also, if you see one person exhibiting this behavior to a ridiculous extreme, you can cite to [[WP:OWN]] — no ownership of an article — and there are lots of policies and procedures to help you if something is truly inappropriate.

But a lot of what happens isn’t “inappropriate”, per se; it’s a judgment call, or within the realm of normal discourse and debate in today’s society. If what you’re trying to add is argued with as trivial or off-topic or “undue weight”, even though you have a cite, I would suggest that the thing to do is to find, or create, a better and more hospitable home for that content. For instance, there is probably an article about “game designers” — e.g., the history & status of that particular occupation. If there’s not, there should be. Demographics about the field are inarguably appropriate. We should ultimately get an article about “women game designers” or “women in gaming” — there are plenty of cites to support such an article.

Finally, if you have issues like this, please ping me on my wikipedia talk page. I will not necessarily agree with your approach, but I promise to work with you on it. If it’s truly appropriate for wikipedia & is just being stonewalled, or needs a different strategy, we’ll figure it out.

User:Lquilter (User talk:Lquilter)

… i should probably apologize. i did not get in on the “categories for discussion” discussion on this one because i knew, from the start, that its deletion was a foregone conclusion. Between structural reasons that would make it difficult to work, and the privileged cluelessness that has led to the deletion of categories like “African American scientists” — I couldn’t do it again. I will ping you offline, though, and talk about how to topic-ify things such that, while the most hardened clueless editors will still not Get It, other folks will. I’ve just been on a minor wikibreak from wikipedia.

Notice that I think that it is still important to work with Wikipedia despite its flaws and the cluelessness of some/many editors. This is for two reasons: One, for better or worse, wikipedia is currently the “wiki of record” and I therefore believe that engagement with it is as important as doing separate projects. Two, believe it or not, I have seen editors change their opinions and learn and grow. Including myself.

peace