User talk:KieferSkunk

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Zeebo/7th Gen problems starting up again

Just making you aware that it started up again, one of the anonymous IP's got an account and left a taunting message threatening further dissruptive editing. I removed it from the talk page as unconsrtuctive flamebait per policy. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Left him a final (only) warning. If he vandalizes again, he'll be on indef-block for being a vandalism-only account - that account has been around since 2007 and the vast majority of his edits have been vandalism. I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked, but since it's been a while since he's been given an official warning, probably best to follow policy. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate you looking in to it. Thanks. In case you didn't notice, he did a few more removals of the 7th generation tag from the Zeebo article, both under that account and the anonymous IP (probably a school computer or something, looks like he vandalized some high school article in the past, most likely the one he goes to). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And he just vandalized the talk page again. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, saw that. Per the warning I left him last time, he's been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

re: 69.23.100.207

Thank you for the longer block (i'm so sick of cleaning up after their edits, lol :3), but considering that IP's history of posting unverifiable/false information and all the recent warnings, are you saying I should've gone directly to AIV with it this time without having bothered to warn them? And what should be done if they come back from the two-week block and immediately start up again, for that matter? I'm not quite sure on the warning etiquette involved with active, persistent vandals. ^^;; -- Khisanth (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem! AIV is for clear, repeated vandalism. I'm not entirely sure if this would qualify, but the more general WP:ANI board may also help. But in general, the main thing is just to get an admin's attention - any admin can look at the situation and make a decision without necessarily needing to discuss it with a larger group of admins. In cases like this where it's clearly disruptive and the person is NOT listening, best just to block.

In the future, if this person comes back and starts disrupting again, they should get just a final warning (level 4 or only warning), then another block, which will last longer that time. (Block application varies from person to person - if I do the block again, I'll likely do it for 1 month, but another admin might decide to make it longer, and/or permanent.)

Several of the articles this person has been editing are on my watchlist, and I'm watching the IP user's talk page as well, so I'll likely see any further disruption from this user within a few hours of when it happens. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

– Steel 01:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tron Legacy

I think that deletion was due to the whole discussion being inappropriate for a Talk page. Have you read the text? - Denimadept (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. It's forum material. That's why I didn't revert it either. -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no comments in the edit summaries for those deletions, it didn't look like a legit delete to me. Not a really big deal - I'm just trying to keep the policies going. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pac-man

WP:BRD is an essay. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so it's an essay. But it is an essay that helps shape the way everyone does things here, and it relates very strongly to the policies that ARE in place. Just because it's an essay doesn't mean you should ignore it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it mean I should pay attention to the ramblings of some minority of editors, sirrah. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Atari 8-bit family

We could really use your input/guidance as an admin there. In summation: A new editor (Waskoma) started several revert wars at the article, has been invited to engage in the consensus and dialogue process, failed to generate consensus, feels strongly against said consensus and has since used every opportunity and invitation to further participate in improving the article to go back and try and discredit and rehash consensus. This article has been his only contribution, and his mindless push towards his agenda is becoming rather disruptive. Guyinblack has tried to steer it in more productive directions, but it appears even that is not working. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a fairly long reply to all three of the main parties in this discussion, including you, on the talk page, so I won't bother repeating it here. Gist of it is that I reminded Waskoma of the policies he's not abiding by, explained to him why I agree with your assessment that the article in question qualifies as an analysis and why it's reliable, and told him that if he wants to challenge consensus, there are better ways to do it than what he's been doing. I also advised that you back away from the discussion for a bit, because I think you're getting yourself a little too deeply rooted and personally invested in the argument, and you might be having difficulty seeing the bigger picture, and I basically warned you both about 3RR, since this edit war's been going on for a while. I told Badger Drink to cool it with the insults, because they're not helping.

I have a concern for you, though: It does look to me like Waskoma came to your talk page to discuss the matter with you, and from the history there, you basically just deleted his comments and didn't respond to them there. I understand you directed the conversation to the article talk page, but he likely interpreted your lack of response on your talk page as confrontational and as an unwillingness to discuss the issue. (His edit summaries pretty much say that that's how he took your action.) I would advise that a better way to do that would be to let his comments stand where they are, and to reply to them on your talk page (and/or on his) suggesting that the article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss the issue.

Also, IMO he does have a valid point: I think he's misunderstood the policies on weasel words and original research, but the way Collins's article is written, it does appear to be just as much a subjective review as a targeted analysis, and the door is open there to contradict some of the claims made in the article. From what I read of the discussion, it looks like you and Waskoma are very firmly on opposite extremes of how to handle this article, where I personally think the real answer lies somewhere in between. This is why I think you might want to back away a bit - it's all too easy to fall into the trap of digging in your heels and going "I'm right and you're wrong" when arguments like this arise.

All that said, SIGGRAPH is widely trusted as an authority in the computer graphics field, and they were instrumental in presenting and evaluating technological advancements at the time, and they still are today. I have seen nothing that suggests that their articles are as fundamentally flawed as Waskoma suggests Collins's article is. So my own take on it is that the source should stay, but if there's a genuine wording issue that mischaracterizes the content, that should be addressed separately.

Hope this helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your response and involvement. As far as his edit summaries and why I moved it away from my talk page - it's exactly the opposite of what you're interpreting. He started reverting as an anonymous IP before putting anything on my talk page and continuing the practice after he got his account, even when warned about 3RR. Then he started on my talk page with what I took as a loaded discussion that would go nowhere (i.e. circles), hence the redirectment to get other people involved. And by the page full of people trying unsuccessfully to reason with him, my feelings of how it would go were certainly proven. As far as taking a step back now - I actually wanted to back out of it, which is why I asked you to get involved in an admin capacity (and why I ignored his latest edit against consensus and rant on the discussion page). My concern was also that he appears to be a problem editor, and I don't see this ending with this issue - especially when the reception part of the article is started per Guyinblack's suggestion (which is all I'd really like to focus any efforts on my part towards). I also don't see him accepting your attempt at a compromise and will most likely raise issue with the examples you used. I'm tired of having to deal with stuff like this, and was just mentioning to Guyinblack about trying to take a break from Wikipedia and then this started up. It just wastes so much of my time going in circles with these types. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And point proven - he just changed your rewrite in to his same one he's being trying to push the entire time. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Mcjakeqcool

Thanks for the offer at ANI. I would appreciate it if you would respond to him. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta :):)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mcjakeqcool

Hello KieferSkunk. From perusal of various ANI threads, I understand you were Mcjakeqcool's 'last chance block reviewer.' You've declined an unblock there. I join with those who believe that Mcj. has exhausted his chances on Wikipedia. Unless you object, I'll go ahead and decline his last unblock, and disable his talk page access. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed. He seems to be still using his talkpage as a blog - Tan has thrown stuff off advertising his account on some christmas blog. Unless his protestations about 'following the rules' (which I don't think he has a clue what they are) has moved you, then go for it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Video Game

Have another discussion that your expertise on quality of information, and neutral viewpoints would be valued in. SharkD wants to merge graphical video game over to video game. Everyone is in agreement the article is a stub and shouldn't exist on it's own. It's just split (1.5 vs 2, and I'm saying 1.5 because I'm not sure how to interpret Xeno's vote) on whether to actually merge the content itself in to video games. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two questions.

I don't think I was 100% clear with my questions in the article discussion for the Mega Drive. I was wondering if I should include the picture of the references sheet, or should I include the press releases mentioned as non clickable references, or, should I just leave it as is? I'm fine with leaving it as is, if you are.

I'd like to add in the revenue data to the Console Wars section of the article as well (which is sourced from the Rivalry in Video Games book)
PS, I like Skunks too, I had a crush on Fifi La Fume for the longest time, and my wife even reminds me of her.--PimpUigi 17:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya. That's cute about the skunks bit. I've always liked them - even knew someone in California who had one as a pet. Sweet animals when raised properly. :) I used to be pretty heavily into portions of the "furry" scene - still like the art, but not really active in the community anymore. But that's where the name comes from.

Regarding the Sega stuff: I'm honestly not an expert on references, so I don't know which of those would be more suitable. In general, the bar is verifiability, so if one form is more easily verifiable than the other, I'd use that. It doesn't hurt to include both. Ideally, the reference would either be cited in book/magazine form in such a way that someone with access to the same resource could find it (like, look it up in the library or find a back issue of a magazine that has the article, etc.), or would be a link to a web archive that includes the information. There are guidelines on that in WP:RS and links from that article to others on the technical parts of citing information. But in any event, so long as someone can follow your work, so to speak, the references are fine.

I'd say to include both references. Someone with more experience in this area can then help refine it if they feel it needs refining. Hope that helps. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I'll add in those references too, sometime today. Your name is pretty cosmic. My wife had a great teacher named Mr. Kiefer, plus the skunk/furry thing, it's like you were meant to be here to help.

I guess I'll throw up the revenue data as well into the console wars section, from what I can see the source trail is there and reliable. Oh, I auto watch everything I edit too, just to be safe.--PimpUigi 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Metroid Prime edits

I will accept your statement at face value, and state that my actions were based on the IP's other edits, which clearly were vandalism. I was overzealous. Thanks for your message. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Seventh Gen template Zeebo problems again

Starting up again, this time with another disruptive editor trying to push WP:OR viewpoints. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pank Claw

Just so you know, he blanked my user page after I had done the last revert on his Ms. Pac-Man edit. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for persistent Harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Pank claw (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Take it..take it..take it you video game loveing dumbass!!I warned you asshole.. while you are blocked for 5 minutes think about how much of a loser you are :)