User talk:KieferSkunk/Archive 9

Atari Book

Not sure if you saw it - ataribook.com

• Cool! I'll check it out. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Genesis FAQ

I disagree that the flaws in the FAQ are minor, as I pointed out on the talk page, the FAQ makes outright claims which have no verifiability, which are actually demonstrated to be false according to the sources we do have, including points that you, yourself have argued against in the name debate. I was not "egging" McDoobAU93, but attempting to explain Wikipedia policy as clearly as I could, as he appeared to be misinterpreting it by assuming the onus was on the person disputing the statements to prove they were incorrect, rather than the other way round, as well as making the claim that statements did not have to meet WP:V if they had consensus - which is not the case. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm only going to reply here once - please keep the discussion on the article talk page. I just wrote you a three-paragraph response explaining why it's YOUR responsibility to prove the FAQ incorrect, using more than just blanket statements that "it is wrong and there are things that say it's wrong". Show us actual sources. Quote from actual policies, with links. That is what WP:BURDEN means. The FAQ has been there for several years as a result of prior consensus, so the burden shifts to the person who believes the consensus decision was wrong, not on the people who formed that consensus in the first place. And it's not our job to do your homework for you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My response here is a response to your posting on my talk page. I'm addressing your concerns on the article talk page. I'm being perfectly civil to all parties and feel you're misunderstanding me and being unnecessarily hostile. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Using an administrator's comments to another user as a shield for your own arguments and behavior is not acceptable, and it falls afoul of user conduct policy. (If I need to, I'll find and link you to the exact portion of the policy that deals with that.) That in particular is why I left you a warning on your talk page. I chose WP:AGF as the basis for the warning because much of your side of the discussion up to that point had turned into apparent demonstration of assuming bad faith on the part of others, particularly those who had created the FAQ in the first place and those who were defending it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I wasn't assuming bad faith of those writing the FAQ, merely arguing that it didn't meet WP:V. You're right about using an administrator's comments as a shield - even though that wasn't my intention, and I was attempting to get the user to consider the fact he may be misinterpreting policy. However, on a side note, I'd also like to point out where another administrator has done exactly this to me recently [1], which has probably contributed to me doing it also without realising. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between having an admin point out to you that you were previously blocked, and using an admin's comments to a different user as justification for your actions. Your prior block applies to you and you only, regardless of who implemented the block. My statements to McDoob applied to him, not you, so when you then say something along the lines of "An admin [KieferSkunk] already warned you about X" in the course of a discussion, it's akin to hiding behind behind me and sticking out your tongue. Different admins may have different levels of tolerance for that sort of thing, but I want to make it clear that I don't tolerate it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I didn't intend it that way, and that's solely your interpretation of what was intended. I deliberately did not use language like "warn" in my exchange with McDoobAU93 for precisely the reason I wasn't doing what you're implying I did. As I said, my comments were made in an attempt to convince the user to consider the possibility he may be misinterpreting policy. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pointed out to you that" is equivalent to "warned" in this case. You may have had the best of intentions, but it still ruffled feathers. In any event, I think we've beaten this dead horse enough. Back to the discussion at hand. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer

I know you want no longer want to hear the MD or G words. But please do me one favour; read my slightly mad ideas in the Thoughts section. I'm hoping they will get people thinking in a different way, and finish this once and for all. - X201 (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I read through them, but unfortunately I'm not sure you're going to get much of anywhere with them either - for the same reasons that the current titles aren't getting anywhere. I appreciate the effort, but it's a lost cause, as far as I'm concerned, so I just wish to wrap up my part of it and let everyone else duke it out. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Thinking about it, both names are now a lost cause, others will fight against a compound MD/G style name and people don't seem interested in neutral names whilst the "golden prize" of being the article name is still up for grabs. There is way way to resolve this, I just haven't got a bloody clue what it is at the moment. :-) - X201 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Two depressing links for you. Article edits, Talk page edits. I know volume of edits doesn't always tell the true story, but the fact that editors can go away for 2, 3, 4, even 5 years and still be top of the editors list for an article is disappointing. When compared to the talk page contributions its even more depressing. :-(

I haven't edited the article for almost two years, I should not be in the top 4 contributors. - X201 (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kinda sad, given the context. If these people that spent so much time complaining about the article's title put even a tiny amount of their energy into working on the article itself, it would be in much better shape today. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm Karlww. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Sega_Genesis that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You came into the discussion very positively, but quickly gave up and descended into frequent bad-faith accusations and borderline personal insults (by your own admission). If you're going to get so emotionally involved that your presence is counter-productive I would suggest you'd be best off not getting involved at all, especially in light of WP:NOTPERFECT. <Karlww _{(contribs|talk)} 19:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

RetroArch and IP editor

That editor also left a strongly worded reply on my talk page that goes against the WP:AGF policy. Based on that post, it's also clear that he is a developer for the RetroArch program as well. I've made a post on his talk page explaining the COI policies at Wikipedia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've also started a discussion on the Video Game Project about Emulator notability, as there are many that have pages but are not notable enough to have them.

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Emualtor_Notability

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that message the guy left you is clearly out of line. It's been a while since I've seen that kind of hostility from someone who thinks he owns an article. Since there's already another discussion underway in the project page, it's only going to be a matter of time until he either wises up and starts playing by the rules, or gets himself blocked for incivility and COI.

My advice to you is to take a little more care before redirecting articles, though - that sort of 'instant redirect' should be reserved for articles that are clearly stubs with no significant chance to meet guidelines. While the article was basically just a list of emulator cores and such at the time, it was more than a stub, so it should probably go through a merge discussion before just being redirected. I think what you did was more the WP:BRD approach - while this editor's reaction was clearly unwarranted, it is understandable how having the carpet pulled from under you like that can ruffle some feathers. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You were wrong BTW - RetroArch

On this guy (Harizotoh9) not having a conflict of interest and being part of a rival project -

here he is sharing his intimate knowledge on the bsnes/Higan project (that has yet to have proper notability for fuck-all) as far back as March 2013 - frankly, the only persons who have such intimate knowledge on bsnes/higan are people that are hanging out on IRC freenode on either #bsnes or #higan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higan_%28emulator%29&diff=561289569&oldid=545619797

So yes - this was a politically instigated stunt after all. And you fell for it as did others. Good job - it seems I apologized over nothing and should have stuck to my guns.

BTW - when will you be holding them to the same 'standards' as us - I wonder? An Ars Technica article written by byuu (the author/programmer) - about his own project? Very 'notable' and 'non-COI' indeed. What a sad pathetic joke it all is.84.26.108.111 (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh geez, dude, come OFF it, already! First off, you linked to someone else's diff, not Harizotoh's, and second, Harizotoh's edit cited a source. There's no evidence in there that he has "insider information", and further, HOW IN THE WORLD does that prove that he's trying to SABOTAGE your project?

I'm taking this as a sign that you're just here to cause trouble. I'm done assuming good faith with you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not part of the Bsnes team, or any emulation project. I just keep up with gaming and emulation news. I noticed that there was a merger tag, and decided to follow up on it since it no longer uses the name bsnes. That was my first edit. The second edit I moved a picture and a paragraph around. Nothing in here implies any kind of intimate knowledge. This guy is misreading the page history and jumping to conclusions. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain how bsnes/higan is in any way 'more notable' than RetroArch and why you haven't seen fit to 'redirect' bsnes/higan to a mere 'list' for all this time while you were participating in the creation and further improvement of that article. bSNES/Higan hasn't received much mainstream attention for years (unlike RetroArch), so I'll be amused to see you explain that one.77.166.85.169 (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that Sergecross has already replied to you about this, but we do have a merge discussion underway at Talk:Higan (emulator), and I was about to formalize it today given that there's been no significant movement on it since before the weekend.

Now, quit evading your block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Thanks for the suggestion you made about starting discussion and getting third party opinions. The comments about the edit warring, well -- I gave my own opinion on all of that at the AN/I report, but don't want you to take it personally. It's just a little much to hear over and over about 3RR and that I should have been blocked, and so on. Edit warring blocks are supposed to be preventative of course, in my case, all I needed was a gentle nudge from the admin who handled the situation and the preventative occurred. Anyway, like I said, please don't take it personally, I just felt pretty ganged up on and misunderstood. If I offended or seemed unappreciative of your advice, that wasn't my intention. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it helps any, I said it's a "hard" policy, as in, one that's strictly enforced. However, you do need to trust that admins aren't robots, and they're not out to get you. People aren't automatically blocked for reverting three times, or even four. Most of the time, a block won't actually happen until the editor in question is warned and it's obvious that they intend to keep reverting - once a warning's been given, we can assume that the editor has seen it. It's not generally good form to just block someone for 3RR without first making them aware of it. And it's all too easy to get caught up in an edit war without realizing it, and we understand that. Perhaps the original admin's admonition was a bit harsh, but the point was to make you aware of that rule for future reference.

If you've read the 3RR page, you no doubt noticed that it's not strictly "three reverts in 24 hours" - sometimes admins may block on only one or two reverts. Sometimes an editor will be blocked for doing a fourth revert after the 24-hour period has expired. Sometimes we'll let it go much further. It's not that we strictly watch the clock or the edit count on this - it's that we look for patterns of disruptive behavior. Intentional disruption is usually obvious, while unintentional disruption usually requires more of that gentle nudge you mentioned. And frequently, 3RR goes hand in hand with other forms of disruption that are dealt with separately - for example, incivility, bad faith assumptions, personal attacks, contentious editing, etc., and each of them are dealt with in their own way. Honestly, I've had to block far fewer people for 3RR than for any other policy.

I hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a number of the things you have pointed out above are great in theory but are not practiced regularly when it comes to what administrators choose to enforce and how they choose to behave and communicate with editors. Bottom line, I do appreciate you taking the time. Thanks. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, each admin is different, has different levels of tolerance and patience, and will likely interpret the policies in a slightly different way than other admins. That's why we have paths for admin actions to be reviewed - if you had gotten blocked by one admin, there's always the chance that another admin would review that block and disagree with the original admin's actions. As such, we have a system of checks and balances that ideally prevents any one admin from abusing their power.

In any event, main points have been made. Good luck. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higan (emulator)

Hey KieferSkunk/Archive 9, you have a reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higan (emulator), for when you have a moment czar · · 17:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied czar · · 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pin-Bot page moves

Hi there. No, there wasn't a discussion. As such, I moved them as being noncontroversial. As for the all caps bit, I remember that too but like you, couldn't find the relevant discussion regarding the issue. The dot commonly used in the promotional material is not on the CJK Symbols and Punctuation set and not strictly a "special character symbol" either. If you want you can have all the PinBot variations point to it (as WP:TSC recommends) and have a dab link in the pinball article. Another alternative would be having a series page instead linking to the various related pages. But as it is, the video game seems to use the space while printed material for the pinball game consistently uses either a hyphen or the dot (mainly the dot, but never a '*'). --Jtalledo (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think every place I've seen the pinball's title used in any official way (including on the machine itself), the title's been shown in all-caps (the instruction card even reads like "Do something with PIN BOT"). I can't speak to the use of the dot vs. hyphen, but the hyphen is definitely easier to type.

I do think we want all variations of "Pin Bot" to redirect to the pinball article, and the pinball article to dab to the video game (at "(video game)"). I'll take care of that. I don't see much agreement between sites on the official spelling of the NES title - I saw "Pin Bot", "Pin-Bot", "PinBot" and "Pinbot" used for the title itself, but "Pin Bot" seems to be more common than the others and seems sensible to me. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for handling the redirects. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Template merger discussion

Since you were involved in the original discussion to split the video game generation templates, I thought you'd want to be involved in the current discussion to merge them back.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I added my opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

You are fabricating this disruptive behavior for the sake of proving some point you will not make clear. There was no insult in that edit summary; there was only the similarly fabricated "insult" created by Sergecross by completely misappropriating my words, again for the sake of some point he refuses to clarify. You have no right to accuse me of any of these fabrications, and no right to threaten me based on them; the only disruption here is from Sergecross and you. This is what is physically happening; these are not guesses or opinions. If this behavior continues, I will take both of you to RfC/U. Despatche (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fabricating stuff now? If you feel it's worth going to RfC/U over, please, be my guest. But before you do, you might want to consider the possibility that when multiple editors all call you out on the same behavior, perhaps there might actually be something to that.

The way I see it, the only person to which your "You would have to be retarded" comment applied was Sergecross, since he was the one advocating for including the typos in the prose. We can't read your mind, dude. You might have thought you were making a blanket statement that applies to a general class of Wikipedia reader or editor (which, if taken at face value, is much more grossly insulting than directly calling Serge a retard), but that's not the way your comment reads on this end. You don't get to just imply that someone is retarded to prove your point. And I thought both Serge and I were very clear on this - if you're still confused about our points, please let us know how we can explain it more clearly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Technotopia

Isn't this user ban evading, since he has now admitted to be the IP who insulting people and is the IP who caused the article to need to be semi protected? He has already continued both habits on this new name.--SexyKick 15:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

He probably is, but he's already got the attention of another admin, so I don't see much point in escalating it again until he actually crosses the line. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Half Million Award

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Sega Genesis (estimated annual readership: 612,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations on this accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Half Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Sega Genesis to Good Article status.

Well done! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The Video Games Barnstar

The Video game Barnstar

---

Thank you KieferSkunk for helping to promote Sega Genesis to GA status. Please accept this sign of appreciation from me. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)