User talk:Thibbs

---

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.

---

A Barnstar for you!

		The Civility Barnstar
		For consistently being polite and agreeable even when you disagree. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This Tuesday marks the 1 month mark since I arrived at WT:CITE to dispute the removal of all offline sources from a video game article. As the discussion turned to the issue of mandatory reverification of offline sources, I have adopted an intermediate position between everything needs to be re-verified and nothing does when copying. An intermediate position means that I am receiving criticism from both sides. For what it's worth, one side seems like a rational discussion. The other side is little but acrimony and false indignation. I'm sure you can guess which side is which. Thank you for recognizing my efforts to maintain civility in the face of this. -Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Email

Sorry I didn't get back to you when you sent that email in October. I don't check that address very often—I only just now discovered that you'd sent me something. I'll try to get the page numbers in the next few days, but I have no idea whether anything will change as a result. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. We'll see what happens. Either way I appreciate it. -Thibbs (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the page numbers. The IP seems to have never read a gaming magazine well-enough to realize that page numbers are entirely optional and often are every other page. It has been a month of this petty and ridiculousness. Thibbs, sorry to have sounded rough, but I knew that the situation would not improve and decided to avoid it after seeing the editor's behavior surrounding a trivial matter. Thank you, JimmyBlackwing, you helped resolve the issue of the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not convinced that he's done raising hell, though, given the section below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thanks go to JimmyBlackwing more than to me. Luckily the IP editor didn't act on his suspicions. I can't say that the one month long discussion moved me any closer to understanding why he thought the sources were faked in the first place, but as always he is promising that if we just give him a little more time he'll come up with an excellent explanation that will satisfy us all. We'll see. -Thibbs (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is this IP editor?

WT:CITE is about citing sources; answering here.

Thibbs has asked me: "Who are you?"

According to this search site, introducing the ROJ number 865/2013 and data related to my IP, they call me Teodulfo; but that would be the wrong answer.

I am Special:Contributions/84.127.115.190. I would have defended the productive editor Lucia Black could have been, even if I was under an interaction ban, and even if that resulted in a site ban for me. She was the right editor, in the right project, at the right time. Unfortunately, she does not trust me.

The community has asked Lucia Black repeatedly: "why are you here?" Lucia Black has been giving the wrong answer, resulting in stronger bans that increased her amount of suffering. Now she is unable to edit any article. I can guide Lucia Black to edit the topics she is banned without the disruption she was causing. I convinced her to review Secrets of Rætikon, her first good article review. Has anyone in the WikiProjects asked her to follow my advice?

Maybe I have been asking the wrong question. Lucia Black has complained against consensus, unfair bans and lack of answers. She has asked for investigations. What did she do to deserve the ban by Go Phightins!? Lucia Black says that she does not have an answer. And if the community says otherwise? Thibbs states that she has the answer. Is the community wrong and Lucia Black is right? Perhaps the community is right and Lucia Black is wrong.

Has she ever considered that? @Lucia Black: have you?

I am here to build an encyclopedia and for this FA preparation. Thibbs will allow me to finish the work that has brought me to Ghost in the Shell. Now that we have the page numbers, I have one more question about the Next Generation review; then I will explain my concerns about these sources. I hope that Thibbs will help with the Edge one, given the amount of time the user has dedicated. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I have to say, next time you write a big comment, please just... read it out loud to yourself before posting. This is almost illegible. You ramble on for a while about whether Lucia Black should have listened to you (Why? Who are you that she should follow your advice?) and about if the topic ban was justified or not (Thibbs was not the admin who tbanned her- he's not an admin at all). You then demand that you be allowed to finish your work on the GitS page (what work? As far as I can see, all you do is act as a disruptive influence about sources), then mention that you have another question. As if Thibbs doesn't know that, since you pinged him on that talk page.

Please, just... for the sake of everyone who reads your comments, decide what you're talking about before you start typing. Stop harping on about Lucia Black to uninvolved editors. And stop asking for tedious verification of details within perfectly valid citations. --PresN 05:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• @84.127.115.190: Your English is very good for a non-native speaker, but you have unfortunately misunderstood my question. I did not ask who you are. I asked: "Who are you accusing of inserting falsified sources?" This is a slangy way of asking the following: Whom do you accuse of inserting falsified sources? From this edit it would appear that you are accusing Lucia Black of adding false sources. It is for this reason that I am not at all surprised that she does not trust you. I don't understand why you continue to harass her, though. Please don't use my talk page as a place to continue bothering Lucia Black. The sources have now been re-verified by JimmyBlackwing and there is no other reason for you to contact Lucia Black about them. I agree with PresN in the above post. If there is an actual reason to suspect that there is a problem with a source then you can explain it and ask for independent re-verification but it is extremely disruptive to demand reverification for all offline sources when you have zero evidence that they are problematic. And I'm afraid you will have to give up the "I will explain my concerns later, but first you must..." line of demands altogether. Evidence held secret for a later date is just as good as no evidence. Regarding the Edge source, you'll remember that I already reverified it for you in October. What more help do you need now? -Thibbs (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Our discussions reflect why I am concerned, but I believe that this is as far as we can advance.

My previous post was simply a gift for Thibbs. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Our previous discussions reflect that you were concerned. They do not reflect why you were concerned. Your concerns that the sources were faked would seem to have been baseless. If there was a basis for your concerns then it was your responsibility to present it so that the community could consider the possible harm the sources were causing. Unless you can present any evidence for your accusations, I will agree that this is as far as you can advance. -Thibbs (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your patience exceeds the bounds of reason at times... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I just don't like seeing offline sources removed without good reason. Offline sources are much harder to scrounge up than online ones and they are often the only way to provide period coverage of a work. The systemic bias in favor of sources from the 1990s onward is very strong and I am strongly opposed to those who reduce POV and make this recentism worse by deleting all sources that they are personally unable to reverify. The hubris of one who would destroy another's work due to a personal inability to match the other's researching capabilities disturbs me and prompts me to get involved when I see this sort of thing. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand completely, but was getting irritated by the editor because of the given situation. We already had the scans and that magazine does not paginate each page, the museum even has a copy of one. The issue comes from this attitude that the situation is not "Resolved" in the eyes of 84 and that it will be an issue for a later date. Being unable to admit error and instead raising the stakes is inexcusable. Offline sources comprise the bulk of all accessible sources for many topics and the are essential, thankfully digitization is advancing in most areas. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki class

PS - This is something I'm interested in doing as well. I recently picked up accountcreator rights specifically for that reason. Can I ask what level you're teaching (High school/college/grad) ? And is this your first time doing it? I may need to come back for advice when I get my act together and launch something of my own.

It's a high school seminar, meets three times a week during the school day. Here's my decrepit course page. I've been an ambassador on previous courses, but this is my first time teaching. Personally, I'm more interested in how K–12 can use/teach Wikipedia literacy than in coaching college instructors to make half-baked article-writing part of their syllabus (and, accordingly, making at least several hapless, unassuming WP editors into their TAs to clean up the mess). Happy to discuss further if you'd like czar ⨹ 09:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Very cool, Czar. I see your point about the K-12 angle too. If we can win over the minds of the future then there is no need to justify our efforts to the current academic cohort. I have family in academia and it is very interesting for me to watch them slowly come around to the idea that Wikipedia can actually really help learning and (more importantly) develop a knowledge base for the future. I've been trying (rather unsuccessfully to tell the truth) to push the idea that institutional efforts to link Wikipedia articles to unique collections and assemblages of information (archives, museums, library special collections, etc.) can be a win-win situation with these institutions effectively advertising their collections by putting their material to practical use on a platform that is highly visible. I would be interested in discussing your efforts further at some point in the future, though I'm going through a busy spell in real life at present. -Thibbs (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy to talk whenever—just let me know czar ⨹ 04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll ping you or write to your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate matter from the Magazine source issue

I think I need your interpretation of a certain source because another editor has become very confused and adamant in a misinterpretation of policy. He claims Kanzenshuu is an illicit website that cannot be linked to because of copyright violations. It is a Dragon Ball fansite that is the merger of two very well-known sites that were a cornerstone of a vast fanbase for over a decade. The key figure is Mike LaBrie, a content contributor and reviewer to Mania.com, Anime News Network, and numerous other websites. LaBrie has operated a Dragon Ball website since January 1998. Frankly, the site takes pains to be as non-infringing and as informative as possible to its users. The core dispute was whether this page is so egregious a violation that we cannot link to it as a source or that the site is so filled with violations that the entirety must be avoided. One of the site's featured articles is actually and explain of Kenji Yamamoto's plagiarism of music and removal from Toei Animation.[1] The key part is that despite having an article like this, it actually sends the reader to the Amazon page to listen to the snippet. The site actually defers to Toei and everything seems to be fair use with a generous heaping of caution and limited use while reviewing and being informative. This is exactly the opposite of that Velikij Drakon pdf copy from the previous case. Though I think the person is just misinformed, after all he doesn't understand copyright, fair use and thinks WP:V is against linking to the entire domain because it is "the source" and is an illegal site. Also - WP:COPYLINK's "An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." is a terrible example given that they are licensed and advertised by said studios now. Can we not get a reference to say anything better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't linked the dispute so I'm not sure how helpful my answer will be. Basically I see room for argument over reliability (e.g. As a fansite we should avoid giving it non-citation ELs per this; to use a self-published source as a reference we must establish that the author is an expert in the relevant field; etc.). But I don't see the page you linked as an egregious example of copyright violation. I haven't looked over the audio portions, but the images all seem to be designed to meet Fair Use (small low-quality copies used in the context of commentary and that don't impact resale), and the text seems to be purely commentary and summary of the works which would almost certainly meet Fair Use. I guess the key line from WP:COPYLINK is "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". I have searched the site a little and I don't see examples of "carrying a work". This is in contrast to scanned PDF copies of full works that are hosted by a fansite, which would be prototypical copyright violation. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the lyrics example, I think that's kind of a narrow and extreme example really. Most copyrights cannot be violated in only a few lines of text, but if a website were presenting a copy of a small work like a set of song lyrics that were properly copyrighted then a link to the website would indeed be a link to site "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" so it could potentially be removed for that reason. Key in the case of lyrics is whether or not they are covered by copyright and whether licenses (CC, GNU-FDL, etc.) exist that would allow the works to be copied without explicit permission from the author. If a free license is granted to a hosting website then it would not be "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication for the dispute. Sorry, I forgot it. The fansite matter is normally a good argument, save that Mike LaBrie is a reliable source and has been a contributor to several other reliable source websites. I see references and details from other authors that refer to his work in other books. Though in going with verification matters and weighing the details, this may be a fansite, but when we are not discussing pure opinions. The website provides evidence and explains tops, like cover date vs sale date issue, knowing that readers want verification. I tend to harp on the New York Times for their errors, but you know how even Rolling Stone made a pretty big error as of late despite normally being a "reliable source". Anyone who has been an editor in conflicted areas knows the importance of fact-checking and verification, but cases like the Rolling Stone matter, where they are not given, WP:RS is critical to "take their word at face value". Afterall, if you can go and verify the claims in a lesser site with some difficulty, you could just cite the original documents instead. Though that's a bit crass and disingenuous when such a well-written analysis exists by a noted author. Though the sites is at the RSN noticeboard now as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Knowing little about DBZ myself, I'll take your word for it on LaBrie's reliability. I'll look at the talk page discussion later tonight, but I'm just heading out the door now. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah thanks, and do a little digging into the matter and you'll see the site actually operates under the whims of the publishers and is quite conservative. "In house" matters aside, this page shows that yes issues can arise and they do respond to all parties interests and comply accordingly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK I just went through the discussion and here are my thoughts:
1 - Since I have no idea about the reliability issue, I'll have to see what develops at RSN (not that Lord Sjones23 has brought it there) to see whether the source meets the guidelines. From my own quick search, I can see some evidence that he has acted (probably as a voice-actor) for some DB anime, and he may possibly be cited by one book at Google Books (no preview available to check, though). But I didn't find anything in Google Scholar or any of the WP:VG reliable sources.
2 - The copyright issue is separate, but I lean toward the interpretation you give where it is not permissible to link to illegally hosted copies, but linking to other parts may be acceptable. Frankly I think that in practice there is plenty of use of websites that host infringing material. The primary example would be YouTube which is frequently used to host copyvio material, but which is also the official video platform for some of our RSes.
2.1 - I may have missed it but I don't see where the hosting of copyrighted works is taking place. The link offered in the first post in that thread does not seem to violate any copyrights. You suggested that there was a possible infringement of translation rights, but I don't see where this is and if we're right on point 2 above then it doesnt' really matter anyway. 3 - Twitter would be another example of a platform like YouTube that can host infringing content or can host RSes. So the original poster's suggestion of that source is fine.
I hope that helps a little. -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it. I think LaBrie was used as a voice actor for a voice cameo of sorts in two fan spoof. Nothing like a proper credit. Though he does run the site, I've found (and linked you one case) where the matter of copyright is discussed. The site is in the good graces and complies with the wishes of Toei and others, I do not see any scanlations or other problems. I do not see infringement of translation rights and they remain fan-translations of some Japanese interviews, it is not scans or even copying the original text. It is not like we can link or use them, but apparently they are proof of some malfeasance that says the entire website cannot even be linked to. And yes, official Youtube channels are legitimate, but you'd be surprised how many people do not think and simply remove official links as "copyright violations". Reminds me of people who do not know why IMDb links (purely external links, not references) remain on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why i can't come back to editing

(Continued from User talk:Thibbs/Archive 7#Please avoid my talkpage -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC))
the reason why i continued to discuss this is because it honestly takes one more unbias person to see things for what it really is and to really turn thing around. My entire topic ban is based on a very obscure consensus in which under normal circumstances would "never" occur to deem action. For example: I've literally seen more problematic editors that actually get in the way of the consensus building process for articles have 0 action taken towards them. And this was with the majority of 80% of the community agreeing to take action. The ones who supported it are pushing it down on me as its a learning process. You have to understand the circumstances for what they really are...this isn't a "one time deal, just bite the bullet and you'll get over it" sort of situation, so i would like you to stop painting it as such, because you know better than to feed me false hope. This is something that will continue to be used by the exact same people and use it in a very superficial manner overtime. I mean look back at the previous AN and ANI, its all based on their personal opinion or feelings toward me. And all that's defended is that "they have the right to feel the ay they do" and i'm going to say this: i have just as much right and reason as they do for how i'm being treated in WP:AN and ANI. its not based on objective, concrete, actionable vandalism.

You haven't defended the editor's behavior, just their view and why they see me. REGARDLESS, i'm requesting you to look at the behavior in WP:AN on these editors, how much things have been instigated, and most importantly. "what are they trying to accomplish" by all this. Because in the latest situation, a lot of editors are having questions....and overtime, i have gained more and more supporters who feel strongly about it just as much as i do. It is literally to the point that a 50-50 vote means "support" an indefinite topic ban, but a 50-50 "appeal" is no consensus. So can you understand.

I can't come back under these circumstances because we both know there's more to this than appealing a topic ban...now unless i have the option to put my entire editing history on the line to prove that there has been strong instigation, and disputes of irrational editors throughout my entire WP:AN history, i cannot come back to a place where i know my enemies control my editing, and my supporters can only watch in the background, and none of the neutral editors can make a strong vote because of how heated the situation is.

You have never been in this situation, and i know you're empathizing halfheartedly, because you admitted i deserve this and so far refuse to recognize what other editors have done to cause this situation as well. You're also only giving "temporary" and "superficial" resolutions. I'm going to say, if my vote meant i don't wish for this type of topic ban to "ANYONE" here in Wikipedia, not even the person who i have the worst opinion on in Wikipedia. It's a indefinite ban from Wikipedia under the guise of a topic ban for those who have concentrated most of their editing in a specific topic and have worked hard to getting recognized in the topic. the ones who enforced it don't understand what it means to lose a topic you prided yourself in and having to move away because a community just wanted to make them "learn a lesson".

The only ones i probably wish such a topic ban are those who also concentrate in specific areas and don't understand what it means to lose it and yet liberally vote it. What i'm most concerned about is my reputation....and i want it to be clean appropriately....i'm not going to come back just so editors can feel they have power over me in WP:AN while i hold my tongue with my head down editing in areas i could care less about and gain favor on my enemies who could care less where i edit. You can't possibly understand how much proof i have, and not a single editor wants to even try to look into what i'm saying. Can you understand that? Lucia Black (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes off as callous, but I don't have time to analyze your edit history more than skimming through it. And that's true for every other uninvolved editor who commented on your behavior in the many many ANs and ANIs you participated in. Skimming your history at AN/ANI leaves uninvolved editors with the impression that you are very argumentative and that this lengthy arguing is disruptive because it stands in the way of you and others building the encyclopedia. You surely aren't the only guilty party, but from skimming your history it looks like you are far from blameless. Skimming your edits is not a decisive way to learn the full story. It just leaves an impression. That's why it is incumbent upon you to provide strong evidence to support your side of the story in an AN/ANI discussion. You have tried appealing to AN/ANI several times now and you have been unsuccessful. Maybe you didn't present as strong a case as the facts merit. Maybe the facts simply aren't there. It doesn't matter why the appeals failed. You need to move on. As I see it you have very few options:

1. Edit collaboratively in other areas for a while and then appeal using these good collaborative edits are evidence of reformed behavior
2. Leave for a while and then decide whether you want to stay away, or come back via option 1 or under the claim that you've been gone for so long that in the meantime you have reformed your behavior and an admin should trust you. The standard amount of time to wait is 6 months.
3. Appeal immediately without proving yourself elsewhere under the theory that the ban was a mistake and provide evidence that you were provoked by a cabal of editors who were collaborating against you for nefarious reasons, and that your natural tendencies are to listen to other editors and to either compromise with them or to accept that you are wrong in some discussions, and that you are naturally non-argumentative but that a specific set of bad actors has tainted your image by making you look like an unreasonable editor who prefers to fight with others until she gets her way instead of either collaborating or just walking away.
4. Go to the talk page of every editor who didn't !vote in your favor and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue until they give up and just tell you what you want to hear. Then appeal.

I have numbered these options in order of what in my view is their decreasing likelihood of success. The fact is that option 1 and 2 are quite similar. The only difference is what you do with yourself in the next 6 months. You can edit productively (option 1) or you can sulk (option 2). Option 1 gives you better evidence but if you are unable to handle it then go with option 2. The fact is that you have tried option 3 several times and it has been unsuccessful. It is my opinion that the more times you try option 3 the less likely it is to work for you. I worry that pursuing option 3 is likely to lead to a full ban. Option 4 is simply a waste of time for both you and the non-admin you are arguing with. These is just my opinions. You can carry on with any of these options if you like. I'm sorry I don't have time to devote myself to your cause. For this reason I'd urge you not to pursue option 4. Good luck sorting through the options. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted Option 1 several times. if i'm responding to you now, it is only because option 1 is consistently failing for me. I wouldn't be responding to you if i found a topic that i an interest in and have been able to expand. As for option 2, I don't trust the community to ever believe in me "ever" especially if its the same involved editors who instigate and control my editing. which leads to me to, option 3. I don't like option 3 at all, but only because you believe that's what i'm doing. Its not....option 3 (if you believe is the option referring to what i'm doing) is looking at my current history...and if you can't look into my most recent editing within the community and only look in AN and ANI (which i still argue is concentrating no).

But at this point i'm realizing, i'm not going to come back. I'll tell you why: You want what the same things of a typical, non-involved editor who knows very little about the situation. You're providing very typical options with some that will prove nothing in the long-run. First of all, no matter how you try to twist it, its a ban based on punishment, its not designed for helping an editor reform, its not even helping editors focus on their editing because the issue isn't article related. If i come back, will i say "oh thank you for the ban, i truly needed it. It showed me the way"? I wont, because its not aiming for the root cause. The purpose is designed to shut me up/punish me. Its not solving what the "true" problem is. Everything that has happened is based on "their" decisions just as much as my decisions. So if things get heated and escalated, the oppurtunity to deflate was just as much in their hands as it was mine. Second, even if i do get my preferred topic back, it changes absolutely NOTHING...

No one is going to put things on pause and really look deeper into the situation. You just said you wont, yet you made your vote and felt it was "necessary" anyways. So how do i expect anyone to go and put pause again and relook into it. No one wants to say "the community got it wrong" because most people in WP:AN and ANI believe that they individually represent the community. So it makes it even harder. The longer it gets ignored, the more it builds up. The more people wont have time to look into it. But from a quick skim apparently, you saw enough that its not 100% me.

So here's my final statement: If i'm ever going to reform, i want the community to understand what the "reform" is really needed for. Am i toxic to the entire community, or is this really something only benefiting a specific group of editors? Objectively, this doesn't benefit WP:ANIME community as they voiced their opinion strongly towards it. Even some neutral editors believed so aswell. This doesn't objectively benefit the editors who supported bans as i hardly make any interaction with them outside WP:AN and ANI. If their tired of interacting with me, that's a choice they've made, no one is forcing them to cast a vote.

But i give up, no one is ever going to look into it as deeply. No one is going to see my history for what it really is....and those who do, won't make a stand for it. Its a corrupt system, i want no part of it. So at this moment, i'm seeing the articles i worked hard on slowly rot away with dead links, and to that i say "was it worth it?" To me, its not, so i'm not coming back.

You want proof of my good editing? Its been in front of you the whole time...you just had to have had interest in the first place. I proved in my last an that it actually benefited me, and my editing has been immensely productive enough for WP:ANIME to notice. That should've shown been enough this time, but unfortunately it wasn't. so i have no hope at all for the next time i have to go back. I'm cutting my losses. I'm not valued here at all. Lucia Black (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A few responses:

• Punishment vs Reform - I can agree to the extent that no editing restriction can have rehabilitative effects if the restricted party is so insulted that she gives up editing forever.
• My voting record - I have interacted with you personally, Lucia, and I know first hand that you can be disruptive. Having good qualities doesn't excuse the negative ones. Nobody has time to mico-analyze your every edit. A vote against an editor is always based on a general impression of the editor. It has always been up to the accused party (i.e. the editor who is most familiar with her own edits) to present her own side of the story.
  But let's be very clear about my voting record since you brought it up. Because I interacted with you personally I considered myself "involved" and I left one "Comment/Question" at one of your ANIs and one "Comment" at another ANI. I never voted against you, but I did make comments designed to determine if you could acknowledge your disruptiveness and make commitments to stopping it. You never answered my question or responded to my comments. Are you really surprised I didn't "vote" in your favor?
• Proof of your good editing - Again, I know you can make good edits. Anybody who looks over your edit history can see that. But it's very important to realize that making good content edits does not give you license to break the behavioral rules. Many many editors get caught up in this trap. They get a few FAs/GAs/Barnstars, a few thousand edits, and a few years under their belt, and then they begin to consider themselves immune from policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. I don't know any of the parties personally, but there was just recently an ArbCom decision handed down regarding a very productive long-term editor who has a reputation for both remarkable content contribution and remarkable incivility. He's been topic banned just like you, Lucia.

I am sorry to hear your decision to leave forever, but I understand your perspective. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rework your first point: No editing restriction can have any rehabilitative effects if it doesn't make sense. The rehabilitation doesn't fit the crime especially when one takes into considering where it happens most and who's involved. my editing restriction has nothing to do with rehabilitation, i can make many good edits anywhere. its purely punitive and editors within ANI have never denied it and some even admitted this in so little words. Its more than feeling insulted...its that no matter what i do, all anyone can do is bring up history, more than what the situation really is.

the second point doesn't matter. you still chose a distinct side, regardless of "labeling" the side you were in. its kind of like saying "i'm not in a political party, but i agree completely with republicans because of one first-hand experience with one democrat". And it builds the voting process. That is exactly what other editors have done. When it leans toward another editors "impression", certain editors have full control of that. And thats how flawed the system is. Aren't editors smart enough to know that

for the third point, is what hurts me the most about this. this is the very point that i feel with certain editors in AN/ANI who instigate situation, ignore me, and insult me. Everyone gets excused and i'm painted a hundred times worst than the actually "negative" are (and if anyone took the time to even give it a real look, there's a distinct pattern with other disruptive editors)...i don't feel invincible at all. For so long, i felt like an easy target. Its easy to make me look like such a bad editor. Have you seen some of the comments in my talkpage? Here's one thing to consider: specific editors are always involved.

For the most part, don't claim you understand. There's a large portion of what i'm saying you don't agree with it, or reject and have no interest in looking in further. Can you understand why i feel certain editors are always hunting for my head regardless of what the situation is? Can you understand why i get to be insulted in both ANI and my own talkpage? Can you understand why i feel that the editors i have issues with will always be the invincible ones and in control of my editing? How about this important question: if you feel i'm so disruptive, ever figured out where the root cause of it is? If you truly understood...you would actually want me to stay, and look into it. Or at the very least, find the most appropriate rehabilitation that everyone can agree with and propose it.

This current topic ban doesn't serve anything...rehabilitation? no one believes that. Lucia Black (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Commment

• Greetings, thank you for your assistance. Nemexia (game) was my first wiki article and I don't know how to provide correct references. So can I edit the page now when it is under discussion and just add all the links I have in the reference footer? Cheers. Colonel.daniel (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colonel.daniel, the first thing that you should keep in mind for article creation is that 99% of the time it must be "notable". This means that should meet the requirements at WP:GNG which can be summarized as follows:

• The topic of the article must be covered

• in depth
• by multiple
• reliable sources
• that are independent of the topic.

Each of these elements is important.

You might have found a reliable source in the form of a press release from the company itself and that can be included in the article, but it's not independent of the topic and so it can't be used to show that the topic is notable. Since all topics are notable to their creators, only independently published third party sources can be used to demonstrate that the topic is notable to the world (and thus suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia).

You may have found a reliable third part source (like a respected news outlet) but if it only mentions the game in passing, then it can't be used to establish notability. In-depth reporting is needed to show notability and to provide the referenced substance of the Wikipedia article.

You may have found a reliable third-party source that covers the game in significant depth, but you need to find multiple sources that do so to show that it's not just a flash in the pan for one other person beside the developer. How many sources is "multiple"? There's no fixed number, so I suppose the minimum is two. But obviously the more you can provide the better the proof that the game is notable. Just having two sources is toeing the line quite close and articles with that level of coverage frequently get deleted anyway.

So finally we come to the threshold question of what is a "reliable source". In general it means a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A source can be an author or a publishing group with an editor. Each source must be evaluated on its own and there are no free passes for "everything published by X", but in the interest of helping editors to locate reliable sources for video games, a number of editors have come up with WP:VG/RS as a rule-of-thumb guide to sources that are generally considered reliable. Within this guideline you will find a set of Custom Google Search tools that can be used to even further simplify the location of likely reliable sources. This is how NinjaRobotPirate and I located the various reliable sources we mentioned at the AfD.

If we were starting from scratch the next step would be to read through the reliable sources and add details to the article that were covered by the sources. Assuming that WP:GNG is satisfied (by multiple, independent, in-depth, reliable sources) we could even use self-published sources to expand the article (with special caution as outlined at WP:SPS). But since we are starting from the point where we have an existing article that needs sources, we will have to read through the reliable sources and add citations to the article wherever the sources back up the claims in the article. If the claims cannot be backed up then they should be removed. If the claim is really rather essential and you believe it may be referenceable in the future, it should be moved to the article talk page temporarily, but otherwise all unreferenceable material should be culled.

Finally, for video game articles there is a general guideline at WP:VG/GL that determines how to present the information in the article. Specifically, there are a few elements of these articles that are considered essential. These can be found here.

This is kind of a wall-of-text, I know. And it's a summary to boot. There are a lot of rules and it can seem intimidating, but the basic mechanics of what you have to do are pretty simple so I'll write to your talk page to give you a very specific break-down of exactly what actions you have to take to properly source your article. You can refer to this longer explanation for further help as needed, and feel free to ask me (or any of the helpful editors at Wikipedia's video game project) any additional questions as they arise. Good luck, thanks for your contributions, and welcome to Wikipedia! -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP: VG Newsletter

Hello, Thibbs. You have new messages at MrKIA11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.