Jump to content

User talk:Thibbs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.185.209.146 (talk) at 18:46, 1 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HELLO - This is the talk page for Thibbs. Please place messages to me at the bottom of my talk page and I will reply as soon as I find the free time. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Normally I will leave my reply here on this page. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Thibbs! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that 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. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Finally responding after just under 2 years... Thanks for the welcome. You welcome crew do a hell of a job here at wiki. Kudos to you all. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been Busy eh

Sorry about all the extraneous boxes! I moved a bunch of mine... -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no problem. I finally addressed the issue of my userpage and talk. Kind of fun in its own nerdy way. Anyway thanks for being the original inspiration. If you hadn't been WP:BOLD I'd probably still have a redlink userpage. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment tool

Dude, I think that Recruitment tool needs some cleaning out, I don't think that games that aren't put out by a group or endorsed by that group should be categorized as a recruitment tool for them. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whereizben (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. I'm planning a major overhaul of the page. I definitely think that products not endorsed by the group they are recruiting for need to be cleaned out (although I think they could still be considered non-recruitment-tool advergames). I also think some of the films are not actually recruitment tools. Go ahead and make improvements as you see fit. Cheers Thibbs 12:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Categories

I've deleted the category for The Legend of Zelda items, as we previously had a category for Zelda weapons and items that was deleted. Please do not make categories that will only hold a few articles. Pagrashtak 21:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that those other categories should probably be deleted. In fact, these categories came up at the VG project recently (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#A question about articles that are leaning towards game guides). Hopefully most of the articles in those categories will be merged, redirected, or deleted as needed, and then the categories will be deleted once they are nearly depopulated. By the way, if you want to link to a category, use [[:Category:Foobar]]. Pagrashtak 15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The categories shouldn't be depopulated until they have been deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Pagrashtak 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Replies archived at User:Pagrashtak's talk. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==ForeverFreeSpeech (talk · contribs)==

Regrettably, it looks like this user's already been blocked by an admin who had it in for him. I'm suggesting to them that an indef-block was way too harsh, but the admin is claiming they are "unrepentant" in the same vein of "the beatings will continue until morale improves." M1rth (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ForeverFreeSpeech has not been very well instructed as to how to make appropriate edits and it does seem a bit harsh to block him indefinitely. I think the reason most people have taken such instant dislike to this user is that he tends to be uncivil and frequently accuses other editors of involvement or support for fascist or racist organizations. I think he is inflammatory by nature and that he should probably have been directed to the proper guidelines weeks ago. It is unfortunate because I don't think he was trying to vandalize, he just hadn't learned the neutral path which good editors are expected to follow and I think he let personal sentiment get in the way of good judgment. I agree that he should probably have only been given a temporary ban but that he should have been pointed to appropriate wikipedia guidelines to read during his time off. -Thibbs (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in on FFS's talk page. Mastcell (the admin who originally abusively blocked him for "edit warring" with a bot designed poorly enough that it edit-wars) has started attacking. :( M1rth (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afterword: Both User:M1rth and User ForeverFreeSpeech are currently permanently banned from wikipedia for WP:NPOV (strong anti-arabism), WP:CIV, and WP:SOCK violations among others. Their chequered pasts may be reviewed here (M1rth) and here (ForeverFreeSpeech). -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!

Thanks Thibbs for all your grammar guidance in my contributions. I really apreciate that. Sometimes my english is quite rough because I'm not an english native speaker. (don't worry, I'm not using wikipedia to learn it ^^) Probably this small sentence has a lot of mistakes too, LOL. Thanks you!! RG4ever (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Interesting articles you're creating. Glad I can help. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of best-selling video game franchises

Hi there! Don't worry, just create a new section whenever you need to chat (because old sections are usually archived). As for VGChartz, there were many discussions at the WikiProject Video Games, and consensus has historically been that it is not a reliable source. Some examples are here, here (where I bring the point that we should be able to use reliable sources even if they are using unreliable data) and here (where I made a long post with the history of VGChartz in Wikipedia which may be useful). If you want to quote VGChartz, you will have to make a new discussion at the WikiProject. My point of view is that unreliable source becomes reliable when quoted by a reliable source, although it could be abused in certain circumstances. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy can only be used on reliable sources (otherwise people would be able to use Geocities pages to reference information). And WP:RS basically indicates that a reliable source is such if other reliable sources in the topic consider it reliable. VGChartz, even though they have a lot of fans, are not considered reliable by most of the media. While certain articles use them (some mentions at C&VG, a New York Times and a Forbes one, the Guinness book and a press release by Codemasters, if I recall correctly), companies still use NPD as source for their information. The only time IGN mentioned VGChartz was just because Codemasters mentioned them. It is much harder to check GameSpot for mentions about it, especially since most of the hits are because mentioning that word in the comments sections.
That is basically the rationale behind not allowing VGChartz numbers here: until companies do regard it as reliable, and the media use them regularly, they are to be restricted. Magic Box? Personally I would like to replace all those references with others, even if the numbers are lower. I am basically against any site being used heavily for information (as you can see in both best-selling video game lists, we use a broad spectrum of sources, from consumer and industrial to completely foreign and mass media). My personal thought about Magic Box is found in one of the links I posted, too. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Regarding why TMB is considered reliable, I am not really sure. The first ever version of the page (a couple of months before I joined) used it. I guess since nobody ever objected TMB in the beginning, it was accepted due implicit consensus. My own opinion is that they don't make assumptions, they only transcribe data from Famitsu. Again, I am against using a single reference for many games, and would love to replace their references with others until there is no Magic Box just as there are no VGChartz or Nexgenwars or any other similar site, but it will take time.
I would love to point to a single discussion where VGChartz is accepted as an unreliable source, but there is not one. Just as TMB was thought to be reliable, VGC was thought to be unreliable since the first day. Maybe gaming forums like NeoGAF pushed their point of view about VGC to Wikipedia without us knowing the move (would be sad, but not the first time a group does that). I have tried many times to create a discussion, but most people just think "it is because it is". Personally, I use Special:Linksearch and everytime a vgchartz.com link appears, I replace it with a reliable source. Fortunately, there are not that many links nowadays, so it is an easy task.
There was a WikiProject that took care of verifiability, plus a noticeboard to discuss whether are reference is reliable or not. Maybe we could use them and bring WPVG there to discuss.
I already pointed my personal fear: if VGC is found reliable, every single reference will be eaten by vgchartz.com because it is updated weekly, just like TMB eats references for old games (not that those references are easy to find, though). Personally, I think the current best-selling articles to be in much better shape than a simple mirror of either site (even though some games have very old references). I prefer having a New York Times reference say a game sold a million copies by 2003 than a VGChartz reference saying it sold two million copies by 2008. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Replies may be found at User:ReyBrujo's talk. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind's Eye (series)

Good job on the Mind's Eye page! You've really improved a lot there. --Eptin (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find the videos to be fascinating time-capsules or historical snapshots of the state of the art graphic capabilities. This will only become more amazing in the future when we have vastly superior computer-generated graphics. It's like looking back at black-and-white, silent, or early animated films from today's perspective. -Thibbs (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

subcategories

That's a really good question, and I'm not really sure to be quite honest. I've only become more active with the overall WP:VG in the past couple of months, and even so I'm mostly familiar with WP:VG/GL, which deals with articles and not categories. In my experience, there are a few issues:

  • Categories are often misused when the name is not chosen properly. I've seen Economic Simulation Games being to include RTSs, RPGs, and Action Games that feature a sophisticated buy/sell mechanic, and so a rename made sense to make it more applicable to the Tycoon series of games that it was meant to cover. I think the big risk with the "music video games" category is that you might start to see games with a really strong musical component creep in. Even a rename to "music and rhythm games" might prevent problems. But I leave that to your judgment, since "music video games" is broader, even if it may be misleadingly broad to the uneducated reader.
  • There's always a lead at the top of a category. That's an opportunity to point out the main article, which is often a good guide for what goes in or out of the category.
  • Because people often don't read very deep into an article, it can become important to say in no uncertain terms what the category is for in the lead. You don't need to go into detail about the history. But you do want to cover the defining gameplay that distinguishes it from other games.

I say that with my gut experience in the genre categories, and not having read your guidelines. So I'm taking a look at what you have now to see if there's anything I forgot, or if there are some issues where we don't line up.

I think you're going into too much detail for the average reader. Not that what you have isn't good. But it's such a niche topic that I'm not sure you'll find enough people who care enough to turn it into an actual guideline. And it's complex enough that I think a lot of readers would just tune out.

Something to keep in mind ... the categories don't all have to be in a perfect tree. Wikipedia is often organized more as a web. If there's a category for a series, include it in the music games category. If there's a category for a particular instrument or gameplay, put it in the music games category. Some redundancy is okay. I think it's fine if people see all the guitar hero games in the main category, but some are also listed under "guitar music games", "drum music games", as well as a subcategory for the series itself.

What's tough is that if you care enough about this area of knowledge that you feel it should be maintained a certain way, then you're gonna just have to keep an eye on it. That's what I've found with the game genre articles, particularly with the various simulations.

That's me thinking off the top of my head. Not very organized, but contact me again if you have any further questions. Randomran (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'm still tinkering with it and I hope to soon produce a quick reference chart of yes/no questions which, if answered in order, will direct an editor relatively painlessly to the correct category-tagging decision (according to the tentative guidelines). I have made a few tweaks, but this yes/no quick reference chart should cure the problem you identified of editors "tuning out." As far as the monitoring of the page, I agree, of course, that the page cannot moniter itself, but I believe that if the quick reference chart is available for editors to make informed decisions then miscategorizations would be reduced and, beyond that, if the tentative guidelines were formalized then a monitoring editor could at least point to some sort of authority to back up his decision to undo/repair miscategorized articles/categories. When I get the quick reference chart finished I'll add a note at Talk:Music video game to broaden the pool of commentary. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can turn it into a very simple checklist, it might even be a good thing to add to the lead of the category page. Randomran (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created a checklist of sorts and am adressing the issue of simplicity. From the start I have attempted to distance myself from possible folk taxonomies and to prepare as "scientific" a taxonomy as possible by using objective characteristics. This should already simplify matters greatly. As far as the logical flow of the series of questions, I think it is actually close to as simple as it can be made and nothing more remains but to address layout and aesthetics (both critical for ease of use). I suppose it's fairly obvious that I used a dichotomous key approach to classification here. If it works for species of animals, why not for species of music video game, right? Although most dichotomous keys I've seen have taken the nested style, I think this set of questions is small enough that we can make best use of the "indented key." I would argue that linked style dichotomous, polytomous, and multi-access keys should be avoided. This brings us to where we are now.
Currently I'm experimenting with collapsing (as with the Collapsible list) and nesting. Ideally, I'd like to see some kind of nested collapsible form where instead of displaying "[show]" it displayed "[Yes]" or "[No]" to proceed. This will probably require some javascripting and some time so we'll see how far I get... If worst comes to worst, I think it might be an option to release version 1.0 as it is now. I'd then add it to Category talk:Music video games as policy and beautify it when I had more time. I like your idea of adding reference to it in the lead of the category page as well. Thanks for all the help so far. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, as far as I know the WPVG simply follows Wiki-wide rules for categorization. If the sub-category is already in the category, then there's no need to have a single article slotted in both. It's tricky to keep up with sometimes but just watch out for any that you might come across.

As for your list, go for it. I'm too into my own projects to be a contributing member but if you have any other direct question don't hesitate to ask. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your advice. I feel like I'm making headway on the list. I've posted a localized "rfc" (not an actual RfC since, as User:Randomran pointed out, "it's such a niche topic" that I doubt I'd get much relevant feedback) at Talk:Music video game and I think it might be a good idea to do the same at Category talk:Music video games. Inasmuch as this is little more than a formalization of the current common practice I think things should proceed pretty smoothly. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hi, I saw you making a lot of edits with the summary "avoid redirects", and thought you should read this: WP:Redirect#NOTBROKEN. Pagrashtak 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Palestine

I will not be able to work on it immediately, but will try ASAP. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll make sure to check every now and again. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are welcome. The copied section on criminal law has a POV slant; can you fix that? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly not my forte, but I'll take a look at it. At the very least, I can address the copy editing issues. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I "rv" -- removed the POV tag, not reverted -- it. Sorry for the confusion. It looks 89 % better now. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
replied at User talk:Bearian. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted part of the lede at Law_of_Palestine#Criminal_law. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I suppose my main question was whether or not you would be interested in my posting an open editing invitation to members of WP:Israel and WP:Palestine in order to allow equal POV-biasing or whether you thought that move would be counterproductive. The only reason I think POV may be an issue is due to the fact that the article is just in its earliest stages of creation and POV may be structurally/linguistically harder to remove later if it is introduced now. I'll go with whatever you think is the better move (i.e. posting a note to both wikigroups or, in the alternative, neither). Thanks -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to wait until I find more sources online and insert them. Let's give ourselves a week. Bearian (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. I'd even be ok with >1 week. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, I've written to 6SJ7 in an attempt at transparency. He's already made an edit at LoP so I don't feel like this is unduely stoking the flames. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found more sources, quotes, links, etc., and added them. I'm done with this one for the week. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found some citations to back up the unsourced claim I had made and I removed the cn tag. I think I'll hold off from any meaningful editing here until I've done more research, but I'll keep an eye on things from the sidelines. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were still working on it. I reverted the tag. I can't work long on it this week; on vacation. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I posted my concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war.2F_POV-pushing_at_Law_of_Palestine. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I couldn't take part. I was on a week's vacation during that period. It seems like some of the problems that existed prior to my vacation have been ironed out. I saw the comments that had been left on your two accounts and I support your use of the "nuclear option" only insofar as I have had very little success in communicating with certain users either on talk or at their user page. I think the wakeup call was exactly what the doctor ordered and it seems to have really spurred some communication (albeit limited) at long last. -Thibbs (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. How about this proposal [1] to rename the article Palestinian law? I'd be open to it as a compromise. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this sounds fine to me. Care should be exercised to transfer all posts at Talk:Law of Palestine to Talk:Palestinian law, however, so that the road to consensus is properly documented. I'll weigh in on Talk:LoP. -Thibbs (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw your request for an article, however the Hungarian wikipedia doesn't even seem to have this article in the more than 100 000 articles it has [2] on this topic. An article could be written I think but I don't know how to get a picture for the article? Wikipedia usually only allows photos we take ourselves, but this is not a building or similar. Hobartimus (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a picture would be nice, but there is no requirement for one. I have an old picture book that has some pictures (which could be scanned in eventually), but I have no idea if the copyrights would still apply. Who owned the copyrights to the show, and does this owner still exist? -Thibbs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MTV did [3] the wiki article is under Magyar Televízió, they produced it. However there are users who will delete pictures, so getting a picture is very easy, but gettig it through the 'system' here is quite hard. Hobartimus (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience it is possible to get pictures uploaded through wikimedia as long as I have gained the author's permission or the permission of the copyright holder. Editors are much less likely to delete pictures uploaded at wikimedia as long as they are properly attributed. To gain the correct permission we would probably have to write to MTV. There may also be a way to properly attribute it as a free image by using a low-quality image and claiming fair use but I haven't uploaded any images in a while so I can't quite remember the requirements. I'm pretty sure there is a wealth of information on the subject available when you try to upload. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sophia Jansson-Zambra

A tag has been placed on Sophia Jansson-Zambra requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.    SIS  21:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Naturally I disagree, so I will weigh in on the appropriate talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sophia Jansson-Zambra

I have nominated Sophia Jansson-Zambra, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Jansson-Zambra. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.    SIS  22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Naturally I disagree, so I will weigh in on the appropriate talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new version[4] is a huge improvement compared to the one I tagged for deletion[5] four days ago. I think notability is now shown and well sourced. I suggested to close the discussion and keep the article.    SIS  22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your reconsideration and retract my suggestions that you appeared more interested in deleting the article than in determining its merits. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ribbon of Merit

Thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, no problem. You deserve it. That's a tricky area to work in on wiki and you handled yourself admirably. -Thibbs (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD and logic

Your statement that "A game that includes 'minimal' violence would be tagged 'non-violent' if reliable sources indicate that it is. Using the 'reliable sources/verifiability' standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works" is a remarkable breath of fresh air in the CfD process. I have been involved in AfD for years and got sucked into the CfD process when a category I use was proposed for deletion not too long ago. CfD operates under the influence of an extremely small group of editors who have an approach to categories that differs from yours and mine, and from how most of the rest of Wikipedia works. As you have done in this current CfD, I have advocated in multiple CfDs that clear and objective inclusion standards be defined and adhered to, just as you have suggested. The responses are to insist that whatever standard you come up with, no matter how grounded in sources, is "arbitrary", after all there's some other standard that could have been chosen. The other response to any proposed standard, no matter how well-defined, is to identify an actual (or, just as often, hypothetical) borderline case and to insist that this shows an underlying flaw with the category that requires the deletion of the entire structure. In other situations there's the "listify", which pushes for deletion of a category because it would be a "better" list, despite WP:CLN encouraging co-existence of both lists AND categories. Another favorite approach is to insist that a category is "trivial" or "non-defining", often with an appeal to a claim of overcategorization; sources that contradict the claim are conveniently ignored. Any sane person would leave this particular asylum, where sources and logic have little sway, but any input you could offer would at least confirm that I'm not the only one who believes that "the 'reliable sources/verifiability' standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works." Thank you again for your insight. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is very frustrating to deal with editors who simply ignore my suggestions and persist in claiming that the task is impossible without addressing my proposal. One of Wikipedia's biggest problems is that enclaves develop where a distinct unwritten set of rules apply. I have also run into a similar situation with some of the WikiProjects where the members there had promulgated guidelines that conflicted with general Wikipedia guidelines. I guess one must pick one's battles, but at times it seems like I'm arguing with a brick wall. Anyway I appreciate your input. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious, if you were walking down the street, and shot to death, but you were unarmed, did violence occur? –xeno (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's put it this way: I wouldn't claim I'd lived a violent life. Can you see the subtle distinction? -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyway, if I were writing an article on the topic at Wikipedia then I know I'd have to use sources to back up my claim that violence had occurred if there was a valid dispute sourced with reliable sources. At the very least I'd probably have to present both sides and not filter the event through my own particular POV. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The simple fact is that the category is too vague - which is my main concern. The unrefined opinions of reviewers should not trump the simple fact that there is indeed violence in Portal. If I really took the time, I could find sources to prove this, ("the introduction of live fire turrets which can kill Chell" "the turrets seem inconsequential, however they are deadly and can kill Chell very quickly" "After trying to kill Chell at some point, this strange relation becomes much more threatening" ) but I shouldn't have to when it's plainly obvious. The category needs to be refined or removed from the Portal article. –xeno (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact of the matter is that there are players and reviewers who consider the game to be non-violent. That they possibly consider it non-violent only in comparison with more violent games is of no consequence to the verifiable identification of the game as non-violent. In my experience non-violent games are often identified as such due mainly to the actions on the part of the player. This explains why most puzzle games are considered non-violent despite the fact that the main character may be injured or killed (even violently so) by hazards (including sentient enemies). I understand very well that you don't think any game that contains any violence is non-violent, but your argument suffers from an obvious lack of sources as backup and an overly strict definition of violence. The fact is that reviewers, marketers, and non-violent game communities have characterized some games that do contain objective violence as non-violent. The apparently conflicted definition is only conflictory to those who are of the opinion that any violence makes a game a violent game. Since you have posed a question for me to answer allow me a follow-up question: Would you consider a game like Minesweeper be violent because mines and explosions that kill the player are involved? -Thibbs (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've already provided you three sources above that indicate that Portal is indeed violent (if we agree that killing and trying to kill=violence). If you're talking about the Minesweeper that is included with most Windows installations, and you are calling the smiley-face the player, and the mines turning red is an explosion, and the smiley face frowning and his eyes turning into x's represents death, then I suppose yes, that could be considered violent. Your reply seems to support my suggestion of renaming the category to to First person shooters in which the playable character is non-violent. –xeno (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your suggestion that "trying to kill=violence" is synthesis. You are an admin and I don't want to take this to Arbcom, but if I have to then I will. You seem to be completely undiscomfited in your placement of wikipedia policy and guidelines by the wayside simply to support your own POV to the exclusion of other valid POVs. The issue boils down to your suggestion that you just know something is a certain way versus my suggestion that the sources I have provided demonstrated that others believe something to be a certain way. I have repeatedly requested that we stick to verifiability and in questions of conflict that we represent both sides of the issue but you have refused to compromise due to vague inclinations and suspicions corroborated only roughly through synthesis and misleading references. I am currently writing a draft version of the article I think should support this category and I will invite you to examine it when I am finished. I pray that you don't approach it with the same loose regard for wikipolicy that you have with the category. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • lol, I've done nothing adminly here. go to arbcom if you feel you must. you disagree that killing and attempting to kill someone is violence? synthesis? sheesh. i'm done here. for the record, I've attempted to compromise by suggesting a refinement of the category name. –xeno (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Music video game

Hi, I saw your request for feedback on Music video game. I'm a professional writer and editor, so I may have a little bit of a different "take" on the issues than general Wiki editors. I can see from the above discussion that you're striving to be constructive within the Wiki framework. But that's not at issue, here.

My perception is you are at two different impasses. One, if I may, is that you've gotten into murky philosophical waters -- I find these interesting -- but I never expect to get a group concensus on these discussions. Minesweeper either is or is not a violent game?? Ouch! That's not a topic I would like to bet a term paper grade on!

Regarding the "Music video game" article itself: The game genre itself is valid, but the article does not do it credit. It's too little like an encyclopedia article, and too much like a fansite.

It's written from an enthusiast's point-of-view. Using lots of "rah-rah" terms that enthusiasts (and marketing departments) will love to hear. But to a reader less familiar with the subject, or less enthusiastic, it reads like smoke and mirrors -- it's hard to discern what of it is untrue, and what is just weak, biased writing. This sentence, starting the second paragraph is an example:

"Strong support for the convergence of live music and video games is evident with the success of the Video Games Live concert series".

What is "strong support"? How would I tell it from "mild support" or "little support". What does it mean? Basically, it means nothing at all. "...the convergence of live music and video games..." Uh...? I play live music. I have music software. I play video games. I wouldn't use the word "converging" to describe the relationship...more like "faking". Once the article is toned down, it will sound more like an encyclopedia.Piano non troppo (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. I agree that the line concerning the Video Games Live concert series is a bit strange. I tend to err on the side of over-inclusion and seeing as it was a sourceable addition I left its inclusion to the judgment of the editor who added it. Perhaps it should be deleted. I will go over it again keeping your suggestions that it reads too enthusiastically in mind. Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seiklus

I think youre doing a great job. Do you mind if I edit the sandbox, I see a typo in there. Also, I might have to disagree with you about some of the content. e.g. Seiklus .. have you played it? Technically speaking it doesnt lack violence, it just doesnt have nearly as much as you'd expect based on looking at the screenshots. But it's there (the stomach viruses, the hippos, and the thorns on the plants can all hurt you.) Soap Talk/Contributions 17:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means. Feel free to edit it if you see a typo you'd like to fix. I will probably put it into mainspace fairly soon. As far as Seiklus goes, I have played it a year and a half ago. I guess you're right that it's not totally non-violent. I'll have to rework the caption and think of a better example. Any suggestions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I fixed some stuff. I also took out a couple of pictures that the picture bot seemed to be complaining about. I guess maybe they cant be used on user pages. Youll probably have to put them back in manually when you copy the page over. (Never mind, it looks like you wanted it that way.) Soap Talk/Contributions 17:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the bot is set to bar us from having licensed pictures on our user pages. Even though it makes sandbox versions harder to deal with, I can't say I don't approve of the principles behind that one. Anyway thanks again for the help. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonviolent video games

Eep, you dont think the new page will get deleted too? I hope not. Anyway, you found my homepage most likely because I'm pretty much the only guy who still is interested in this little game called HURL. There's still a trickle of about 30 people a month who come to my page searching for cheat codes and the like for it, which proves that there are still people out there playing it, but I'm pretty much the only one who's written anything about it since 2002 or so. And my interest in it is partly because I love the idea of playing a game that is both nonviolent and funny, and partly because it's an undiscovered example of a very easy game to do ROM-hacking on. (I have spoken to the lead programmer and he's told me to go right ahead; the source code is apparently gone, but the game is free and he doesn't mind me distributing both the original and a slightly tweaked version on my website.) As you might have guessed, the game partly inspired my choice of domain name and username. Soap Talk/Contributions 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the page doesn't get deleted, but at this point I've put too much time into it and I'm really too busy off-wiki to be working on it now. Hopefully some support may be generated from interested parties via the internal links to similar topics. I may try to add some links to the page to other related pages. Interesting about your website, by the way. I see you also have been active at Chex Quest, a similar game that I have enjoyed quite a bit. I agree that the best part about playing these games is the irony factor and the humorous references within games such as Chex Quest to the game whose engine they use. I need to try out HURL at some point. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Writer's Barnstar
For your exemplary work on Nonviolent video games, I award you The Writer's Barnstar. Curious, did you have an essay written on this already or something? You built the article so fast! –xeno (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on this well-deserved barnstar for this extremely thorough and well-sourced article on Nonviolent video games. If only it were anywhere near as easy to get a corresponding category. Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you (Alansohn and Xeno). I appreciate the accolades more than you know. As i mentioned to xeno, this is the first such award I've received and it means a lot to me. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh

The other two draft articles from your sandbox appear in most of the article history for Nonviolent video game, albeit hidden by a comment tag. Is that gonna be a problem or can we just consider it one of Wikipedia's obscure quirks? Soap Talk/Contributions 20:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was xeno's doing. He said that in cases where other users have contributed edits to my sandbox the policy is to do a move to preserve the history somehow. I've never been in this situation so I didn't know. I suppose it makes sense from a transparency point of view, although I agree that the inclusion of the stuff I had commented out makes it look a bit shabby. Anyway, this material is out now so I suppose it's all good. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about the commented out stuff that much, but in future, yea, just keep in mind that if multiple users are going to be working in your sandbox space the article must be moved with its history in place for proper GFDL attribution. let me know if you ever need histories split, etc., to accommodate this. –xeno (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. It doesn't actually bother me at all as is. If we want to talk about aesthetics, heck the raw code itself is pretty darn bad, but I've gotten used to it. -Thibbs (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
erm i dont know if you have time but you seem to be better at hacking together nice article paragraphs, did you want to write a quick bit at the bottom of Portal's "critical reception" about it's non-violent "kudos" from those sources? I'll ce it after. –xeno (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, I don't really consider myself that knowledgeable about Portal. I never explained earlier, but that's the reason I never added the sources. I've played the game a few times and I've read up on arguments that it is nonviolent, but as you pointed out there are not a lot of sources that explicitly call it violent and I'm wary to start a project as potentially volatile as this given the fact that I've been sacrificing my real life work in favor of wiki recently and am now quite behind. If you want to take a swing at it I'll see if I can offer some constructive criticism, but otherwise all I can promise is that I'll get to it when my work-load starts to slacken and I can devote time to researching the matter more thoroughly. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits in Tove Jansson

Hi there,

First thank you for adding a valuable information on Tove Jansson. To comply with all policies, I have challenged your edit asking for sources to back up the section. The reason behind is that a section like this is pron to speculation and vandalism; if it is properly sourced then there is no space for that. If you need help adding the sources, let me know.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I knew this wasn't strictly by the book... It was kind of done last second. I'll find the sources now and I apologize. Several of the links to the awards/prizes actually contain back-links to the article that I did not add myself so there may be some support there. Anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. -Thibbs (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, good luck and let me know if you need some help. Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support to closed RFA

Hi, I've just undone your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alan De Smet as the RFA has already been closed and users are asked not to edit archived RFAs. Thanks, ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, sorry, I started typing this note and didn't realise you had already replied until I saved the page. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ifcomp.org

hi, ifcomp is reliable as a source for the ifcomp winners. the various user-ratings on that site should not be included on wikipedia, however, as they are essentially (the synthesis of) user-generated content, which is not allowed per WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.52.50 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand your argument now. I've always considered synthesis to be a WP:OR violation, but I guess it is very briefly mentioned in WP:RS also. Perhaps this is the source of some of the confusion at the IF article... -Thibbs (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've left a note there to clarify the position and also to criticize the manner in which the discussion is progressing. -Thibbs (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you remind readers about the sockpuppet rules. I got the distinct impression that you're insinuating that the anonymous user is sockpuppeting in violation of the rules. I'm not aware of any evidence that anonymous has a registered account, so editing anonymously isn't an alternate account. Anonymous editing is an important part of Wikipedia, and we can't really blame him for his IP address jumping around. He may be on dialup, using computer labs, traveling, or otherwise stuck with the situation. So the insinuation seems overly aggressive. If it wasn't your intention to insinuate this, just be aware that it might be misinterpreted in this way. (Of course, it might only be misinterpreted by me, in which my apologies for being an idiot. :-) — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, I was suggesting that the the IPs were "alternate accounts" and that they should be tagged with the {{User Alt Acct Master}} template. As a disclaimer, let me say that I'm not an expert of wikipolicy by any means, and so I may have an incorrect understanding here. Still, as I understand it the right to anonymity is intended to protect the individual and not the username from ownership of his edits. IPs used to edit wikipedia are one of the most frequently abused usernames (as evidence I offer that WP:IP is the instruction manual on blocking IPs), and as such I don't think it's unreasonable to ask an IP editor to self-identify the various IP accounts he has used. It is clear that with a proxy server there may be shifting IPs at issue, however after signing a post the IP editor will be able to discover his IP easily. It seems to me that whatever dubious benefits derive from editing from an IP should require the editor to retroactively self-identify these accounts as alternate accounts. At the very least a {{SharedIP}} template could be affixed.
Essentially I suppose this reveals something of a bias against IP accounts. I tend to think of anonymous IP edits as one-time edits needed by wiki to allow non-regular editors to make random infrequent (but vital) edits or to allow established (i.e. named) editors to avoid the bother of creating a pseudonyous alternate account in cases where a one-time anonymous edit is required. In this case the editor in question is using a proxy-generated IP in a way that could easily be abused (as for instance by suggesting enormous consensus for his edits, or by circumventing WP:3RR). To review the policy a little bit, there is almost no information readily available on the subject of IP use for anonymity. WP:ANON is an unusably brief essay and the WP:IP edits are not anonymous essay only serves to cast doubt upon the technique. About the only concrete policy information available is the wikimedia Privacy policy, where IPs are covered discursively and, at best, indirectly. All sources I have seen suggest that the best way to edit "anonymously" is to create a pseudonymous account. In fact, the Alternative account notification subsection of WP:SOCK encourages editors to alert ArbCom for all untagged alternate accounts, if you can believe it.
Now, ultimately, I'm realistic and I know that in all probability this particular anonymity-seeking IP editor is legitimately contributing to the encyclopedia and will continue to do so. I certainly wouldn't suggest taking action against him even despite the Alt. Account Notification rule. The point I was hoping to make in talk at the IF article was that his overly aggressive approach and his suggestions that editors who opposed his views were unfamiliar with policy opened him up to critical scrutiny himself, and that in the final analysis he was far from "pure" either. I think this point stands even if I am incorrect about IP-use and alternate accounts as they relate to anonymity generally. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art Games

I have no particular objection to redirecting Art game to Videogame art, although I notice that the article was not properly merged (the external reference, still valid was not included in the destination article). I do suggest that an article Videogame artwork should be distinct to cover the in-game artwork, cover art, etc. that is distinct from this article.

- Leonard G. (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely linguistically, the two terms "videogame art" and "art video game" are quite distinct. Since as you've noted the page was improperly merged, I will split it again. I haven't done the research needed yet, but my gut feeling is that "videogame art" means something quite different to the majority of gamers than what the article is written about. Also I'm pretty sure the convention here is to use the phrase "video game" instead of "videogame." Anyway, thanks for weighing in. -Thibbs (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

music game

You've done a lot of great work on this article, and it's come a long way. Have you ever considered trying to promote this article to good quality status? I think it would be hard, but is entirely possible. You might want to file for a peer review first, and see how far away you are. The big challenge is going to be finding research and sources to support your claims. Randomran (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed for peer review and someone actually did write back. The advice was fairly general, but it was helpful. I agree that the article could certainly use a bit of reworking, however, I have not yet felt I had the time for a full-scale overhaul of the article yet as I tend to use wiki as a procrastination tool for the most part. I'm actually very busy these days (much busier than my history of edits might suggest) and so I'll have to leave you with the unsatisfying "I'll get to it when I get to it..." I'll tell you what, though: I've decided to hold off on any more edits (except for upkeep on articles I'm watching) for the next month and then I'll make reworking this article my top priority. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, one useful thing you could do if you were interested is to {{fact}}-tag the lines you think need citations. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. I waste too much time here myself. Tell you what. You let me know when you anticipate having a bit more free time, and I'll try to chip away with some concrete suggestions until that moment arrives. Let me know. Randomran (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good. -Thibbs (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thibbs! Good work on digging out some references for the various statements concerning other species being sold as "four-leaf clovers", but don't you think that some of them are inadmissible in Wikipedia, because they are links to commercial websites? The Amazon review, the "Facts About Five Leaf Clovers", the "Good Luck Plant Kit" (which, incidentally, doesn't work – access is denied via that link) and the "All About Shamrocks" are all commercial sites. SiGarb | Talk 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, and I had considered it, but here is my rationale: Since the commercial references are being used to bolster claims that the clovers are sold commercially I would think that they might provide proof of some sort. I believe Amazon reviews are actually admissible although they are probably to be avoided in most contexts. If you would like to search out a few more reliable sources, then by all means feel free to replace the ones I have put up. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time

Might I politely suggest that if you're going to point editors toward WP:BRD, you also engage in discussion? Revert-warring over the placement of a name is counterproductive and clutters up the page history. Cheers, Hermione1980 01:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's familiar with BRD. In fact if you look closely you'll notice that it was he who brought it up in the first place and used it to defend an act of edit warring. Why don't you check out the talk pages for this guy. Many editors have warned him about failing ot discuss edits that look suspiciously like vandalism. In the case you just noticed, he had WP:BOLDly made a change, I had Reverted his edit, and now it was his turn to Discuss. The Discuss portion of BRD is meant to be initiated by the person who had acted BOLDly so that he could explain his BOLDness. Thanks for the reminder, though. I agree with you that revert-warring over the placement of a name is counterproductive. -Thibbs (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at his talk page (and incidentally left the same message there). Right, wrong, or indifferent both he and you are reverting back and forth with no discussion. I have warned User:43.244.132.168 for violating WP:3RR, as he is currently at four reverts within a 24-hour period. You yourself are at three. Please do not revert again, or you too will be in violation. Thanks, Hermione1980 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I disagree with your analysis. If you'll notice two of the reverts you have me making were in reality part of the same reversion, simply split into two. First of all I do not know how to revert two edits in one go (I am a fairly new editor), so I would have been forced to revert in this way through my own lack of capacity rather than through some misguided desire to just keep on reverting away regardless of the 3RR. Secondly, you'll notice that there is a 7 minute delay between my first and second revert between 17:18 and 17:25. This is because I was reading the source this editor had provided and it took this long to discover that it lent absolutely no support to his claim. Normally I wouldn't consider such a thing vandalism, but given this editor's persistent abuse and his use of sock puppets I put two and two together here. I urge you to consider the two edits made between 17:18 and 17:25 as a single act of reversion for those reasons. I also am concerned that you may consider my reversion of his sock puppet as a reversion of him, however I believe if an editor is using multiple accounts then the 3RR applies to each of them in isolation from the other. I think this approach should be used in regard to my reversions of the sock especially considering that at the time when I made those reverts I was unaware that they were the same person.
I must say it hurts my pride to a certain extent that you've identified me as a edit-warrior. I have never been warned for such a thing and I believe your characterization of my edits is in error. Please reconsider. -Thibbs (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, personally I agree with your point of view on putting Miyamoto in. This isn't about who's right or wrong, it's about the ridiculous number of reverts that have been performed in both directions on this issue. There's a difference, IMHO, between violating 3RR and being an edit warrior -- to me, the former is just "Oops, I messed up this time," the latter implies an ongoing pattern. No, 3RR does not say "you may revert each person instituting the change three times" -- it says "you may not revert, period, more than three times in 24 hours". I apologize if I insulted you. Please accept that it was not my intent. I would just like to see more discussion and less reverting, and that can only happen if both parties are willing to do so. Hermione1980 14:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was perfectly willing to discuss the matter with him as evidenced by my edit summaries. I don't believe the burden should rightfully have been on me, however, to explain the alleged "BOLD-ness" of my reversions considering the evidence that 1)he has been engaged in borderline vandalism for a few months at least and 2)his information is at best in contention and at worst outright FRINGE. Anyway I appreciate your explanation of the 3RR rule to demonstrate that it's 3 reverts in general. I suppose it makes more sense that way. I still maintain that even if I did hit the limit, I did so without knowledge that the editor and his IP sock were the same person. It was only after subsequently reviewing his multiple edit histories that I realized the truth of the matter. I feel as though I've made the moral equivalent of 2 reverts and for what it's worth I've never made more than 2 in any argument without taking the unprompted initiative to start a discussion thread. To make a long story short I feel as though this editor tricked you into thinking I was violating BRD by using a BRD commandment as his edit summary for a wikipolicy-violative BRR action but perhaps I am mistaken and we really just don't see eye to eye on the issue of the degree of fault at all. Either way it's a pity the whole thing happened. As you may have noticed I've taken the recommendations of my peers and have reported this tendentious editor (with affirmative results) to the appropriate administrative action boards. At the very least, thanks for your relative neutrality in the matter. I guess that's what good admins are here for. -Thibbs (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. :-) I hope this all resolves itself soon. Hermione1980 18:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it wrapped up just fine. See talk at LoZ:OoT. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded for being instrementle in stopping a possible fracas in the OOT article

rdunn 10:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! It was my pleasure. I just don't understand people like that editor. I mean it's not even as if he doesn't have any support for his views it's just that the way he goes about expressing them is completely contrary to everything this project is about. It's like mixing despotism and democracy or religion and science. The approach he is using is simply incompatible with wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as long as there is people like you around, we will do alright. rdunn 14:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. I was originally of the impression that Miyamoto was not a designer since he's credited as a producer. But after you provided reliable sources for him having a directorial role, I've changed my mind. Also, I have had a tremendous amount of trouble with this sock in the past. I think I was the first one to get involved with him/her. Anyway, I'm glad to see the sock blocked, and it was all thanks to your convincing comments. I can finally edit Mario and Zelda articles without having to be reverted by this vandal again (at least for a little while). Thank you very much. The Prince (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I appreciate it. I have to say I'm glad administrator Hermione agreed to be the go-to person for this vandal. I'm thinking a good review of this guy's edit histories is in order. -Thibbs (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OoT redux

Take a look at Millionaire01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I hear QUACKing. Any reason I should not block forthwith as a sockpuppet of Dr90s? Hermione1980 13:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if this to be seems butting in but, the evidence does support the theory I believe. rdunn 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I agree. He's almost definitely another one of Dr90s' socks. -Thibbs (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles Rock Band/ Beatles Harmonx Project

Sure i think if we merge these it will look better and we will have more infoDmanskater<sup>""11""</sup> (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good. Thanks for writing the article. -Thibbs (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles Rock Band/ Beatles Harmonx Project

Sure i think if we merge these it will look better and we will have more infoDmanskater<sup>""11""</sup> (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -Thibbs (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate titles, and columns in Lists of articles

I noticed that you are a contributor in the "List of Famicom games", and I'd like to invite you to contribute to the Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List of...games" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I hope you'll come and give you opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. (Floppydog66 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

checkY Done. -Thibbs (talk) 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Handheld game console

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure how much things will change with the article as I'm not too familiar with the topic. But hopefully you and Marty can get the article in shape. I hope you have a happy holidays as well. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. It looks like progress has indeed taken place. -Thibbs (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handheld games

Happy holidays. I'll try and make sure your concerns are all addressed if any updates are made. Look forward to working together in the future. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just so you know, the reason I posted on Guyinblack's page is that a)He's good at being neutral in matters, and b) He has a ton of experience in bringing video games related articles to Featured Article status, so is extremely familiar with the ins and outs of what's required on Wikipedia. I've worked with him (and continue to work with him) in the past on several video game related articles in that context. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no objection to your having invited Guyinblack into the fray. He seems to be a reasonable editor. -Thibbs (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:PROD

Thanks, I'll take care of the redirect, perhaps merging the content in there with the other article.  Marlith (Talk)  18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds excellent. I wouldn't have cared normally, but I'd hate to see you "lose credit" on the article as petty as that sounds. -Thibbs (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfs on videogame

Dear Thibbs,

Thank You for Your message. I indeed like The Smurfs cartoon very much, I used to watch the Hungarian version in the 1990s. I liked also the Smurfs and communism article [it seems to have been deleted since], I grew up with the idea, in Hungary it underwent several forms, now I am interested in cultures of hunter-gatherers.

But, as for Your question, video game adaptations for The Smurfs (and arrangement of wiki articles about that), I have not heard yet about that videogames about smurfs existed at all, thus I am not competent in such questions. In generally, I do not enjoy video games, the last "video game" I played was Manic Miner in the 1980s on my brother's Sinclair ZX Spectrum. I found that computer games are so rigid things, instead, computers are for exploring science/nature, that makes much fun. Now I am writing a quine in combinatory logic, the topic is related to the question why self-reproduction can exist at all.

Best wishes, and much success on Wikipedia,

Physis (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mindenesetre kösz szépen. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiko no Tatsujin Wii

So you're fluent in French, a language I can't read, and Japanese? Wow! Nyoronoru (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! I wouldn't say I'm completely fluent in French, and I'm nowhere near fluent in Japanese, but thanks none the less. I've been working hard to develop some kind of understanding of Japanese. I think I can understand a lot more of it now than I can speak/write it. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodent Sniff???

I have read your latest post on this topic. Thank you: your comments have been very interesting. What you say is substantially true, and you have helped me to clarify a number of points in my mind. There are several points I could make in response, and perhaps sometime I will, but for now I am going to take a break from the whole issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. Thanks for your contributions to the article, by the way. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of your archiving the discussion on this: it was largely off-topic anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm sorry I didn't wait around for any agreement to do it, but I figured I'd waited 3 days and I was bound to forget if I left it much longer. It certainly takes less time scrolling from the top to the bottom now. I considered doing it for the earlier discussion about deletionism versus inclusionism as well, but there was too much substantive material mixed in with it all. In the end I could only have properly collapsed about 4-5 posts without rephrasing other people's posts... Any idea how to switch the auto-archive function for the article back on? I think Miguel.mateo may have left it switched off. -Thibbs (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St.GIGA

I'm amazed, how did you create St.GIGA so quickly? « ₣M₣ » 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a little while coming. I started getting interested in St.GIGA a week or two ago and started doing independent research. Then for the actual article I worked primarily from a translated version of the article at ja.wiki as a base and modified it by adding content from references I had found (it appears ja.wiki doesn't care about references much or at all). Apart from that there were a few minor structural differences and the pictures which I had already secured permission to upload, so this has been about a week-long plan. I'm frightfully slow at translation from Japanese and there is very very little of use in English, so what you see is merely the end-result of hours of work. Thanks, though. It's good to know people are checking it out. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, when fixing up 'F-Zero' I never did see this one coming. So you can translate? If you are open to requests, I have something sitting on my talkpage. Anyway, you may want to check out WP:TDYK for Giga. « ₣M₣ » 04:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a native anglophone and I do not speak Japanese, so I wouldn't say translating comes naturally for me. It may take me quite a long time to achieve a good translation often, but I'm willing to take a look at your request. I checked out your talk briefly but couldn't see what in particular you were referring to... Is there anything you would specifically like me to look at? -Thibbs (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←)It doesn't matter how long it takes, what matters is if you are willing. FYI, the bulk of any useful information will be added to F-Zero: Maximum Velocity. On User talk:FullMetal Falcon#RE:Japanese translation help, Guy started on the intro page and first section - "Opportunity" [6]. Also, what does "ura" mean? Is it somewhere on here wiktionary so it can be linked? « ₣M₣ » 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately quite busy off-wiki right now, but I'll see what I can manage as far as translating the Famitsu source is concerned. As to your question about "ura," this is the romanization fo the Japanese character, 裏, which means "other" or "reverse" or something like that. There is a wikt entry on it so I'll link it up. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS- Thanks for the TDYK nom, by the way. -Thibbs (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you get the chance can you tell me what the following says in that pink box? [7] Regards, « ₣M₣ » 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

What pink box? There's a lot of pink on the page, but I'm not sure which part you're specifically referring to. Do you mean the part just above all the dates? -Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong link. « ₣M₣ » 02:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Image license

Your image File:StGigaBSXBios.png appears to have been incorrectly tagged; the tag you placed was a creative commons tag, but it seems to be a fair-use screenshot. Could you add a fair use rationale, using {{Non-free use rationale}} and filling in all the relevant information? Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. -Thibbs (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of St.GIGA

Hello! Your article St.GIGA was recently nominated at Did you know to be featured on the main page. The nomination has now been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. -Thibbs (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for St.GIGA

Updated DYK query On March 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St.GIGA, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you guys! -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I hope you won't mind my archiving. Nice words my way are beginning to become an embarrassment on that page, so I thought it best to archive recent comments. I've put your very kind barnstar on my page, however. Whatever little I have done, I hope it helps to nudge an understanding that despite the ferocity of history, one can and must be fair and open-minded, and work collegially, which means reining in one's POV sufficiently to spare time to listen to the other side. This is possible only if one accepts the obvious, but hidden truth, there are two sides here, and it is not a state versus terrorist face off, but two realities which must be accorded each their due and equal weight. Regards. Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I have kept my distance from most I-P articles because I lack the degree of persistence required to weather some of these attritional POV-heavy editorial wars. I'm really amazed at the lengths to which some editors will go. Of course without equal and POV-neutral counter-pressure, the entire project would gradually become a farce. I think it takes real mettle to provide this counter-pressure. Although they are surely well-intentioned, I think many administrators often improperly assign degrees of fault and error in these sprawling affairs due to impatience and their inability or unwillingness to address the substantive issues, however from what I've read I do believe your edits and the reasons that underlie them are, much more often than not, fundamentally sound. For sticking to the game instead of throwing up your hands and for your cogent and witty (albeit occasionally discursive) reasoning, I wanted you to know that your efforts are appreciated even by those that do not participate in the same arenas. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fell beast - Nazgûl

I have now moved the article "fell beast" to a section called "steeds" on the Nazgûl page. You can see it here. You could do a little tinkering with it :) Darth Newdar (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll take a look. I would've done it myself but I've very short of time currently... -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Harvest Moon

Yeh i watch the page, so yeh keep posting there and ill get back to you. Salavat (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: list of rhythm games

Yeah, I'd be interested in the list. Thanks, bridies (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. You got it. -Thibbs (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming situation

I can't really confirm if the title is "BS F-Zero 2 Grand Prix" or "BS F-Zero Grand Prix 2" for F-Zero#Sequels. I saw the list you recently made, but I'm not too sure if I can really use any of those sources (WP:SPS). IGN says the former, but some Japanese sources have the latter. :/ « ₣M₣ » 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are the best sources available for the material that exist online and they are widely considered reputable by fan groups online. Unfortunately very little information on the topic of Satellaview games exists anywhere on the web. I think that these sources should remain in place unless there is a better alternative available. The only other option would be to remove most of the information entirely. I do not believe this is a very good solution.
As far as the actual title of the game is concerned the only thing I'm completely sure about is that the official title is not in English. If we're interested in accuracy, the material we have here at wiki should probably be changed to reflect that. If we do a Quick Google search on the Japanese name, we find that (ＢＳ　Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯグランプリ２) yields 268 hits and (ＢＳ　Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯ２ グランプリ) yields 1 hit (and this hit comes from the same source I cited and furthermore is likely a typo). Even with the English name, "BS F-Zero Grand Prix 2" yields 1130 hits, while "BS F-Zero 2 Grand Prix" yields only 513.
G-hits are, of course, merely corroborative evidence, however there is little in the way of hard evidence either way considering the lack of information about any of this material. This link purports to be a faithful transcription of the "News Wall," an element of the BS-X BIOS that would be be updated by St.GIGA daily to give players in-game news. According to this source, the term used by St.GIGA was "ＢＳ　Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯグランプリ２." By using the Internet Archive tool online, I've been able to find historically current schedules created by fans of the service. Unfortunately, to date I've found only a single schedule from the correct period that lists this game (here is that source) it refers to the game by the name "ＢＳ　Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯグランプリ２" as well. I think this is a difficult issue for Wikipedia since I believe that old unofficial or quasi-official sources are bound to be more accurate (especially if they all agree with each other) than modern sources that are published in a different language than the games themselves. I think this is one of those times when we should be following WP:UCS to trump WP:SPS, but ultimately if it was a matter of administrative determination I'm sure the admin would go with IGN since from what I've seen administrators are extremely reluctant to UCS and only do so if they can't get by any other way. I'll keep my eyes open for more reliable sourcing on the issue. I'm currently doing a lot of research in the area. If you wish to make any changes to the list of Satellaview titles as they appear currently, please feel free. That list is by no means in its final form. I have a lot more information to add and change before I feel like it's even close to a respectable article... Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it also helps you any, the "ＢＳ　Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯグランプリ２" videos I have both read out the name as "BS Ｆ−ＺＥＲＯグランプリ２" in the game header data and pronounce it "BS F-ZERO GURANPREE 2", which would likely make "BS F-Zero Grand Prix 2" the legitimate english name.

Anyway, Thibbs, awesome job on the Satellaview stuff. You're giving me a run for my money. :P (Kiddo from Satellablog) --71.185.253.124 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that helps quite a bit. The game itself is certainly an RS. Thanks for the praise, by the way. I've seen some of your own contributions over at Mario wiki. Top notch. -Thibbs (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, really? Sweeet. ^^; Had no idea anyone even read those. :) Anyway, I'm always out looking for more info (and media!). --71.185.209.146 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thibbs&oldid=287299458"