User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1, 2, 3


I removed the material as it did not pass WP:VERIFY because the page cited is inaccessible. Can you access it? The other ref was just a quote from what I saw. I have seen others do similar things before. I have no intention of being disruptive or anything similar to that. So if you can verify it, then I am fine with your revert. AcidSnow (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course; I have the book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Your edit summary made it seem like you thought I was only being disruptive. AcidSnow (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
You were, even if you were acting in mistaken good faith. Why would you assume editors are lying about what a book says? There is no Wikipedia policy requiring all print sources to be visible on Google Books.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I never did and nor was disruption my desire. It seems pretty odd to claim that considering that all I did was state that it was unverifiable. So it seems to be you that fails to grasp WP:GOODFAITH. Anyways, It's true that Wikipedia poses no policy regarding Google Books. However, it does have one regarding verifying content. According to the policy, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". As anyone can see, my revert was just and so was yours since you state that you "have the book". That's being said, if you want to delete this conversation like the rest of the ones here, then feel free to do so since this is your talk page. In the end, you can believe what you want but it changes nothing. AcidSnow (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I added the material in the first place; check the edit history. Your assumption that editors might be lying about the contents of the book is the failure to assume good faith. The material is verifiable if you purchase a copy or find one in a library.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
*sigh*, you must be joking at this point. If you read the policy you know that wither it's true or not doesn't matter, only if it's verifiable. So it doesn't matter wither I assumed anything. In fact, I never did. If I did, then can you please provided diffs or anything backing your claims? If not I will ask you drop them as it's getting quite annoying at this point. All you are doing is violating PERSONALATTACK and WP:GOODFAITH. AcidSnow (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Think so? Take this conversation to WP:ANI. I'm just trying to teach you how Wikipedia works, although you are too obstinate to listen. (In fairness, there may also be a language gap, as it seems English may not be your native tongue).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't seem fair for you since for all I know this could be an isolated incident. "too obstinate to listen", making more attacks does not help your case. Why don't you just provide diffs for your accusations against me? You seem pretty confident that your right considering that you claim your teaching me "how Wikipedia works". Though, it seems that you have opted out of it. As such, I will ask you once again to drop it. AcidSnow (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The only relevant diff is this one, in which you delete a print source not accessible via Google Books, citing WP:VERIFY. Your edit summary had nothing to do with the motivation for your deletion, which was transparently political. I would like to assume this was an isolated incident on your part, but would be more easily convinced if you had admitted error, rather than posting these lengthy rants.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mega Drive/Genesis[edit]

Why have you reverted my edit? It's grammatically and factually correct, I haven't changed the meaning of the sentence, nor have I changed the original sentence structure: the Mega Drive was released in Japan in 1988, later known as the Genesis in North America. You can rewrite an equally factually correct sentence from the North American perspective: "the Genesis was released in North America in 1989 (released in Japan in 1988 and Europe in 1990 as the Mega Drive)" if you really wish... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: I've written on the wrong user page by mistake – please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog 3[edit]

The wording "these claims are dubious" implies that Roger Hector may be a liar or a fantasist. Whereas the cited source concludes:

Sega-16 has absolutely no reason to doubt Roger Hector’s word, as he has contributed to several articles for the site, and his information has always been spot-on. Both he and Kalinske put Jackson at Sega during this period, talking with game designers, which heavily suggests that something was being done [with Jackson], at least informally. Most likely, Hector was going to pitch the idea to his superiors once a complete score had been done and enough of the game was ready to be shown.

Smyth\talk 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can selectively quote a source:
  • "One has to wonder why Roger Hector would remain silent about such star power being added to such a major release’s development. He didn't tell Latham, who was heading game testing at the time and had been present at the meetings about the game. He didn't tell Pam Kelly, who was in charge of the game's marketing or Bill White, Sega's VP of marketing at the time, and he didn't tell Tom Kalinske, president of the company's American branch. Who then, did he tell? Surely someone at the company, outside of STI, was aware that Michael Jackson, perhaps the most popular entertainer in the world at the time, was working on Sega's flagship franchise. How does one keep such a thing a secret?... Can you imagine Sega "firing" Michael Jackson? Moreover, can you imagine someone as popular as Jackson working with the leader in 16-bit hardware of the time, and not a smidgen of advertising emerging from such a tandem?... If it's true, then Jackson went on and took music he originally scored for a Sonic game and reworked them for future albums, where they eventually became "Stranger in Moscow" and "Blood on the Dance Floor." He basically got fired from Sega, but he used music that was for its game for himself? Jackson was more creative than that...We have a senior producer, SOA's marketing director, and its president all mentioning that nothing was ever written up between the company and MJ. This doesn't mean he never worked on anything; it just means that it was never put into contract. From a legal standpoint, this means that the possibility of Jackson's compositions making their way into Sonic 3 in any form are quite slim, and in turn it supports the whole "inspiration" theory... There's no denying that there's something there, something certain people perhaps either cannot or do not want to comment on, but the fact that even Tom Kalinske himself has no knowledge of contract being signed is pretty hard evidence of nothing solid ever coming out of such collaboration."
Thus, Wikipedia's "Various interviews have made it clear that any involvement Jackson may have been done without the knowledge of Sega's executives or marketing staff, and no contracts or formal agreements had ever been made." There's no reason to water down "executives or marketing staff" with a "may have" or remove the bit about "no contracts or formal agreements", and claiming the latter is not in the source is manifestly untrue.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that no formal agreements were made, and you can see that it wasn't me who introduced that grammatically-incorrect "may have". My only point is that the article, as it stands, casts doubt on Roger Hector's honesty, which is something the source explicitly does not do. – Smyth\talk 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attacks[edit]

Seeing as you did not reply to me at the Jumping Flash FAC it looks like I'm going to have to talk to you here. Jumping Flash! is an article I care about deeply, and I myself have worked hard at bringing the article to GA and FA since April. Insulting me, my work, and the article by saying "this article is a sloppy mess that should not have been promoted to GA" and then using the FAC by judging me saying that it "says it all about his seriousness as an editor" is completely out of order. I said I appreciate you taking the time to check the article and I thanked you for your comments, but whenever I review an article (I've reviewed nearly 100) and when it does not meet the GA criteria, I politely tell the nominator the problems of the article and saying that it doesn't meet the criteria at this time instead of needlessly attacking the editor and using the review as an excuse to judge their capability as an editor. After two years of abuse on this website, I've had enough. I'm giving you a choice now, either you apologise to me or I'll move this forward. Jaguar 13:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, forgive me, but may I butt in? Jaguar, another editor expressing an honest view on an article that you have worked on is not a 'personal attack'. You need to honestly ask yourself, Is the criticism valid? Is this an opportunity for me to swallow my pride and grow as an editor? Might I also be so bold as to suggest that, if you cannot even take someone questioning your "seriousness" as a Wikipedia editor, you need to develop a thicker skin. Criticism, even the constructive variety, is not a pleasant way to learn, but it is unfortunately one of the best.
Anyway, all my best wishes. Cheers! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I have a very thick skin after dealing with people like this, but under no grounds can any review be used to judge anyone's capability as an editor. Working with people like this makes Wikipedia a very unpleasant place. Anyway I'm dropping this for now, I'm not going to let somebody on the internet ruin my Christmas. Jaguar 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NiGHTs into Dreams Spring Valley.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:NiGHTs into Dreams Spring Valley.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)