User talk:Gregorytopov

---

Thank you

Hi Gregory. I just wanted to thank you for your work on card games including patiences and introduce myself really. I play and research card games especially, but not exclusively, those played in Central Europe, often with German-suited packs. I have an extensive library of card game books in English and German, so can look stuff up and answer questions. I also have as numerous links to older publications in French, German, English and Danish online which I'm happy to share. :) Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)]

Nice to meet you Bermicourt, and thank you; I'm sure our paths will cross more often here. Gregorytopov (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

BoardGameGeek

Please note that the reliability of BoardGameGeek as a reference has previously been disputed at WP:RSN. As such, please do not use it in citations. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the note. The Milton Bradley edition should be included so I have reinstated just that part. Gregorytopov (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! FWIW I had to check at RSN. I thought I'd seen something about BGG before but I couldn't remember for sure. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spit card game

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Spit (card game), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, but I've actually been on Wikipedia for more than ten years. I've reinstated the edit to Spit (card game), and included a source that supports it, as requested. Gregorytopov (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Tonk card game

Hello. Would you mind clarifying the issue at Talk:Tonk_(card_game)#Stefancic_reference? I'm concerned that a valid source might have been removed here. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Gregorytopov (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Mattel for a source

Hello! While normally I would say Mattel is not an appropriate source, in the case you added it I think it would be acceptable. Thanks for adding a source to what you added! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Making contact

Hi Gregory, if you are interested and if you have a library of patience books, it may be good to touch base offline to see if we can share information, sources, etc. Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unravelling the confusion around patience and solitaire games

Hi Gregory, I've been doing some research into the confusion of names that seems quite common in these games and correcting the articles accordingly. I have to say that the work you've already done has been great and saved me a lot of time. If you spot any errors that I've made, do let me know. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see more work being done in polishing these. Thank you for your efforts! Gregorytopov (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I could debunk the myths around Canfield and Klondike, but it probably needs someone to go to Saratoga and check out the archives about the casino(s) and Richard Canfield. I tried emailing them, but they clearly weren't interested in helping. Bermicourt (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We had a conversation about this some time ago and you seemed to understand, so I was quite surprised to see you added lots of citations to a blog hosted by a web store. This clearly does not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and should not have been added. Please, do not use self published blog posts or vendor sites as citations in the future. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Over a lengthy period of time, Bermicourt and I have independently been doing extensive work on Wikipedia's pages on solitaire card games. Unfortunately the majority of these had errors, were unverified, and lacked any sources whatsoever. Unfortunately there are very few reliable and well-informed contributors who are active in this specialized area on Wikipedia besides us. It's not that notability or verifiability is open to question, but simply that there's no engagement from individuals with the ability or inclination to provide what is needed, other than us.

The first goal has been to correct misinformation introduced by original creators of the articles, where unverified and inaccurate content was added to begin with, which is the case in a significant number of instances. Wherever possible, we have added many primary sources and books, and are going through our own libraries of actual books and articles on the subjects, adding citations as we work through the primary sources wherever possible.

Our earlier conversation is not being ignored, especially in relation to citations of sites from creators of commercial solitaire software. Due to the concern you rightly identified previously, this is no longer happening. I also remove such links introduced by others whenever I come across them. However the page on Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with reliable non-commercial sources if available." It has been determined that this particular site is simply hosting content independently created by an expert on solitaire games, is separate from the vendor part of their site, which in any case isn't selling commercial software. So it's in a nebulous category, and ideally the goal is to introduce better primary sources where possible.

Also a word of caution, which I believe I have also expressed previously: Carelessly reverting edits comes with the risk of undoing other important changes to content that were made at the same time, reducing the quality of the article. I will go through all the changes you've made and revert all instances where this has happened, in order to preserve important content that you've inadvertently removed or changed, or where this was one of the only sources, until better and more sources can be documented.

I appreciate your intent to ensure to honour the need for reliable sources, and that's been the goal of the majority of our work in this area of Wikipedia. But we're working with very mediocre content to begin with, which was in urgent need of overhaul and correction. The challenge in this area of study is compounded by the absence of other reliable contributors with the required materials, or editors who either don't have the ability to add verification, or lack the inclination to do so. On the whole, the solitaire card games part of Wikipedia is in much better shape than it was a couple of years ago, and that also includes the kinds of citations that are referenced. Gregorytopov (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't any practical difference between a site that is set up to sell software and a site that is set up to sell decks of playing cards, and the full quote is "e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page" - what you have been adding are not such cases. Feel free to take this to WP:RSN if you truly think this is a reliable source, but I would be very surprised if the folks there supported this. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and link to WP:RSN - I'll look into that (another day, when I have more time). As I noted in a comment on one of your reverts, remove the citation if you must, but please leave the content on those pages intact. A lot of care has gone into ensuring accuracy of the content, which is by no means based purely on those citations. Many of the articles had no citations to begin with unfortunately, and we've been attempting to provide them at the same time as improving the clarity, accuracy, and formatting of the content. Gregorytopov (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)