User talk:Dissident93

PQ2

I merely put Sega, as they did the Dancing games and Atlus got rid of Deep Silver (Which was listed on P3/5D before I took a screen shot of my games to show SEGA). So P3/5D had unsourced Deep Silver until release date. I suppose it could be seen as bad to do the same with SEGA, but with no Atlus EU branch, and Deep Silver being "fired" as publishers, it means Sega are doing all future Atlus games. I'll put it back when I get the game if that's better. In fact, someone emailed SEGA yesterday (this was shown on the P5 Sub) asking about if PQ2 would have the limited edition version in the EU, and they said they will announce the details of that soon.Muur (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Help improving a page.

Hello Dissident93. I plan to expaned this page by translating the contents from the Japanese Wikipedia page. I have already translate some of them but since I am not very good with English, I need someone who is a native English speaker to help me rearrange the sentences and help fixing the grammar etc. I was hoping that you agree to do this but if not then no problem but if you are i will sent you the translation file that i have made and you can work from there, I will give you the credits for helping me with the translation once it is finish and ready to upload. Thank you. -- Aerkdude (talk) 06:34, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: I'll help, it shouldn't be a problem. But is there any specific reason you are asking me and not another user? Not that I mind of course, but I'm curious. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Since you have experienced in editing various pages about Japanese video games and music composers or releated personal and also you are a native English speaker, I figured i could ask for your help. Although i really would like someone who participates in WikiProject Anime and Manga but i don't know anyone. Thanks again for agreeing tho help me as soon as i finish i send you the file. How should i send you the file, i can't put the whole translation here, can I? -- Aerkdude (talk) 07:11, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: I have finished the translation the only thing left now is to fix the grammar and the sentences. Please reply to me when you have time so i can send you the translation that i have put in a notepad. -- Aerkdude (talk) 11:13 AM, 9 Febuary 2019 (UTC)is

• @Aerkdude: Ok, that makes sense. You can paste it on pastebin.com and just send me the link and I'll get to it soon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Here you go, Link. -- Aerkdude (talk) 1:27 , 10 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: Thanks, I'll get to it eventually in the next day or so if I don't forget. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Hi there, I hope you haven't forgot about me, The document on pastebin is about to expired in a few days. -- Aerkdude (talk) 5:54 AM, 13 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: I haven't, I've just been busy. I'll get to it later tonight. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Thank you for helping me out, i really appreciate it -- Aerkdude (talk) 10:21 AM, 15 Febuary 2019 (UTC)

• @Aerkdude: You still need to add citations to many of the claims though, that's on you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

Hello. I'm here to remind you that I'm very sorry that I got involved in the edit wars over the Artifact (video game) article. I only wanted to make things right, and I didn't mean to be so disruptive. I hope you will forgive me for all that I've done. I only wanted to fix everything that was broken. I just didn't know that you were the one watching over the article all this time. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Angeldeb82: It's not a problem, I just thought that some of the edits you did on the formatting (like changing first1 to just first) were a waste of time as they didn't improve anything at all. Instead, that time could have been spent on improving the prose or adding more citations. Honestly, I should have been less hostile in my reverts because it seemed like you were being intentionally disruptive at the time, which was not the case. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Italic

Hi, Can you explain to me what's "wrong" and "not wrong" ? it seems you feel you are the one determining things here. you just give links to MOS:ITALICS and MOS:VG, I took a quick look and can't see such a rule about "always italicizing" the Game names anywhere in the article, care to show me the line about that? Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Mohsen1248: Yes sorry, it's actually under another link that explains it. Per MOS:ITALICTITLE, video games constitute as a "major work", and thus should always be italicized with no real exceptions. WP:VG/STYLE also refers back to this as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • OK now I see that, (even though personally I don't agree with that but that's my problem) but does it also say you have to link them "always" ? I would like to not link them in this section, something like the edit I already did to make them at least as similar as possible to the other sports. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mohsen1248: It says nothing about when to link them, but I don't see any real reason not too. WP:OVERLINK would be the only thing that covers that, and it doesn't violate it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Also not having them doesn't violate anything, and I don't see any real reason for that either. It's just matter of opinions in this case. my reason is I just want this page looks as similar as possible to other pages in this category or any other Asian Games pages, sorry but I think you are just trying to be stubborn about something you probably don't care normally. for what ? just to piss me off ? you don't even know me. I say that because I can see you edited a page very similar to this one without linking the Game names in the medal section. I accepted the italicization because that was somehow in the guidelines and I was wrong about that but this one is not. so I hope you reconsider your opinion here. Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • @Mohsen1248: They should be linked because they might be the first time people see them in the article. And even if that was not the case, most entries in tables are still linked as long as they don't violate WP:OVERLINK, which this obviously doesn't. They should be linked in the examples you keep bringing up too, so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • That's funny you bring up these guidelines when you don't even believe in them, and why you didn't link them here yourself, I see you are the last person editing the page and that was just a month ago. double standards, any special reason ? you don't have to answer me actually, I know the reason I had that before. just because someone undo your edit you just feel you have to prove you are the boss. btw you don't need to ping me I know how to follow a discussion I started. Mohsen1248 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
            • @Mohsen1248: I don't even know what you are talking about? Check the edit summary to see me correcting you multiple times. If you are going to be immature and uncivil about the whole thing, the maybe you should be editing elsewhere. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Another Eden EN.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment SE franchises

You should not have removed sales data. You should have asked for a "Request for comment" request and see what the consensus is. Keep the status quo then discuss. Now I hope you understand there was no consensus for your move and I have asked for a "request for comment". Wait to see what the consensus view is please before making any further edits, there is no need for us to engage in an edit war. You had it your way the first time, now lets do it the formal way. Thank you--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Misconceptions2: WP:BEBOLD, nobody opposed it for months until you did yesterday. If you want to hold a larger discussion on it, then make a post on WT:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of Sega Sammy Holdings and related pages

Hello, I know you are not an Admin but I saw you made some edits to the Sega Sammy Holdings page and was wondering if you might be able to help as I am not an extensive user of Wikipedia.

I have noticed a recurring problem with someone adding very extensive misinformation to pages relating to Sega Sammy Holdings. I have reverted a number of these edits but noticed they are all coming from IP Users. After doing an IP lookup on these users I noticed they are all coming from the same city in Vietnam and I suspect it's the same person or the same group of people. One IP I know was already banned once but I don't know for what reason.

Here are the IP's if you wish to look them up:

27.70.161.212

171.227.169.25

117.2.18.51

117.2.18.159

I was wondering if you might know what the next best course of action is or if you could point me in the direction of someone who can help because I don't want to end up in an edit war over this. If they are the same person is there a way to ban them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.224.53 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I’ve protected the page from anonymous editing. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SomaFM changes

Hello Dissident93. I find it troubling that you would so easily revert benign and easily verifiable changes that seek to document the history of a relatively unique internet radio site that is under increasing threat. Perhaps I am new to Wikipedia, but my humble overall impression of it and many of its editors so far is of immaturity and unprofessionalism, and that these qualities in fact form a part of the threats against the future of the site as an open, stable platform, beyond the financial and legal strain. Of course, I am sure my views will fall on deaf ears, but anyway.

First, the old http://soma.fm link still redirects to the current domain and was the original address when the site was founded, before the switch to somafm.com, and it would seem of historic interest to include this in some way.

Second, the change in description of Illinois Street Lounge's genre to document the fact that the music played on the channel is mostly music released between the 50s and 70s, with a style that peaked in popularity in the 60s, again seems benign. Simply describing the genre as lounge seems vague at best.

Third, I will reference the partial list of former channels exhaustively if you insist, but since the current channel list is not really sourced either, I find it a bit strange.

Finally, removing admittedly self-claimed references that support the argument that the site is listener-funded seems strange again. Why even have any description about the site at all if any self-made claims are not permissible? They, after all, are not sourced either. Despite the claim being self-made, the reference seems justifiable in that there are few other sources available, and, if anything, it at least supports the claim that the site itself makes the claim that they are listener-supported, which would seem like a somewhat valuable reference from a historical point of view at least.

Somafmlistener (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Somafmlistener: You are right, the list of current stations could be removed for the same reasons, I just kept them (for now) since they are all easily verifiable via the website. And since the article lacks secondary sourcing, if somebody were to nominated it at WP:AFD it could be deleted as a result. Are you familiar with the WP:MOS, specifically WP:N? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: As I said, I am going to try to cite exhaustively to document the history of former channels. Ultimately, whether you are following Wikipedia guidelines or not seems irrelevant to me. Instead of simply removing edits which people may well have put some work and time into, it might be more constructive to try to encourage instead of simply reacting with bot-like removals. These kind of removals would perhaps be justifiable when the topic is highly controversial, or when edits are clearly provable to be vandalism, but otherwise I would say that, especially when the burden is put completely on the original poster to defend and battle to get edits back, you end up with a situation where people, most of whom are likely to have limited time and resources, become less and less willing to participate. If this kind of reaction were to accelerate significantly, Wikipedia's accuracy, relevance, open nature, and sustainability would likely suffer considerably. In fact some other information on the SomaFM page (and imho this is often the case with many other more esoteric pages on Wikipedia) is easily provable to be incorrect. Sadly in these cases, it often seems those with the knowledge either do not have the time, willingness, or energy to battle the bureaucracy, and so the knowledge ends up remaining among those whom actually have to rely on it, and never gets disseminated further. ~ Somafmlistener ^(talk) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)