I am working on improving Zelda II: The Adventure of Link to Featured Article status and noticed that you have made substantial contributions to the article. If you have time, I would be delighted if you could help with this endeavor. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am improving The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass to Featured Article status and noticed that you made substantial changes to the article recently. If you have time, I would be delighted if you could help out with this project. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ReyBrujo - I saw your comment over on Biographicon (here: http://www.biographicon.com/discussion/a17v2 ) about the GNU Free Documentation License and Wikipedia bios and replied, but I thought I should reply here as well. The GNU Free Documentation License is referred to in the Archive (history) page of every biography that came from Wikipedia. For example: http://www.biographicon.com/history/i599n/Deng_Xiaoping But it sounds like it was too hard to find given a reasonable effort, so we probably need to do something different. Please let me know what you think. I'd like to talk about this. Thanks! -Ethan Herdrick 71.198.202.86 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you are right, I missed that! Thanks for the clarification, and for dropping by here. I suggest a "License" link at the bottom, including the information in the Terms of Service section, or in the About section (which are the ones where people usually check first and foremost). Good luck! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [1] -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you recently removed a citation I had used in List of best-selling video games to back up a combined US and Eur sales figure. The reason you gave was that "VGChartz is not a reliable source." I am not necessarily disputing this, but I have just gone over WP:V and I cannot seem to find which criterion VGChartz fails under. Looking at this company's potentially biased self-reporting (eg. here, here, or here) it appears to be reliable enough to me. Could you perhaps point me to the appropriate section where your criteria for reliability are explained? Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I hope you don't mind me "hijacking" this portion of your talk. I probably should have created a new section, but this one was already so appropriately titled... Thibbs (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC) shifted to this new section Thibbs (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [2] -- ~~
- I suppose I have phrased myself poorly. I am interested in why VGChartz fails WP:V for reliability. Does it? Essentially I'm asking if this is wikipedia policy you are applying or WikiProject Video Games policy. I can understand your edit if you are applying WPVG policy but as far as I can see WPVG does not have a monopoly on editorial policy within any part of wikipedia's boundaries. Perhaps I am wrong. Anyway don't get me wrong. I approve wholeheartedly of WPVG and if this is WPVG policy I will bow to their wishes. It does strike me as startlingly arbitrary that they have decided upon the magicbox as their reliable alternative to VGChartz. As User:Kung Fu Man pointed out in the first example of VGChartz' unreliability, VGChartz does seem to have explanations for its figures whereas the magicbox is almost devoid of this kind of information. For all the average person knows they could be pulling these figures out of the magichat.
- All in all, I realize you are but one person and if I have problems with WPVG's decisions regarding reliability of VGChartz or the magicbox I should take it up with them. To clarify, though, (and I 'm not sure if you know but...) did WPVG take WP:V into account when choosing the magicbox over VGChartz to form the bulk of their citations or was this nothing more than a simple vote of preference? Thanks for being so attentive to my concerns. -Thibbs (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [3] -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I've taken so long to respond. My non-wiki work is currently on the hectic side. So I went back through months worth of archives at WPVG and now I can better understand your cursory reversion of my initial edit at List of best-selling video games. The only thing that still eludes my research (and I haven't gone through everything yet by a long stretch) is where you folks have been getting your information about the techniques VGChartz or the magicbox employ. I have scoured their websites and while I find minimal information on VGChartz, I find abolutely no information listed at the magicbox. Having merely skimmed some of the archived WPVG posts I thought I saw something about a WPVG member having written to or otherwise interviewed the VGChartz people to learn what goes on in their case, but I didn't see anything other than speculation about how the magicbox collates its figures. If you know the answer off-hand it would save me a bunch of time, but if you are busy or don't know I'm sure the information can be found somewhere in the archives. Can you remember this detail?
- Secondly, I think that for clarity's sake all pages subject to the VGChartz ban should include the {{consensus}} tag as featured in List of best-selling video games's talk page. Furthermore, I think that this tag should be linked to the discussion leading to a definitive consensus from WPVG (if there is one). If there is none, I suggest that a summary be written to distill arguments against VGChartz down to a few well-sourced problems as collected and synthesized from all prior discussion (archived and otherwise) of its failures as a reliable source. I think this would be very helpful to WPVG. It was suggested in one of the archived discussions that the two biggest culprits for reintroduction of VGChartz as a source are non-WPVG-member wiki-editors who are only seeking to add one data-point or are non-neutral VGChartz-pushers if I may coin a novel charge. Speaking as an editors in the first class of re-introducers, such an explanation of VGChartz' inadequacies would have been sufficient to quiet any of my doubts if I had been directed there and I believe this would probably be equally true for other WPVG tyros. Of course I am not suggesting that you, User:ReyBrujo, take on this admittedly large task yourself, but in general does this sound like a good idea to you? Unfamiliar as I am with the internal machinations of WPVG, could a task force be set up to accomplish such a thing? In your experience is the recurrent re-introduction of VGChartz as a source a high-level or low-level problem for WPVG articles?
- Thanks for your time. -Thibbs (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [4] -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the process of creating a page for a regional ska band who has gained national attention, and it was suggested to be deleted, before I had the chance to work out all the bugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatfootedninja (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied on the user's talk page. [5] -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/SA and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
