User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 7

Metroid Prime 3

I noticed you just recently took the hidden messages out of Prime 3's article and moved them to the edit page. I just wanted to ask you to make one minor change while you're at it: could you get rid of the December 31 line for Japan's release date? Back in 07 when nobody knew the JP release date and various secondary sources were throwing up 12-31-2007 willy nilly, this was valid, but the game's been out in Japan for six months now, and all major sites have since fixed the date. So the line is pretty pointless now, and safe to remove. Thanks! Arrowned (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take that off. I wasn't sure if that still applied or not - thanks for clarifying. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Energy Source

Could I get a better idea from you as to why you felt speedy deletion was warranted? I note you say "attack page intented to disparage its subject. using TW" . What does that mean exactly?

Thank yo for your consideration, chenevert

Chenevert (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I used that particular criterion in my speedy-delete because the page appeared to be full of propaganda against the indicated company. The page was entirely one-sided and did not appear to contain the sort of context that we'd expect from even a stub-class encyclopedia article - instead, it appeared to be entirely about pointing out claims of fraud against the company. The large number of sources and citations to promote this point of view followed the format of political-extremist promotions, so in my view, it was close enough to being an attack page to warrant speedy deletion under that criterion. You may request a Deletion Review if you feel this was an incorrect action to take.

Please note that I am not defending the company in question. I'm simply following the guidelines given in WP:CSD. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Can't say I understand your point of view, as I am a shareholder in the company in question, and no attack on the company was intended, rather it an outline of fraudulent activities against the company and the search for justice. Our shares have been held hostage by the DTC for three years now. What they are doing constitutes an illegal act. I wish to publically document the case, which I see as no different then the Enron article. This is my first article, so I shouldn't be surpised it didn't go smoothly....

Thanks again,

chenevert Chenevert (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Be careful in creating articles to "publicly document" things such as fraud. While I don't doubt that fraudulent activity may have occurred, the article needs to be carefully written to adhere to a neutral point of view. The Enron article accomplishes this by balancing coverage of its fraudulent activity with more neutral information about the company itself. Please read WP:NPOV and the related pages linked from it. This will give you a better idea than I can describe here as to what we're looking for. As that page states, this doesn't mean that an article on Adolf Hitler should try to make him look like an ordinary businessman, but it shouldn't look like an opinion piece either. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place for furthering agendas of any sort, etc.

That said, if you can address these points, you are welcome to recreate the article. Please don't be overly discouraged by having your first article deleted - this is not a statement against you or your editing abilities. It's only meant to keep Wikipedia clean. :)

Check out Wikipedia:Writing your first article for more information. Hope that helps! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-block comments from User:Scotbartolo

you moron! I have over 100,000 fans, 3 albums, and am signed and you still think that is not enough! you dont know much about much.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.247.236 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure your hundred-thousand fans will appreciate knowing how immature a jerk you are. :) Thanks for finally making that a matter of public record. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Enter The Gold Hat: Sexy Karate Live!

Could I get a better idea from you as to why you felt speedy deletion was warranted? This page did little but provide a track listing for the album. I find it hard to believe this constitutes a copyright violation of the MTV page you referenced. A page I had never seen I will point out, before you provided the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jph6t (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't provide the original rationale - I only performed the deletion. I believe the original copyvio rationale was provided because the track listing was basically the only content on the page, and it matched what was on the MTV page. I feel the listing would have been speedy-deleted anyway, either as "Little or no context (CSD A1)", "No content (CSD A3)" or "Unremarkable band (CSD A7)" - there was basically no information there to tell us anything more than just what songs were on the CD, and this goes against the guideline that Wikipedia is not a directory. Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I don't know that I'm really satisfied with the rationale for deletion. But I don't have the energy or time to fight it. Guess this is the last time I take my time to contribute to wiki. Was just trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jph6t (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And there was more information that just track info. Just as much as there is about many of the other major release albums listed on wiki. And the album in question is a rarer album that otherwise is hard to find information about! Lastly, how can more detailed content be developed if an initial draft of the page can't make it past auto-delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jph6t (talk • contribs)

(Edit conflict) Please don't take the deletion as a sign that we're biting you or otherwise have anything against you. I assumed that your contribution was done in good faith, and I hope that you'll likewise see my action as a good-faith effort to keep Wikipedia clean and well-organized. If you can find ways to address the issues raised in the deletion, you're more than welcome to recreate the article, but I'd advise that you first find reliable third-party sources that show how the album is notable - as I said, just listing the songs in an album nobody has heard of is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. But if it's a famous album that meets notability requirements (as with any subject), there should be at least a few good sources that will back that up, and you'll be able to write a full-featured article about the subject that includes a track listing, statistics about the album's popularity, any impact it's had on its genre, industry, etc., notes on the band, etc. I encourage you to see if those issues can be addressed - if so, by all means keep working on the article. :)

I would suggest that if you need to do the article in stages, you start it as a sandbox under your user page first. (For example, User:Jph6t/Gold Hat.) That'll give you much more leeway to work on the article without it needing to follow WP mainspace guidelines until it's ready to be "published", as it were. You can ask for help on it and such, too.

Lemme know if you have any questions. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, a note: Looking back on the content of the article as it was, I'd suggest that if the album you were describing was merely a "complement" to another, more notable/famous album, that you add that information to the first album's article (if one exists). It is often easier to justify the existence of additional information that adds to the notability of a main article than to have information split out among multiple small articles. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside Joke

My friend wrote that article, its a long story but its an inside joke —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zicraccozian (talk • contribs) 21:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Fortran article is a joke? Or the deletion request was a joke? Either way, it's disruptive. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

the delete was a joke. Get off my back punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zicraccozian (talk • contribs) 23:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, unnecessarily hostile much? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for the revert. Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 11:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Memorial Page for a Veteran

I wrote the article O. James Noon Jr. It is a worthy article because he served in the Army during Vietnam and lived through a part of our history that should be remembered in many different ways, including this- my family was prepared to contribute to it today now, thanks to you, you've ruined the 1 year anniversary of his death for my family and I. I hope that makes you feel good - jerk Regards - Dtnoon (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Boy, I sure do attract a lot of hostility by following Wikipedia's policies, don't I? Your article was deleted because it did not assert how this person was notable and had been covered by third-party reliable sources. I have no doubt that Mr. Noon was a great man and sacrificed much, but unless he's someone of significant note in the world (in which case he will have been covered), we can't just put up an article for every single person that ever existed. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate list of information.

That said, if you can provide such sources, you are more than welcome to recreate the article and cite them. The article will then be allowed to stay. But please make sure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

I worked on the article a few months ago and am returning to work on it again. I noticed that this Editnotice was created in the meantime. Is it really necessary? I mean, were inline notes not working? Because it's a bit more obtrusive now than it was with inline notes. Generally, I think that Editnotices are best used for providing notices that affect the entire article, such as for controversial articles it could be useful to warn editors to not vandalize the article. But in this case, it's for two very specific cases. Gary King (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If they're causing more problems than they're solving, we certainly can go back to the old method. I think the main idea was to ensure that people actually paid attention to those notices. The one on the Mysterious Ship kept getting a lot of reverts, though, so that was my main reason for turning it into an edit notice. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind blanking it and then moving it back to an inline comment? I think it would also be better inline because it only attracts attention when necessary. Gary King (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. If there's a significant call for us to reinstate the edit notices as separate entities, we can still do that. I've gone ahead and put them back in as HTML comments, tho. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Red Convertible" deletion

Could you clarify why our analysis of "The Red Convertible" was deleted by you? It provided great context about symbolism between the main characters of the narrative and the reference for the novel was included at the end of the article. Is there something specific that you are targeting--such as a plot or biography? What can we do to get the article re-posted?

UCD Eng3 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been long enough since I deleted that one that I'm not entirely sure what the overall reason was at this point. But IIRC, the article was basically just a critical analysis of the book, written in one or two large paragraphs, with little else in the way of a framework to identify the subject of the article. With a title like "The Red Convertible", I'd expect it to be an article on the literary work itself, with analysis of its content making up a section of the article (and not its entirety). If you want specifically to talk about the analysis without covering the work itself, the title of the article would probably need to be "Critical analysis of the Red Convertible".

That said, please make sure you read Wikipedia's policy on Original Research (under which critical analysis usually falls), as well as what Wikipedia is not. Most articles on published works (books, movies, games, etc.) have sections on reviews, but those reflect what have been reported and recorded by established reliable sources, and are not original synthesis. (In other words, it's okay to cite the overall review numbers on Amazon.com, but it's not okay to use Wikipedia as a place to review the book yourself.)

I hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Another RFC at Template:Dedicated_video_game_consoles

Got another editor bordering as disruptive, trying to force a pong console in to the same generation as the 2600/5200/colecovision/etc. I've stopped at 3rr and advised him to discuss on the talk page. I'm also going to be doing an RFC over at the project. Just wanted to let you know personally as an admin. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Forceful editing to add game guide material at Bubble Bobble

User:Nijon76 is trying to force edit back in previously removed game guide material, including already removed images. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, that Amber Sands is at it again. Just did a mass reversion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up, you guys need lives. For every editor you bully, you're making Wikipedia that much less usable for everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijon76 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, its been the other way around with that whole conversation. And blanking someone's user page as you did here? That can get you blocked pretty quickly, especially when you vandalize an admin's user page.. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Nijon's talk page to complement the warning he got from another admin. I'm not terribly amused, but also not terribly surprised. :P — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Handheld game console

Heya Keifer, just filed an RFC over at the project regarding a matter at Handheld game console, and your neutral opinion on the matter is appreciated. Another editor wants to include Speak and Spell as an video game console. I feel its an electronic toy and does not fit the definition he's trying to extrapolate. He also edited Speak & Spell (toy) to support his position, I changed back several of the edits but kept the majority (since he added a lot of good material). Both reasons and positions are summarized at the talk page, so I want go over it again here. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just spent hours upon hours getting together references and resources. I kept Li's general definition of "console" in the intro per the discussion opened by Guyinblack at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Frederick Li as a video game expert. Likewise per the discussion, the plethora of other references were worked in to the article - including one stating handheld electronic games are not consoles, and a technology (electronics) definition from the time period of these electronic games terming them as "nonvideo games". I also provided references for several tagged requests, and then rewrote sections per all the other references and citations. Let me know what you think (preferably on the talk page for handheld game console), this took forever. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Edge magazine

Hey KieferSkunk,

I'm one of the writers on Edge magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_magazine). At the minute I'm putting together something on the videogame histories that exist online but aren't archived or preserved in any way: chat logs, forums, pre-www networks. The question of whether they should be, of course, is open.

I would like to ask you some questions on what you've found in your time at Wikipedia, specifically relating to Wikipedia's VG articles. I couldn't ask you to speak for Wikipedia; nor do I believe Wikipedia has any responsibility to anything other than its own existence. The fact remains, however, that it has became a repository for *some* kind of cataloguing and I'd like your perspective on that.

If you're amenable, this is something we can talk about further. I should make it clear that the article isn't about Wikipedia. It's about what information exists on videogames on the internet, and the structures around it (after all, an archived version of Neogaf would be pretty useless to someone without several years on their hands).

If you think this is interesting, and you'd be willing to answer a few questions over email, let me know. Edge Rich (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds interesting. :) Go ahead and send me an email through WP's email interface, and we'll talk from there. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pac Man talk

Hmm... alright, excuse me for that, I think I misinterpreted the content of those messages a bit. I'll keep your points in mind. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Need input again over at handheld game console

Regarding Thibbs' interpretation of some of my given sources vs. mine. Just expand his "Rework explanation" section at the end of New Lead to see both of our comments, he put it collapsible originally and I had to respond to some specific points. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't really help you on this one. I've been pretty busy and preoccupied with other things and just don't have the time or energy to put much effort into this at this time. I'm sorry. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Green invite

Thanks for the invite to contribute to the Red Green wiki. I actually know very little about the show -- I've only seen a couple of episodes of it (which I enjoyed, admittedly). I was looking at the various articles here about the show to find out more about it, noticed that the show's article said it ran for 15 seasons but only 13 were listed in the episode guide, dug into the episode guide's history, and found where a couple of seasons had been deleted accidentally during a vandalism revert. So I was glad to put that information back into the article, but I don't think I'd be able to contribute much else. Thanks, though! -- CWesling (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia featured in Edge (magazine) / Notability and Reliable Sources questioned

If you do post it somewhere, would you drop me a note? I'm interested to see what they said about the SNES article we worked so hard on, and they abridged that part out of their online version. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I just got my hard copies of the magazine today, and here's the blurb on the SNES article:

Suped Up: It's easy to be snippy about Wikipedia, but the fact is that a great deal of its videogame content is the most complete starting point you could wish for. An excellent example of this is its Super Nintendo Entertainment System article. "I helped with that one, mainly in copy editing and proofreading, but it was already in excellent shape when I came across it," says [KieferSkunk]. "It's a very comprehensive article, discussing not only the physical system itself, but its development history, notable points in Nintendo's advertising campaign against Sega, its notable games and accessories and how it still has a loyal fan following today. It is well-sourced and points the reader to numerous articles all over the net, as well as in print sources, where they can find more detailed and useful information to continue researching the topic."

A cropped image of the SNES article is provided as well. This blurb is presented as a sidebar to the main article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nifty, thanks! Anomie⚔ 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Vgrationale

Template:Vgrationale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey!!! (Ms. Pac-Man related)

Why was my comment deleted by you? In Ms. Pac-Man, the ghosts only reverse directions twice per board or per Ms. Pac-Man. Go play the game and see for yourself. Then play Pac-Man and watch how the ghosts reverse directions multiple times. I think it should be mentioned. Why did you have an issue with my edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighat (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not a notable aspect of the game and it doesn't contribute to a person's overall understanding of the game and its fundamental differences from Pac-Man. Yes, I know about the difference in the code, but if we listed every trivial difference between the games, the article would be useless. As it is, there are a lot of items on that page (and on the main Pac-Man page) that probably should be removed per WP:TRIVIA. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's trivial at all. If the player knows that the ghosts have done both their reversals, he knows he won't be surprised by their movements when he lures them to a power pellet. Those in the know like myself see this as an important strategy to high scores and I think it needs to be mentioned. Some people still unfamiliar with the game might want to know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brighat (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This would probably be a good thing to take up on WikiProject Video games then, because there have been many discussions on what level of "game-guide", "game strategy" content is appropriate in such articles, and the current consensus is that this sort of info should be minimized, such that the info that is included is essential to understanding the subject's significance.

Here's my opinion: The article currently points out how the ghosts have pseudo-random movement, precluding patterns. That's pretty significant with respect to one of the most notable points about Pac Man, and IMO that makes the item notable enough to be included. But the point about how many times the ghosts reverse directions delves much deeper into details that are most likely only important to someone deeply interested in the game. It would be a better item to put on a gaming-specific wiki, where game strategies, programming details and such are welcomed and encouraged. But Wikipedia needs to keep that sort of thing limited to the most important details, and IMO small differences in ghost behavior falls below that bar. Again, that is my opinion (which I believe is in line with current consensus in the project), but you are welcome to discuss it with me further and to ask for other opinions as well. Who knows? I might end up being in the minority on this one - if the project deems it appropriate, I'll happily revert my revert. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lemme try a different tack on my point about the reversing-direction thing. I argue that the "precluding patterns" statement is appropriate because it relates to the significance of patterns in Pac-Man. But I don't see the same significance in the number of reversals in Pac-Man to begin with - the fact that they do reverse direction occasionally and change their tactics now and then is (IMO) probably just barely significant enough for Pac-Man (IMO, that part of the article is too detailed and should be trimmed). It's not something that defines the game for the vast majority of people - it's just a minor detail of how the ghosts move. The more important point is that, in Pac-Man, their movement is predictable, whereas in Ms. Pac-Man, it's not. The fact that the ghosts stop reversing directions doesn't contribute significantly to their unpredictability - all that pointing it out does is make a potential player aware of a potential strategy. That's generally beyond the scope of Wikipedia articles in general. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Yogi Lonich deletion

Wondering why the page was deleted? Stated used for promotion or advertising but that makes no sense i dont know why anyone would promote on wikipedia. Yogi Lonich is a successful musician who has worked with many great artists. I think he deserves to be in the history here. I think the deletion was unfair and unwarrented. Please bring the page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.154.69 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemme look back on the deletion history... — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why you're coming to me about this page - I wasn't involved in its deletion in any way. But looking at the most recent version of the page before it was deleted, it's pretty clear why it was deleted: It was created by a user named "Yogimusic", it read like an advertisement, and it did not state why Yogi Lonich is notable. There are probably other reasons as well. But I'd suggest you take this up with the admin who actually deleted your page - I'm not going to be able to do much about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Mega Drive

Hi, I noticed that you've been editing the Mega Drive article, and pointed out the 16/32-bit thing. So, spotting a possible re-opening of this particular can of worms, I thought I'd explain: This is the doing of a user who is very keen that the machine be seen as somehow "32-bit". I had the odd run-in with him on the matter a while back but I try not get involved in that kind of thing any more. :) Anyway, he unearthed a technical document from Motorola, the CPU's manufacturer, which describes it as "16/32-bit". To the best of my recollection, there are elements of the CPU's design that are "32-bit", though the processor itself is actually restricted to 16-bit functionality. I pointed out when this first came up that that doesn't really make any difference and the machine is still, to all intents and purposes, a 16-bit one, and that all this 32-bit business is misleading and confusing at best, but to little avail. I got fed up and left him to it after a while. This has also come up on the talk page more recently... Anyway, though he was the only editor in favour of the change, the user concerned has a record of being rather persistent with what he wants in the articles he edits, so, unfortunately, expect reversion of what you did... Cheers, Miremare 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(nod) Thanks for the heads-up. I've run into that editor before in different areas and am aware of his persistence when he starts arguing a point. If necessary, we'll take discussion of that issue to WT:VG, but there's another precedent of calling a machine's "bit-ness" by more factors than just what the CPU is capable of, and/or deferring to the machine's marketing, rather than relying on one specific piece of architecture. See Atari Jaguar for instance. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Content note on naming situation?

There is a naming situation I ran into described here User talk:Thibbs#Naming situation. Should the article have a content note? « ₣M₣ » 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I have enough of an opinion on that. I don't know enough about the material in question, unfortunately. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

guideline discussion

I'm contacting a few people who took an interest in the video games WikiProject guidelines last year, to let them know of a project I'm working on. It's strictly in the interest of collecting information, but I think that information could prove useful for refining our guidelines and policies.

Please check in at this discussion, if you find a moment. Thanks in advance, Randomran (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC for Template:Dedicated video game consoles

Filed an RFC over at the video games project page, but wanted to write you directly as well to get your neutral input here. I'd like to get a more concrete consensus on the purpose of this template, as there appears to be ongoing issues as to people wanting to continuously turn it in to a giant list of consoles. Current consensus established via the talk page is that the template is for consoles that are notable for representing their generation. I.E. are notable for being the main competitors/representatives/icons of that generation - such as Wii/Xbox360/PS3 for the current generation. A listing of all consoles already exists via a link at the top of the template, which goes to List of video game consoles. Some people have wanted to add consoles to the list simply because they exist/existed, others because they may be notable for other reasons (such as one person wanting the Amiga CD-32 claiming its the "first" 32 bit console and should therefore be included). Perhaps the template needs a name change as well, which was suggested during one of the recent discussions as well. Input would be appreciated, as I'm getting tired of being one of several main enforcers of this consensus, and don't want to border on WP:ownership. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Old Friend

Hey Kiefer, long time no talk. Just wanted to drop by to frop you a line to see hows life. Anyway, hope we get to work together on a project soon for WP:VG. Cheers!--(NGG) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for stopping by. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Demcaps

Hello, KieferSkunk. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "User:Demcaps" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "<!-- START Jerzy/tb... -->" and "<!-- Jerzy/tb... END -->".
--Jerzy•t 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with a sysop on an issue

Hi, I noticed that you'd asked a question over Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/All#Requesting_clarification. You could try WP:3O, where you can get a third opinion if it's a content dispute. I If you think a sysop is abusing their privileges, you could probably start a thread on WP:ANI, complete with diffs for supporting evidence. Please respond here rather than my talkpage. II | (t - c) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the situation was such that I honestly didn't know for sure that there was a serious breach of policy on the other admin's part - I happened to observe the situation second-hand, so I admitted that I may not have had all the details. I didn't want to act out of turn, but at the same time what I saw was an indef-block against a user who'd only made one edit, which I could not clearly call vandalism, and a level-4 vandalism warning (without any prior warnings or discussion) against another user where there didn't appear to be any vandalism going on.

I basically wanted to allow that there may have been a reason for this guy's actions, but when I attempted to talk to him about it, I was met with hostility. At that point, I wanted to take it to RFC, but since I was the only person apparently confronting him on the issue, the RFC rules stated it would be inappropriate for me to file there. I wasn't convinced that the situation was bad enough to warrant an ANI report (I wasn't inclined to be a "tattle-tale" at the time), so I started up the WP:DR chain at WP:WQA. At that point, the issue was becoming stale and it made me look a bit like an angry mastodon, so I just dropped it.

If you want to take a look at the situation in question, I wrote up a fairly detailed account at WP:WQA#Hostility and assumptions of bad faith from admin Jerzy . (That's likely to get archived soon.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The guy must be smoking something good. It's interesting that he took such drastic actions because "one effect of leaving it [the talk page comment] could be to suppress response to trollish interpretation of NOR long enuf for bot to slip it into the archive as something no one objected to" [1]. So apparently if something is in the archive as unobjected, it's law. When I was starting out I used to keep a list of absurdities, but I quickly realized that 1) I would probably get in trouble for it and 2) there's just too much. II | (t - c) 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it I probably should have just gone to ANI in the first place, huh? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. There's much sillier things reported to ANI all the time, and nobody could accuse you of being anything but concerned since you were just a bystander. I don't know if anything would have happened. I'm more sensitive to abuses of power than most, probably. II | (t - c) 23:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, trying to do it now on that particular set of incidents would probably be counterproductive at this point. I'm thinking we should just let sleeping dogs lie for now, but if we see it happen again, a report would be in order. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I don't know if it would have resulted in any sort of sanction. II | (t - c) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Dissruptive editing and a list of other violations....

There's an anonymous IP (that's actually using multiple IP's) doing forcefull editing, bating and taunting people, and a host of other issues at Template_talk:Seventh_generation_game_consoles and Zeebo. Figured I'd let you know as it's getting out of hand, and they're video game related articles. He's basically flaunted that he doesn't care about any warnings he's recieved either. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Galaga cover request

Well generally when i request cover art for an arcade im nearly always thinking of an arcade flyer, the only problem being is that the project template only recognizes cover art and logos. I think if we could get a flyer that would be good, namely this one. Whats your thoughts on an arcade flyer?. Sorry for any confusion. Salavat (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think having the entire flyer as an infobox image would be excessive. The logo from the flyer would probably be fine, which is why I mentioned the marquee image as well. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cant be any more excessive than a box art for a console game. But hey what ever works best as long as it isnt a random screenshot of gameplay. Salavat (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason I say the flyer is excessive is because the advertisement text will be practically unreadable when we shrink the image down to fit in the infobox. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tron

Sorry, wasn't paying attention...reverted the wrong article in error. magnius (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I almost reverted the info myself, but when I read it, it made sense and is in line with information I've previously read on Wendy's site. I'll see what sources I can get together for the info and adjust appropriately. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)