User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KieferSkunk/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sig Testing

Testing my sig. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New sig: — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Galaga '88 Rewrite

Thank you for your edits to the Galaga '88 article! I must say I'm very impressed that you were actually able to beat the bloody game to get all that info, and I like the way you have reworded everything I wrote into the article into more clear wordings. I do however have one question: "Warp Cores"? The reason I have been calling them "blue item canisters" is because the attract mode labels them an item, they have the same graphic as the red ones that start to appear crica stage 15, and they are blue; the canister part simply because that's what they look like. Can you find me some official documentation that calls them warp cores? If not I will consider it a fan-created name and again return the name in the article to "blue item canister". Other than that, great job! -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't think there's any place in particular where those items are specifically named, but the term "warp core" makes the most sense in context considering that their sole purpose is to enable you to warp to other dimensions. (This falls in line with plenty of other places in popular culture where the term and the action go together.) I wouldn't consider it any more a "fan-created name" than "blue item canister", to be honest - the latter name doesn't really impart any function whatsoever on the object.

As for beating the game: Thanks! It's a fun game, definitely difficult, but certainly not impossible to beat. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well again, my whole reasoning behind it was that during the attract mode, when one appears a word ballon pops up with the word "ITEM" in it. And of course, they are blue. And, look like canisters :) I'm up for dropping the canister part, and just calling them "blue items". I don't consider this name to be fan created because as I mentioned the game's attract mode labels these "items". The designation blue? The "items" that appear starting at stage 15 have the same graphic- except they are a different color (red, flashing a bright white).

And yes, it is a hard game~! I've never been past stage 20 myself. I'm curious on one thing though: after reaching dimension 5, what happens if you get 2 blue items again? I noticed that I was still able to get them, but as I could never reach the challenging stage I could never find out if anything happened. Do you happen to know? -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 08:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a decent compromise. "Item" is generic enough - there won't be any ambiguity in that.

I think there are only 5 Challenging stages in the game (waltz, tango, jazz, jungly mix, and march - I know the march is the last one). I don't remember what happens if you get the items for all of the stages, but I'm pretty sure it's not possible to go past Dimension 5. I'm gonna have to play it again now. :P (Emulators are cool.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, works for me :) Yes, emulators are cool^^ shame I don't know how to use them. I currently own the game on PS2 as part of the Namco 50th Anniversery thingy, and years ago I used to play it at the arcade (back when arcades still existed). It has been nice meeting you^^ Maybe we could chat about stuff and things on IRC sometime. I'm available as Toksyuryel on FurNET, and if that network doesn't work for you we can decide on another one, assuming we chat at all. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. :) I got your LJ-friend notice - thanks for adding me. :) I don't get on IRC much anymore - don't use chat programs in general all that much, actually. No biggie, though - we'll find a way to keep in touch. :)

BTW, I've updated the article with all kinds of edits, after playing the game pretty exhaustively in MAME. Cheats are cool too - I can make myself invincible and just glide through the game - makes investigating stuff a lot easier. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! The article really looks fantastic now! And I learned quite a lot of things too^^ Thank you so much~! *offers a gentle huggle* That's too bad you don't really use IRC :( but I'm sure we'll figure something out^^ I don't really get on LJ a lot, and I never update my own XD So it's like one or the other or something, heh. Question: are they really pink? The few times I've seen them they've been red and flashing bright white, but I dunno, memory's a little foggy on them because usually I was too busy trying to collect it. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're used to playing G88 on the PS2, it's possible that they are actually red there. But in the arcade version (which I trust MAME on), they're pink - the white flash is still there, but the difference between light pink and white is so subtle that the flash is pretty much unnoticeable. — KieferSkunk (talk) — — 22:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked!

I see my work IP has been blocked due to some other user's actions. That means that everyone else at my company is also blocked. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I was unblocked again shortly after that block went into effect. Here's the accept template for my records:

Thanks, guys. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hi, I just wanted to apologize for moving the Krystal (Star Fox) article to List of characters in the Star Fox series so abruptly. I realize how much work you've done on that article, and I apologize I had to remove all of it.

However, it wasn't really my decision, but rather one of the administrators. I just followed their suggestions.

Please don't stop editing Wikipedia anytime soon, as you have made some great contributions! PlatformerMastah 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thanks. It's okay - I took it a little hard right at first because I saw that a lot of detail was lost, but when I went back to look at it again, I realized that most of that content probably belongs in the game-specific articles anyway. So no problem. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for barging in here, but I really have to agree with KeiferSkunk here that people are seriously going WAY WAY WAY too far. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and encyclopedic content should not be "streamlined" in this manner, ESPECIALLY not on an electronic one where you have all the space in the world! What is so seriously hard about having seperate articles for each of these characters? What!? Do you honestly think that someone who types in "Krystal" into the search box is looking for a list of every character from StarFox? Or could they maybe, possibly, be looking for a detailed and informitive page about the character? I have been seeing this happen more and more lately and it's REALLY starting to drive me insane. The people who are running and administering Wikipedia do not seem to grasp the true spirit of an encyclopedia, nor do they seem willing to take advantage of the limitless potential the electronic format can provide. It is long past time for this to change. We need to either pull Wikipedia out of this downward spiral it has gotten itself into, or we're going to have to start over and try again. Please, if anyone understand my meaning in all of this, reword this into a way that is more easy to understand what I'm trying to say. It's too early in the morning for me to find the proper words for this. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 11:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"James McCloud is dead"

Are you just trying to cover up spoilers or what? He's repeatedly shown to not be dead. Some guy 11:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you getting after me for? I didn't make any edits that claim that James is dead. Also, see my comments on my user page - I'm not even involved in editing the content of those articles anymore. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in response to the "He's dead" assertion: The story is apparently deliberately ambiguous as to what James' fate really was. James is thought to be killed in the storyline of Star Fox 64, but he makes "phantom" appearances at the end of 64 and again in Command. In the first case, Fox seems to be the only one who's aware of his presence, lending some credence to him being a ghost or spirit. In the second case, Fox doesn't even acknowledge him, and there's no storyline explaining what James is doing there or how he specifically impacts things (leading me to think it's just poorly executed fan-service or something). In Assault, his voice is heard by everyone, but as a result of the Aparoid Queen's attempted manipulation of the team, so that doesn't really count.

So basically, while it's never officially stated, there's a lot of circumstancial evidence to support the theory that James is in fact dead, and that his spirit helps out in various places. Beyond that, the story is ambiguous, and it appears to be deliberately so, meaning that you can neither say that he's dead or that he's alive with any real assurance either way. Make sense? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You do NOT move MY responses

You do NOT move MY posting in any talk page as if you were an Admin. It's rude, and making new topics to ask the same thing - even though you were shot down. JAF1970 21:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

JAF, you do not threaten me. I moved your responses because they were off-topic. You have taken toward attacking me personally at this point, and if you want to do that, an article talk page is NOT the place to do it. Let me remind you that you are not an Admin either. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not "threaten" - I state and request firmly, do not remove my responses in a talk page. JAF1970 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not edit articles during mediation

You're the one who called for mediation and arbitration. Do not edit articles still in dispute. JAF1970 23:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(REVISED REPLY) Turns out the edits in question weren't mine. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What you did right

Just so you know, I don't think everything you did on the Pac-Man CE was bad. For instance, I was going to try to consolidate the "differences from Pac-Man" section because it was just a string of listed items, which is pretty ugly, as you know. But I get the feeling from your past experience with that Star Fox game from accused "strategy guide" calls -- I think you've tipped the other way and now treat any references to features of games as "strategy guide" or "game guide", which it's not. I think where the difference comes in is if the article is telling them what to do, rather than just stating features, that's where it comes into problems. If you want, maybe I can take a look at the Star Fox Command article and see how I can get what you want in without going against Wiki Policy. I'm pretty good at keeping objective statements in a neutral voice. JAF1970 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the more objective and rational message here. At the time the Star Fox issues came up, I was rather passionate about having large amounts of detail in each article, because I believed the little details were what made the game unique and interesting - especially in games like Star Fox Command. But later on, I realized that the consensus on what I then referred to as 'sterilization' was valid and useful - there were better ways to explain the game to casual readers without overwhelming them with information they didn't necessarily need to know at the outset. For example, in that article, readers are interested in knowing who the principal characters are, but they didn't need to know all about the details of each character's ship (its shape, its weapons loadout, its relative speed and armor, etc.) - that's information that I found interesting, yes, but I'm a gamer who likes that sort of material. When I looked at it from a non-gamer's perspective, I realized that that sort of info would be totally useless to them.

Yes, I may have swung too far toward the sterile side, but I do ask you to keep in mind that I am only trying to follow the guidelines given in the CVGProj, and trying to fit them in with WP policy. I don't always get it right, and I am not above admitting that when it happens.

In addition to calling for consensus in Pac-Man and PMCE, I've also asked for discussion about the guidelines themselves on the CVGProj Article Guidelines page - basically saying that I think there are some issues with the way they're worded and how they're applied across the project. All of this is in the interest of improving the overall health of the project. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's flawed in that people don't understand the context. Imagine trying to describe, say, American football without allowing someone to say "A touchdown scores 7 points." Baseball articles talk about all different kinds of pitches. You simply cannot seperate arcade games from points. Period. JAF1970 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we need to address the guidelines that currently say scoring details shouldn't be included in those articles, simple as that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Fox Command

I don't see anything really lacking in the article (I haven't played it, tho), but the Endings section needs to be cleaned up. For one, the list looks bad, and there's no spoiler tag. JAF1970 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the admins are running bots lately to remove spoiler tags from plot and story sections, because there's a generally accepted consensus now that "Plot", "Plot Summary", "Story", etc. are self-explanatory as potentially giving away spoilers. As for the article, I haven't visited that one in some time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The differences... Okay, let's see... hm... I think the problem is that some of it sounds like an advertisement... but I think your endings are better. If they're slightly cleaned up and made to sound neutral... there's no difference between what you had and what is currently in Dead Rising. Ugh, they eviscerated Dead Rising... how the fuck am I supposed to refer to each ending when I'm writing an article?! Hold a sec... JAF1970 03:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See, the plot and ending details are probably not terribly necessary in an encyclopedia article. Mentioning that the game has multiple, branching plotlines, describing the main focus (or focuses) of the story, and mentioning that it has nine endings without spelling them out, is probably sufficient. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah... it wasn't because it violated policy - it was plagiarism: "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement taken from http://www.cheathappens.com/features/dead_rising/dr_extras.asp, with no assertion of permission". That's a bigger no-no than policy. Anyway, your endings in Star Fox Command is superior to what is there now. JAF1970 03:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually even remember what I wrote there at this point, but I doubt it matters - having the endings there at all, beyond just a mention that the game has multiple endings and branching plotlines, is going into extra detail that is unnecessary to describe the game as a whole. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Images of the endings can be found here: (link to a google page) -- see, that's a real no-no. But you know that now. Dylan Cuthbert from Q Games and Takaya Imamura from Nintendo have stated that the next game in the Star Fox series may pick up from the middle of Star Fox Command. That's okay, but I'm guessing that was moved rather than deleted. But the rest of the "endings" section that you penned was fine, if only needing to be slightly reworded... JAF1970 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember writing ending text at all in that article. The majority of the work I'd done in there (which was later pulled and condensed) was a detailed table that gave the name of each character, the name and specifications of each of their ships, their ship's unique abilities, and some comments about each ship (like, one of them was shaped like a tadpole). It was later decided that this was unnecessarily detailed information, even though this was one of the primary attractions of the game, one of the things that made the game unique and enjoyable. And later, I came to agree with that decision: a casual reader didn't need to know all that stuff - they just needed to understand that such things existed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Read this article, please

Contract bridge. Please give me your analysis of that entry and your honest opinion. (I never worked on it - I know bridge, I don't play it.) JAF1970 01:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed over it. I'm not sure it makes a fair comparison here, because Contract Bridge is an INCREDIBLY complex topic - to the point that it has its own Wikiproject. It's also not within the CVGProj scope. But I do see one thing there that they have done to help break up the complexity of the topic: They've created other pages that go into more detail about specific sections of the main topic, so that the main topic acts as a sort of jump point. I believe the StrategyWiki and related project wikis can serve the same purpose.

I would say that the sheer amount of information in that article is pretty overwhelming, to the point where I'd not be likely to want to read it unless I suddenly took a heavy interest in Contract Bridge. I would find myself looking for a smaller article that went over the basic game rules and summarized things in a nutshell, and most likely I'd rely on self discovery and more experienced players to learn the specific scoring, strategies and such. In short, I do think that page is overly detailed and could stand to be trimmed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you're interested in bridge is irrelevent. Does it give extraneous information that shouldn't be there? Yes or no. JAF1970 02:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You asked for my personal opinion, I gave you my personal opinion. I said I think the article is overly long and detailed, I found the information overwhelming, and as a casual reader not intimately familiar with the topic, I would not want to read it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What say you? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If you felt overwhelmed - what would you remove? You fail to answer the question. JAF1970 14:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

An example of Policy

From the Halo 3 page, look at the Iris section in this archive. I pointed out in the talk page that it was pretty, um, terrible. I tagged the article as needing cleanup, and someone else deleted that section. I think that sort of thing is what this Policy is trying to guard against. (You also might notice that even though it was in serious violation, I didn't just wipe it. First I tagged it. Then I was patient. JAF1970 01:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's one accepted way of dealing with such things. Another is to be bold and make edits you feel need to be made, keeping in mind policies and ongoing discussions (if any). That's what I did. In the be bold part, it also says that people may not agree with your bold edit and may revert it if they feel you have done something wrong. I don't have a problem with that either.

What I *did* have a problem with in our case was your assertion that I was wantonly vandalizing the article, your subsequent refusal to discuss the issue even after preaching to me how discussion should have taken place, and your continuing to belittle me in the middle of an article Talk page when I had asked you to move it to a more appropriate place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Be bold doesn't mean "ignore others". You want mediation now, but not before you changed the article? Are you of the "it's easy to get permission after I do it than before" mindset? JAF1970 02:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am of the mindset that "the rules are stated pretty clearly. I should be able to follow them." Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that I have to get permission to make significant edits to articles. Such policies are restricted to such things as page moves and mergers, where in the editor's mind there is likely to be a controversy over making such an edit. Even there, it encourages users to be bold and make the edit, but also be prepared to have it reverted and a discussion opened on the topic. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I want mediation over you vs. me, not over the PMCE article. To be honest, I couldn't care LESS what happens there. You need to understand that I am angry at you over the way you have been treating me through this whole mess, and your apparent avoidance of that particular facet of the dispute. I opened up mediation because I wanted to talk to you directly about the way you have been treating me personally. Ultimately, that mediation has nothing to do with the PMCE and video-game articles - it has to do with attitudes and hurt feelings. I have lost count of the number of times I've tried to explain that to you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Last I saw, you were the one on the attack - or is dismissing me as a "self-promoter" a compliment? JAF1970 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I apologized for that statement, but you're still using it against me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I never hurled insults at you. Unless being told you're wrong is an insult. JAF1970 02:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So that automatically makes you blameless? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you just looking for an apology for my overreacting? Then I apologize - I was brusque and I tend to be that sometimes. I want you to understand something - I don't ever try to insult, belittle, or make anyone think they're less than me or anyone else. I don't try to hurt feelings, and one thing I failed to do is the above: I didn't tell you what I thought you did that I help was helpful. You have a good way of summing up lists. I think the whole Star Fox Command thing may have pushed you too far in a wrong direction. I don't know what they did to your contribution, but you might have taken the message wrongly. Besides, maybe they WERE wrong -- I'll have to check the history of the article.

But I'm sorry if you felt personally attacked. JAF1970 03:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really love to say I appreciate and accept the apology, but I would like you to own up to the specific things you said to me (as I have done with you) that go against what you just said here. I felt very belittled, insulted, and bullied around by many of the things you've said in the PMCE Talk, the CVGProj Guidelines Talk, and on the mediation page. Among the worst of them: "We have valid points, but they don't deserve consideration" (that was not true); your telling me point-blank that I was wrong about a matter of opinion; your telling me that my points did not deserve consideration; your continuing the personal argument in the article talk page when I clearly called for open discussion unrelated to the personal argument (and had asked to move the personal argument here); and your accusing me so very loudly that I was breaking mediation by making major edits to the PMCE article when I had done no such thing. When I see you own up to those actions, I will be satisfied. "Sorry you felt attacked" is not good enough, because that still doesn't mean you've taken responsibility for causing those feelings - you're just sorry I felt that way. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Now for my side: I always edit in good faith - even if my edits do end up containing mistakes or going too far in some cases, I never vandalize or intentionally harm articles. I do have a great breadth of knowledge on the subjects that I edit in, and I have a lot of experience in technical writing, documentation and fictional writing as well. It's part of my job to be a documentation expert - I'm a software tester by trade, with a strong background in the computer and video game industry. My father was a prominent software and game developer for a variety of companies, including Apple Computer and Lucasfilm Games (before they became LucasArts). I am a retro-gaming enthusiast, and I have done a lot of research into the history, development and production of many classic games.

As such, I'd like to once again ask that you and I work together on improving Wikipedia, rather than competing with one another. Yes, I stepped on your toes with those initial edits, and I'm sorry I did. But instead of getting into this big bickering dispute about it, we could simply have discussed the edits in a polite, civilized manner, probably have been done with it in about twenty minutes, and we most likely wouldn't even really care about each other all that much, except for having a mutual respect of each other's work. That's all I really wanted in the first place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

But is your father a researcher?

Boy, you sure put a lot of stock into that, don't you? If someone isn't a "researcher", then they're just no good, are they? I don't even know why I'm wasting my time with you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And those games aren't "retro" to me. (grin) And I tried civilized - you take "no" as an attack - as someone who's dealt with many teenagers, I recognize the attitude - all criticism and refusals are personal attacks.

I apologized for being gruff... but for saying "no" to you? Nope. JAF1970 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Then consider your apology NOT accepted. You were more than just "gruff", and you were told so by multiple people. I will be escalating to formal mediation - hopefully someone else can explain this to you in terms you'll understand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You won't accept my apology, nothing I can do. JAF1970 17:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept your apology because you're not taking responsibility for anything. When you do accept responsibility for actively blocking my calls for discussion, arrogantly declaring yourself the sole judge of what's acceptable in an article, calling me wrong when you had no right to, and using my early mistakes to try to discredit me as a whole, then maybe I'll consider accepting an apology from you. All you've said is that you're sorry I feel hurt, but you're totally failing to address the reason why I'm hurt. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)