Sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who I'm talking to.
I'll probably respond on my talk page unless you say otherwise, so that you immediately know when I've responded.
Please do not remove messages, including your own, unless they are clearly vandalism.
Be nice. A more polite response will get a much better response in turn.
Thanks for responding. If a user is blocked on one project but productive on another, I generally don't mind them editing. However, every sock he's created is disruptive. I also suggest blocking his IP, 24.147.121.145, on Commons for 6 months or a year. Comcast IPs tend to be unshared for long periods of time, which is why his last IP 71.233.232.196 was blocked long-term. Spellcast (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list of almost 700 articles has been checked and updated. Special thanks to MrKIA11, Dukeruckley, JFlav, FMF, and several other editors for checking the large number of articles.
Inactive project cleanup Proposal to consolidate inactive projects and taskforces. Project page can be found here.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Indie Game Developers deleted.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Arcade games moved to page under WP:VG. See new Arcade task force page.
Feature: Reliable Sources
A common issue with writing video games articles is that it's often natural for editors to turn to the internet for all their information. However, using only online sources can be problematic, especially if editors are not familiar with Wikipedia's sources guidelines. First off, for every notable, reliable web site about gaming that exists on the web, there are twenty-five fan sites or personal blogs. As per Wikipedia's, content guideline about reliable sources, a proper source that should be used in an article must meet the following criteria:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
How do you determine if website X meets the criteria? Look around for information on who owns the website or if the website has a staff and established editorial processes; if the site doesn't have information posted online, send an email to the webmaster or editor. It can be hard to definitely prove the a website has a "reputation" for accuracy. Thus, it's probably easier to go with established sites to begin with, such as IGN or GameSpot. If you use a source with borderline qualifications, be prepared to justify the site at content review or to other editors. WikiProject Video Games has a partially-complete listing of vetted sources in print or online at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, as well as more detailed information on what constitutes a reliable source.
To find sources on the internet, checking Google News as well as simple web searches can help spot references you might have missed. Often, however, older news articles are locked behind pay gates or subscription services. A workaround is using a service like ProQuest or LexisNexis, although unless you have access to these through a college or education institution it will likely cost you money regardless. Libraries can have old newspapers and copies of magazines; to assist in finding print sources online, WikiProject Video Games has a Magazines Department where you can contact users to get copies of certain reviews, previews, or features from old magazines. If you have gaming magazines of your own, add yourself to the list!
Hi Kanonkas: Thanks for your recent image additions to Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. As much as I like them, can you try to find more contrasting shots? I know you pulled two shots from Villa, one probably from T-Hunt and one from Story Mode, but since you posted the screenshots in the SYNPOSIS section of the article, I highly suggest you only use screenshots from the Story Mode, and make sure you diversify your images as much as possible. Right now you have only daytime shots. Otherwise your additions were great contributions to Wikipedia. :) Neil the Cellist (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, no the screenshots were taken in the game in story mode actually. Do you want me to get some dark screenshots, while I am in story mode? I can try getting more if you want. Regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 08:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You voted in this AFD that I started. It is only fair to mention that there has been a substantial change to the article since I nominated it for deletion, in that it now has a release date and a title. You may or may not wish to rethink your vote. Kww (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk)09:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I do have a problem for you. You said to not hesitate, right, if I have a question.
I can attempt to be brief. I have been on Wikipedia a while without running into any snafus or anything else. I am not counting a small disagreement that was resolved by me taking no notice of it. I don't expect users to always get along well.
However, just because certain individuals on this site are biased towards newer / seemingly more exciting events (or ones that they perceive as such), I don't believe that protracted arguments are healthy overall. Yes, Wikipedia fosters the distribution of new thoughts and helping to discover ideas or ways of expressing oneself. This is not tantamount to giving administrators free rein to become super difficult.
I don't particularly have a problem with the camaraderie that is not often found offline; I do object to the ways certain people (and in the cases I will cite) conduct themselves. These people are not blatant, per se, but they misunderstand the principles of using wikis in general. At the same time they misuse Wikipedia. I don't seek the removal of these users.
I would like to solve some of these problems. More importantly I am trying to avoid being around them. At the same time, I am not willing to let users keep others silent or let them accuse others falsely. More on that later. Anyway, I am asking to open a dialogue with you and we can see what happens. Thank you. Overmoon (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there; I noticed your comment and thought I could help. If you are having difficulties with another editor or administrator, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. The people there will be happy to assist with any difficulties. Alternatively, if you have tried resolution already, see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents where administrators and other helpful editors will attempt to assist with possible use of their administrative tools. Best, PeterSymonds(talk)10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Eichhörnchen Düsseldorf Hofgarten edit.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Special note: The naming convention for the newsletter has altered. Instead of being labeled the month it is delivered, it is now labeled the month the content applies to. See discussion.
Assessment Department: This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's video games articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program, and more specifically in the Video games essential articles page.
Two new quality ratings have been implemented into the Assessment Department's scale. The new Wikipedia-wide C-Class rating (see category) has been added to the scale between Start-Class and B-Class. Because of this, the criteria of the B-Class has been tweaked to better illustrate the difference between a B-Class and C-Class article. An older rating, List-Class (see category), has been added to the scale as well. It is mainly used on pages that have very little prose and are primarily tables and lists of information.
Editors are encouraged to submit articles for assessment if they feel an article has made significant progress up the assessment scale or has gained importance within video game articles. Assessed articles generally receive some feedback to further improve the article. Experienced editors are also encouraged to help with assessment of articles when the number of requests gets too large.
Peer Review Department: The Peer review process for WikiProject Video games exposes video-game-related articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a Featured article candidate. It is not a academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other.
Editors are encouraged to use the Video game peer review process, as well as the regular Wikipedia-wide process, to improve the quality of articles. While a peer review can be done at any time, it strongly suggested to use this process before an article goes up for Good article nomination and Featured article or Feature list candidacy as articles cannot be a candidate for GA or FA while at peer review.
Editors are also encouraged to leave feedback for articles undergoing peer review. A process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take. Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Hey, this might be a stupid question but I noticed that you've put a lot of pictures onto this site using Flickr. I was just wondering how you know which pictures have a free lisence and which don't. I really want to update a lot of the pictures on here, and I know that finding a good picture is hard. So any help would be appreicated :) Nikiangelz (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, no it's just fine to ask me that. First thing you want to do is to click on this link. When you've clicked there you'll just scroll down where it says "Creative Commons" now click on "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content", also click on "Find content to use commercially" and last "Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon". When you've done that, just search on some person & then some images might come up. Let's try searching on the Jonas Brothers, you'll now see some images, but at the same time you've got to check if it isn't somebody who have just uploaded an image from the internet. The first images that you see there are likely copyrighted, take this image as an example, clearly the uploader doesn't have the right to release that image under a free license & as such, you shouldn't upload it either, but this image can be uploaded, as it's under a free license (Only Flickr images tagged as BY (CC-BY) or BY SA (CC-BY-SA) are allowed on Commons) and you can see it isn't some press/pro photo. If you check the uploader you'll find more of such images. I know it sounds a little hard, but you'll understand it after you've done this a few times. Also you should always check the flickr uploader to see if they've uploaded some dubious content. If you just got lost into what I just said above, feel free to leave another note, and I'll try my best helping you! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 08:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of Demi Lavoto
Hello. I am the one who said the picture of Demi Lavoto looked kind of scary. I am here to apologize and let you know that I meant that as a joke. I hope I did no foul. But I do see somewhat of some rudeness in your comment, and I do have a picture of Demi Lavoto. I would like to upload it on here, but unfourtanetly do not know how. But once again, I am very sorry. I also reread my comment and can see the rudness in my post.
With all Due Respect,
Tweedle20 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Tweedle20[reply]
You mean this reply? No problem, and if you've got a free image I'll be happy to help you out, first thing you want to do is upload it on Commons. Did you take the photo yourself, or did you just find it on the internet? Most likely those kind of images are copyright violations, which Commons can't host. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jonny rowell
why did you ask for it to be speedily deleted ? I was doing work on it.
39 of 393 articles have been prepared and submitted. Come help us prepare more at the workshop page.
Feature: Wikipedia 0.7
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia, compiled by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is designed for a DVD release, and the selection was put together using a Selection Bot, based on the quality and importance assigned by WikiProjects.
The Video games Project and its daughter projects have multiple articles among the selection and are currently working on cleaning up the articles to improve their presentation. A workshop page has been set up that is designed to assist and coordinate the effort. The status of and recommendations for articles is listed on the table. Discussion about which articles should be kept and removed from the list have been taking place on the talk page.
If you have assisted in working on and improving a current Featured article, Good article, or A-Class article, please check the workshop page to see if the article is recommended for inclusion.
Articles will need an id version submitted to ensure it is included. They will also need to be cleaned up if maintenance tags and other issues are present. Participation is not restricted, and if you can assist with the preparation effort, it would be greatly appreciated.
Things to remember for preparation
The workshop page has a notes section for each article. Clean up suggestions have been left for some articles.
Do a light sweep of the article to address any vandalism andclean up tags: citation needed, more references, lengthy plot, etc.
If you need help with an article, post on the talk page.
You're seeing more proxies? I looked at your portscan, and I don't see any hint of any HTTP proxy running on OZoNE other than the access-controlled Squid I mentionned running on 8383. If you're referring to apt-proxy on port 9999, that's kind of a misnomer: it's a caching proxy for Debian packages which acts as a local mirror for installations, and can't be used to access anything else. Am I missing something else...?
Sorry for insisting, but this block is really inconvenient as it not only hinders that caching proxy which I use often, but also the web browsers which I run directly on that server (lynx via ssh, firefox via vnc). That server has been my virtual home for over a decade now, and nowadays I make a point of originating all my public traffic from there (mostly because I trust the network infrastructure of my ISP since my company is involved in their network architecture), /especially/ for non-encrypted HTTP traffic, which nowadays too many ISPs monitor and/or manipulate. I travel a lot, and use computer systems all over the place, but my e-mail always originates from OZoNE.TZoNE.ORG and so do my HTTP connections, whether I'm remotely using a browser running on that server, or tunneling through the access-controlled proxy (with SSH and/or OpenVPN whenever possible) from wherever I happen to be. That way, I have a better control on the overall security involved, and I /know/ that my packets can make it to a Tier 1 backbone unmodified, unshaped, unfiltered, and usually unmonitored (or, if monitored, then, by people I trust).
I have gone to great lengths through the years to ensure that this server would not end up on any blacklists, and a quick look at any blacklist summary will show at a glance that OZoNE is an upstanding Internet citizen. No offensive Wikipedia edits have ever been made from it either. If the Wikipedia policy is to disallow editing from open proxies (which is understandable and acceptable), but I don't see an open proxy on OZoNE, then there shouldn't be any reason for it to be blocked. --Patrick Bernier (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I just posted on your talk page, we're seeing that port 80 is sitting wide open (or appears to be to our scans), and that's a very commonly used http proxy port. Unless that is closed, or you can provide some evidence it's also secured in some way, we can't unblock the IP or grant you an exemption. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course port 80 is wide open: it's a web server, serving a few personal home pages. It obviously couldn't do that if port 80 was closed. But it's definitely not acting as a proxy; apache's mod_proxy is not even loaded (no point anyway since squid does that on 8383). Telnet for yourself to port 80 and try requesting an off-site URL: it won't work. Come think of it, I'm also running a web server on port 80 of my current home cable modem connection. Just on that basis, would you want to block that IP too? There really isn't much difference between the two systems, other than the fact that I have greater trust in OZoNE's ISP. They run the same operating system, and have the same potential for abuse. OZoNE is not an open proxy, and to that effect, I'll provide any evidence you want... but I'm not sure what you want to see. If you can successfully use it as an open proxy to edit Wikipedia, by all means, tell me how and I'll be happy to fix it — but as things stand, I don't see it. Again, please tell me, am I missing something here? --Patrick Bernier (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of semi-active, see Talk:Soy milk, I'm not quite active on the case at the moment, feel free to take it if you want. This can be helpful for you if you're taking over/reading it. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 16:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was wondering what do you think about this article? I haven't done the biggest but helped with images, and some minor fixes and so on. Do you believe I should try making my own DYK instead? --Kanonkas : Talk 13:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed you heavy contributions to Ashley Tisdale, but as you say a lot was quite minor fixes. Obviously that's not a bad thing,. but if you're thinking of asking for the bit on WP current RFA vogue is focussed on substantial wordage / sourcing references etc. Of course the big plus is that you're already a sysop on commons, but the one does not lead to the other. When I first ran for adminship I withdrew as the opposes were mostly concerned with no article writing and I had no defence to that at all - they were perfectly right. Now I've never claimed I'm much of a writer on WP but I went off and did three DYK's (two brand new articles and one stub fleshed out) and I have to say it really does give you a perspective you just don't get through any other way. I don't think we should be in the boat of forcing people to write articles before giving them the toolbox (as you know from commons the tools are only partially relevant to the business of building open source content wether it be words or other media). However it is important to demonstrate a basic undersatnding of why we're here (building an enyclopedia) and content contribution is the simplest way to do that. I have very much my own opinions on content contribution being vital for adminship, but as I say current RFA vogue is largely the more the better. Pedro : Chat 14:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kanonkas, it seems every IP from 204.15.226.197 to 204.15.226.254 belongs to Hide My IP software. Have you ever gotten any other IPs outside that range? Spellcast (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message on Nishkid's talk page, so I examined the IPs from the 204.15.226.0/24 range (using this tool which you can enable in your preferences). It turns out many IPs have been used by a banner user known to use anonymizers. I think it's likely the above range is used by that software. Spellcast (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a good look on the range, and give you possibly more details. I'll be giving you an e-mail tomorrow so keep an eye on your inbox! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 01:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nmap shows open port 3306—specifically "3306/tcp open mysql MySQL (unauthorized)"—for all the IPs at User talk:204.15.226.192/26. But what really gave away the range as an anonymizer was many of those IPs being used by a blocked user who edits New York-related pages (and who's known to use anonymizers). Spellcast (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Hello.
I got a message from you saying that one of the external links that I added was inappropriate and got deleted.
However, the message did not say which link it was and why it was inappropriate. :-)
So, I'm worried that I might make the same mistake again.
I'm thinking that Wikipedia developer might want to add this information to these messages to facilitate better communications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digerateur (talk • contribs) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, the issue was that you were adding blogspot.com links and those links looked like link spam, so it was rather all of your link adding the messages goes to. If you're having some problems, I'll try to explain and help you if I can! Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some time now, the Video games project and the Military history project have been cross listing their articles undergoing peer review in an effort to improve the quality of articles, as well as the copy editing skills of editors. The idea was first proposed by User:Krator as a way to better prepare articles for Featured article candidacy. After being approved by both projects, the idea was implemented under a trial period, and eventually approved as a standard practice.
New, cross listed military history articles are announced on the Video games project talk page, and listed on the Video games Peer review page under a special section. Video game editors are encouraged to leave any type of comments that come to mind. If you don't know anything about military history, that's perfectly fine because that's the point. An editor lacking knowledge about the particular topic can provide a helpful point of view as a general reader—the intended audience.
A peer review process such as this will not work if editors do not give as well as take.
Peer reviews are meant to examine not just the prose, but the sources and images used in the article.
Feedback can range from brief comments after skimming through a page to a full blown dissection of grammar, structure, and references. Either way, every bit helps.
Reviewing another editor's article can help sharpen your writing skills, which in turn can improve the articles you write.
Yes I know that as I've checked the DYK rules, but I was wondering about what do you think? Same questions which I left you on your talk page applies here. --Kanonkas : Talk 15:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, the issue was that you were adding the link to several wikis and it looked like you were promoting some software. I suggest you try reading WP:EL and WP:SPAM before trying to add more external links. Best regards, --Kanonkas : Talk 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply.I went through articles you recommend me to go through.I did not read any direct reasons why link to www.123ahp.com should be removed.On Wikipedia AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process described in details and in several language. Site www.123ahp.com (english version) offers application of the read theory to each reader who can be interested to try the method. Also in several languages.There is description of AHP from other simple user point of view and the aim is to popularize the method, not the site. If you check it, you will notice that this application is translated in several languages and I believe that this is the reason why some detector software of Wikipedia detects that as a spam.I would kindly ask you to go and check the site and then decide is it useful for users of Wikipedia.If you find that this is some kind of promotion of web software, please check again, this is web application with examples of usage of AHP. Free of charge. No adds, no affiliate programs. No sales offers.
You wrote in your reply "it looked like". It is not what it is looked like. See it, and then decide. Thank you very much and I appreciate your efforts to administrate articles in Wikipedia.
Hello there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Feel free to create an account with us if you wish. :) Anyway, with regards to your question about the external links, I am afraid the link does not fall under the acceptable use of external links for several reasons. It does not meet criteria two, which states:
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
This criteria covers a number of links to a number of sites, including this site, because it does not appear to be an official site. Sources on Wikipedia have to independently back up the article's verifiability, which this does not do. Furthermore, it fails point five, which states:
"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."
This site is offering a service. The first paragraph of the "about site" states:
The aim of this web site is to explain and offer its users (visitors) the possibility of using one of the most widely represented decision making methods when they find themselves in different situations when they have to select the best one from multiple good alternatives according to predefined criteria.
This ties into the point two above, because the method is original research and not substantiated by an independent or approved source.
Thank you for the answer and explanation.
It is mentioned :"...exist to sell products or services" I believe it is meant exist to sell services. The site www.123ahp.com do not sell services. It offers for free of charge.
I believe that you found not so strong reason for delete it in first place. First reason mentioned for deleting was that "it looked like you were promoting some software". Now, you are finding some other not convincing reasons. I have an impression that you just do not want to admit that maybe the link was deleted without good reason. If you really do not want to change the decision, which I respect, that I found it strange that you deleted only this link among all others in that article about AHP. Do you think that other external links and links under references do not offer services, sell products, that are without objectionable amounts of advertising and from reliable sources?
I came into this new; Kanonkas only requested that I looked into it independently. So I have done. It is unreliable as original research, which is not backed up by reliable research. That is the long-and-short of it, and Kanonkas was right to remove them. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for you time and answering on some of my questions. Keep the principle.
Hello, for some funny reason you blocked me on commons. The problem is: you blocked a open proxy IP (Which I use) Normaliter I should be able to contribute anyway (logged in) but now I cant... My (open-proxy) IP is 212.45.53.122 Regards Matthias92 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx! but it is not necessary to unblock it, there must be a way to block it while registered users can stille edit... I've had it before on nl wikipedia, those times it was fixed by nl:User:MoiraMoira She'll proberly know more about it... Thanx anyway! Kind regards Matthias92 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
