Jump to content

User talk:Shaddim: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1,295: Line 1,295:
::: there are no "terrible" sources. There are primary sources which are fine. And if you have quality concerns, voice them specifically. current state is: notable due to RS. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim#top|talk]]) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
::: there are no "terrible" sources. There are primary sources which are fine. And if you have quality concerns, voice them specifically. current state is: notable due to RS. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim#top|talk]]) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
::::I've gone through enough of them and stated my conclusions based on that. I'm not going to link to 100+ sources here and identify exactly what makes each one a terrible source. That you would expect that is ridiculous. Please read [[WP:BURDEN]]. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
::::I've gone through enough of them and stated my conclusions based on that. I'm not going to link to 100+ sources here and identify exactly what makes each one a terrible source. That you would expect that is ridiculous. Please read [[WP:BURDEN]]. [[User:Waggie|Waggie]] ([[User talk:Waggie|talk]]) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
:::::I laid out the sources already above. Also, expecting some proper review by going through 100 sources on bottom and indentifying the RS one takes seconds. these can be then openend in tabs and reviewed, I don't think this is excessively burdensome. [[User:Shaddim|Shaddim]] ([[User talk:Shaddim#top|talk]]) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


== Blocked ==
== Blocked ==

Revision as of 17:08, 10 September 2018

While many of the links you are adding to articles are good references to older magazines, I am concerned that the inclusion to the PDF of the apparently-unauthorized scan for this articles are inappropriate, even though the rest of the ref appears to be legitimate. Unless you can show that these PDFs aren't copyright violations, you should not include such links in these additions, though you can add the rest of the reference information appropriately. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good point, i will try to solve that issue. greetingsShaddim (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok was in contact with the author of the reviews and provider of the scans, Damien McFerran. He has an informal OK from the retro-magazin in showing this scans on his page. Shaddim (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of audio trackers

Hi Shaddim, thanks for the Schism refs. In terms of WP:RS, Free Software Directory is a definite "no". I've not come across QJ.net before but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - it's not self-published which is usually a good sign. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello marasmusine, thanks for your feedback and support. If I come accross better secondary refs I will add them.cheers, Shaddim (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to sound like I have some kind of vendetta against Schism, but I noticed that the QJ post is just a reprint of the developer's notes: It's a primary source. Again, I'll leave it alone for a while, perhaps something better will turn up. Marasmusine (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i keep on searching for a better ref. the monthly "computer music magazine" is an potential source for tracker refs, they have regularly tracker related information (rubric 'totally trackers' or in 'freeware') (some issues are here http://issuu.com/). in the (very) few issues i found in the web and checked, sunvox, renoise etc. was mentioned but not schism. Shaddim (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Electronic Entertainment Expo-logo.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Electronic Entertainment Expo-logo.svg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Android (operating system) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shim
Android software development (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Unofficial patch, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Commercial, Support and Monkey Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of open source video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Shaddim. You have new messages at Odie5533's talk page.
Message added 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Odie5533 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abandonware, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Copyright protection and End-of-life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with later released source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwinia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Assembler page - sample programs

I noticed your edit on GNU_Assembler and I wonder why include sample programs at all if the list is no comprehensive? Or if so should we avoid hello world and display how more complex instructions may work? Also, the fact must be considered that GAS in not only used on x86, why include x86 samples? I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on this. Friecode (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Friecode, one of the more prominent aspects which differentiates the GAS from other assemblers is the register clobber list (the other one is the perceived AT&T focus). The existing example (and also the text) did not reflect this, in general the article should be expanded not shrinked. Even when not taking the clobber list in consideration the intel syntax question/long standing debate is high profile enough to allow a example on it's own. So, this two differentiating aspects to other assemblers should be appropriate reflected in article, e.g. with a code example, which should be the startingpoint for a needed expansion. Shaddim (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jagged Alliance 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emperor of the Fading Suns may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • spaceships, so they are not stranded on their home planet if their initial fleet is destroyed), while adding lots of new units and balancing out old ones. (Hyperion patch: [http://www.twarriors.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ultima I: The First Age of Darkness may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Because the 1986 [[Video game remake|remake[[ was re-coded entirely in Assembly, it had significantly improved running speed and was able to

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with later released source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Will Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"no license" = proprietary

Hi there! I see you reverted my change. You do realize that under the Berne convention, unless a license is specified, it's then all rights reserved, which means proprietary? The proprietary software definition you mention was wrong, I fixed it. Palosirkka (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Palosirkka, thanks for feedback. While this might be a valid interpretation from legal point of view, this is clearly not what was intended and meant in some cases (e.g. the release of the Beyond Castle Wolfenstein without specific licensing was more likely meaning "public domain" than "proprietary") on this page. Therefore I think it is not a good idea and a oversimplification by putting everything without license in the same bag "proprietary". cheers Shaddim (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Expansion pack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Add-on (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Homeworld 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Vertex
List of open-source video games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arcade

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Baldur's Gate (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to High definition
Digital distribution in video games (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to PC
Music visualization (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Realtime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Fall: Last Days of Gaia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Add-on (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arx Fatalis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Polish, Korean and Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timebomb (video game) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [http://www.peejays-remakes.co.uk/ ''Timebomb'']] at PeeJays [[Video game remake|remake]]s

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. DKqwerty (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Clone (computing) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Grand theft auto and Action-adventure
Donkey Kong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Homonymous

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Business models for open-source software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Software package (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

PonyKart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Applejack
VDrift (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gran Turismo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sampler (musical instrument) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] up to 32 channels [...] This player was released 24 Dec '93, while you where singing in church :-)'' (iplay.doc)</ref> A recent PC Tracker with good sampler capabilities is for instance the ''[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Falcon 4.0

Hi,

Regarding your edit about Falcon 4.0 in the List of commercial video games with later released source code, here are a few remarks:

  • You shouldn't mention the BSD license, since it has absolutely no legal value. Clearly, Falcon 4 source code comes from an unauthorized leak (from April 2000) and the code on BSD is just a derivative from that stolen code that some guys decided to put on "BSD". In a nutshell, it's still copyrighted work.
  • I don't think leaked source code has a place on the List of commercial video games with later released source code article, since all of these games were released by their publishers/creators. Imho, Falcon 4 has no place there.

Thanks for your work on the Falcon_4.0 article. I'll try to review and expand a bit when I find time to do so.

--Spyhawk (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spyhawk, Wikipedia has for good luck freedoms in reporting and writing about legal questionable, unclear or even illegal aspects of notable topics. I completely agree with you that the BSD release is highly suspicious, but we don't have proof that this was not done in legally OK way, backed by a a "behind curtain agreement". Even if not so, it would be still a noteable fact (e.g. if this ends in court) that someone has re-released the falcon code under a license he had no right to do so. The list's inclusion policies are a little bit vague: as the game source code was "released" 2000 by a developer (not stolen by a external person) it could be argued that this case fits the description of the page. Thanks for your current and future work on the falcon articles, appreciated. regards Shaddim (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shaddim, Well the proof is that the rights on the code are still owned by some commercial companies. There is not official statement that the code was released to the community. Beside this, I followed the discussion between the (former) FreeFalcon group and the guys that released the code (some of which are former FreeFalcon members). Sadly, the forum of this discussion has been taken offline when the official FreeFalcon group was disbanded. Writing that the leaked code is under "BSD" is simply a lie. As a sidenote, the original code has been "leaked", not released officially (probably by a _former_ employee). The story of Falcon 4 is complicated, but really, this has nothing to do on this page as all the other game codes were released officially, not leaked. Spyhawk (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spyhawk, my point is: I don't interprete the questionable legal status as exclusion reason for this list (several other releases are questionable too, while I agree Falcon might be the most questionable). The community driven Falcon development was accepted for some time by the copyright holder and obviously tolerated later. Also, how much of the original Falcon code is still in? If majority is now rewritten by the community who knows what an court would rule here? Shaddim (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Thanks for the wording improvement, in fact I would tend to this solution, a better formulation which makes the potential illegality clear. regards Shaddim (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shaddim, You might not interpret the questionable legal status, but I do. Unless you undertake a Clean room design approach, the leaked code still infringe the copyright of the original code. I might steal your car, modify it and release under a BSD license, that will still be your car. At least, please don't list the BSD license as this is simply a lie at best. The underground code has not been "accepted" nor tolerated at all. In fact the history shows various Cease and Desist order to the community code branches. As you have guessed, I'm highly in favor of removing the Falcon 4.0 entry on this page, although I wouldn't object to add it to a "List of commercial video games with later leaked source code". Spyhawk (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Skyhawk, I see your point. As the legal situation IS complicated, falcon's history is of great interest for Wikipedia. I would see it as major loss if this interesting case would be lost for the public (also in this list). On your suggestion for a additional page/table of leaked/questionable source code releases, this might be a solution. Shaddim (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: another possiblity would be renaming to the more general: "List of commercial video games with available source code" Shaddim (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shaddim, your suggestion to rename the article to a more global list sounds like a perfect solution to me. This would also remove the uncertainty on all games that haven't been "properly" released :) Spyhawk (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for consensus, renamed accordingly. regards Shaddim (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Id Software, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Emulation and The Escapist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Shaddim. You have new messages at Gmt2001's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gmt2001 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vanilla software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mocha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abandonware (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Browser
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Browser
Internet Archive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Browser
Multi Emulator Super System (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Browser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunes (hotel and casino), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gomorrah (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Game engine recreation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an edit you made to Game engine recreation

Hello Shaddim,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 10:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deadly Premonition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of works available under a Creative Commons license, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Super Mario and Mashup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vectorization (image tracing), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mod (video gaming) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • web|url=http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showthread.php?t=19489|accessdate=15 March 2014|title=JJ2+ (last updated October 30, 2013 |date=2013-11-01}}</ref> One downside of this type of mod is that

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One Must Fall: 2097, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compatibility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lennart Poettering may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • web|url=http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943 |title=Un entretien avec Lennart Poettering) |date=2011-07-06 |accessdate=2013-01-26 |quote=''Both Windows and MacOS have much better
  • web|url=http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943 |title=Un entretien avec Lennart Poettering) |date=2011-07-06 |accessdate=2013-01-26|quote=''I think we weren't innovative enough in the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MilkDrop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real-time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial software with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fleet Command, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glide. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lords of Magic may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Special Edition.'' |accessdate=2014-10-16 |first=Peter Y. |last=Kwong |publisher=iinet.net.au)}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proprietary software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End-of-life. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial software with available source code, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Quake and Doom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeworld: Cataclysm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Escapist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Homeworld: Cataclysm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twitch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sector/Sphere, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Data storage and Framework. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Last Eichhof, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Checkpoint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Silver Lining (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music visualization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real-time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ghostscript may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • dual-licensed.<ref>http://www.ghostscript.com/News.html Ghostscript leading edge is now GPL!] Posted 7 Jun 2006 by raph ''"I have some great news to report. The leading edge of Ghostscript

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Another World and Arcade. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leak (Software)

A tag has been placed on Leak (Software), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Software leak

A tag has been placed on Software leak, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Run and gun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deluxe Paint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copyright protection. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

(1) When I revert your edit for overlinking (linking things like "London" and "England") and you disagree, the proper options per BRD are discussion or nothing. Reverting a revert is edit warring. (2) It is incumbent upon the editor to make the changes stick. Your link to "copyright infringement" is fine, but all of the other patently overlinked stuff should not be linked. If you want to add back "copyright infringement", go ahead, but you just restored all of the bad links with your revert as well. Burden is on the person adding the links to make the change worth it—I shouldn't have to pick the good parts from the bad for you. – czar 08:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You revert was not bold in first place as the majority of links added was clearly not OLINK. While London and England can be debated, they are also not trivial links & obviously falling under OLINK, so I consider the revert founded. My general remark here would be on your edit style. It would reduce tension significantly if you would do more "fixing" instead of broad deletion. (If you would have removed London and England only I wouldn't have reverted.) cheers Shaddim (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, your edit was bold. I reverted. The majority of the links were indeed overlinking: California, London, England are all "the names of major geographic features and locations". If I reject your edit, it's up to you, as the bold proposer to resubmit an edit that works, not to just revert a revert and start an editor war. With all the talk at Commons about making more work for the maintainers, it is ironic that you're arguing that page maintainers should be trimming all sorts of inappropriate additions to make them fit. Burden is on the bold editor, not the maintainer. Please remove your links. – czar 19:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is debateable. I think my links were a contribution, you think some of them were unneeded. Point of view. I would be nice if you would go for an compromise instead of a polarizing full revert. But, this case is resolved and the commons discussion is another topic. (especially as I defend one of your uploads.) cheers and best regards Shaddim (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hades 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Video game remake may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Halo: Combat Evolved]] (left) and [[Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary]] (right) redrawn graphics).]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free Beer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conference. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free Beer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First person. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of commercial video games with available source code
added a link pointing to MMO
Syndicate Wars
added a link pointing to Harbinger

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elite

Hi,

Just letting you know I accidentally rollbacked your edits instead of just undoing the last one - mouse slipped as I clicked. I self-reverted and then correct your last edit. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifiyign this slip: still, I guess you misunderstood the edit (or I should make the edit more clear): Pinder reverse engineered a platform neutral C version from the original assembly and binary. How should I formulate it to make this clear? cheers! Shaddim (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have done a good enough job without my cack-handed help! Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ultrasound computer tomography
added links pointing to Resolution, Parallel, Imaging and Mega
Syndicate Wars
added a link pointing to Magic Carpet
Tomographic reconstruction
added a link pointing to Phantom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commercial software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Programming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commercial software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game developer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

License compatibility
added a link pointing to Browser
LinuxSampler
added a link pointing to ASIO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords
added a link pointing to Canon
List of commercial software with available source code
added a link pointing to Wired
TensorFlow
added a link pointing to Wired

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ReactOS may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • zur-bevorzugten-Windows-Alternative Russland macht ReactOS zu bevorzugter Windows-Alternative]] on [[Der Standard]] (24. June 2015, German)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of commercial software with available source code
added a link pointing to LinuxWorld
WTFPL
added a link pointing to Civil law

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to ReactOS may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • more tools? Steven: I really want to see a solitaire clone make it in to Wine and ReactOS. =)[...] At some point we are going to have to develop replacement components for everything in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

ReactOS
added links pointing to The Gimp, OpenOffice and Userland
Longene
added a link pointing to Userland
Ryzom
added a link pointing to Real-time

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One Must Fall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Browser. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ballerburg
added a link pointing to Hot seat
Public domain software
added a link pointing to Adventure (video game)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Remix culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free culture. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Free software license
added a link pointing to Lawrence Rosen
Open-source license
added a link pointing to Lawrence Rosen
Open Content Project
added a link pointing to Free culture
Public domain software
added a link pointing to Lawrence Rosen
Software license
added a link pointing to Lawrence Rosen
Z (video game)
added a link pointing to Kindle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Atari 8-bit family may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Michael D. |title=Atari 8-Bit Computers: Frequently Asked Questions |date=3 April 2014 |at=1.9) What is the Atari 800XE? |url=ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/faqs/atari-8-bit/faq |accessdate=25 May 2014 |
  • the [[public domain]].<ref>http://atariage.com/forums/topic/74783-fb3/page-17#entry1035425 FB3...] by Curt Vendel on atariage.com ''"Atari released the Atari 8bit chipset into PD for me several

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Remix culture
added links pointing to Read-only and Read/write
List of major Creative Commons licensed works
added a link pointing to Mashup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Common Development and Distribution License
added a link pointing to Ubuntu
License compatibility
added a link pointing to Ubuntu
List of commercial video games with available source code
added a link pointing to Arcade
ZFS
added a link pointing to Solaris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of open-source video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shooter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Supersampling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniform distribution. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident
added links pointing to Escapist and CDV
Image scaling
added a link pointing to Resampling
Linux adoption
added a link pointing to Escapist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dungeons of Daggorath
added a link pointing to PC
List of commercial video games with available source code
added a link pointing to PC

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Master of Orion may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • developers in 2001.<ref>[http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/devposts2_031201.html MARCH 12, 2001]] on moo3.quicksilver.com by Constantine Hantzopoulos, Senior Producer ''"MOO1 and 2 source code:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thats an acceptable compromise! Thank you for your support! Stay tuned for our first public release!!! mv (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DragonBox Pyra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thunderbird. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Source port, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Source. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Eclipse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of open-source video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gamemaker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nano (text editor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • org/archive/html/nano-devel/2016-05/msg00021.html Re: (Nano-devel) Should nano stay a GNU program (Was: time for a 2.5.4-p] on lists.gnu.org (2016-05)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of commercial video games with available source code, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatbot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring unsourced content

Hi. Regarding your recent reversion of WTFPL, please review WP:Verifiability, particularly WP:BURDEN. To summarize: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so everything must be verifiable, meaning most everything must be sourced. If it’s not sourced, it may be removed at any time, no matter how “important” or “valuable” it may be, and it should not be restored without a source. This is Wikipedia policy, which is the closest thing to law that we have around here, so it should really be followed. (There was one citation in what I recently removed, but I found nothing in that source to support the cited claims.) If you have sources to support the removed content, great—add citations. If you don’t, leave it be for now, and you can always retrieve it from the revision history if you find one later. Or if you don’t feel that a claim needs a source, please discuss it on the article’s Talk page where we may reach a consensus.

Take care. If you wish to reply to this for any reason, please notify me on my Talk. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

trivial facts don't need to be sourced, we still have some room for own edits and don't need to copy one-to-one other texts (beside that this would be a copyright infringement). Beside, why do you prefer to edit as IP, you seems to be knowledgeable about WP and its policies ? Also, please, use extensive edit comments ESPECIALLY on deletes which are the more controversial activities you can do on WP. Shaddim (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, trivial facts don’t need to be mentioned at all. Anyway, I noticed you restored the contested content without sources again, so this time I simply tagged it with {{cn}} or {{fv}} as appropriate. If we are to continue this dispute, let’s please use the article’s Talk page rather than your own; that’s what it’s there for. Cheers. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Aw” in edit summaries

Hi. I’ve noticed that a lot of your edit summaries consist of the word “aw” ([1][2][3][4]). I only know this word as an interjection in English, but that doesn’t seem to fit with the comments where you use it; what does it mean to you when used in summaries? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I use it as abbrevation for "answer"... maybe I should stop that. Thanks for the feedback Shaddim (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh. Might I suggest using ans instead? But thanks for explaining! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thank you for your kind help with my Draft:Gregorio. I resubmitted it right now, after finding another good external source - an external view from the Developer of MuseScore. Pity, that I didn't find the Oxford Paper! Hope the best for the third try! Cheers, --Johannes Arnold (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your article... I believe more polish is possible and beneficial, keep on working: formating the refs and filling the red wikilinks, finding more refs! Don't give up, what ever the outcome is ;) cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly ... I'm a bit pessimistic. But this article will come some day. To much effort up to now. And the software truly deserves an article. Btw ... not that I'm planning to cheat, honestly ... but is there any other way to create an article than AfC? Or is it relatively new? Or is the direct creation restricted to more experienced users? I don't know this review process from the German Wikipedia. --Johannes Arnold (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. AfC is not mandatory (up to now) ... Bringing and keeping material even in WP is hard enough, so an extra control instance helps only in keeping even more stuff out. While spam and propaganda fighting is important and hard, bringing in material is too hard now compared with 10 years ago.
Unbelieveable! My article was accepted! Thought that it would never happen... Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes Arnold (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate edit summary

Your edit summary here strikes me as a rather inappropriate response to legitimate problems, even if the edit addressed them. Please review WP:ESDOS. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 67.14.236.50, you are right but please understand that it is frustrating for content producing authors to see, after working long on the article's content and significantly improving it, it paved with policy infoboxes in drive-by edits. I mean, we all have our pet peeves at WP and for some it seems to be "reviewing" article's structure and policy conformity.... well, sometimes I wish WP editing would work with less friction between the authros. Beside, I disagree on the need for secondary sources for non-controversial trivial facts, primaries sources are sued in WP and are fine for many things. the core policy of WP is verifiability not truth (which also reliable sources can't provide). And this specific case Lemonade Stand I would really, really enjoy if you would fix the issue which you think you thought you idetified. I think we can agree that finding sources which satisfy your need for third party sources can be found in big numbers. Please go for it. cheers Shaddim (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding content means adding suitable sources. Some people are excellent researchers; I am not, never have been. And I’m not under any obligation to find sources for something that’s already in an article. Neither are you, nor anyone else, unless you argue to keep that content. The WP:BURDEN is on the editors who want that content in. I’m not fighting to remove that content; I just want to be able to verify it, not just take some one-man company or GitHub user’s word for it. I’m not sure what you’re calling a non-controversial trivial fact, but an official release into open-source is certainly not one of those. A press release or something official from the owner, Apple, would do fine—that would be a primary source, but a primary source reporting on itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You use "verify" in the sense "it is true" but this is not the goal of WP. The goal is that the content is "verifiabily", aka transparency for the reader, by having sources available. The authors balance the content and present it in neutral way, to not mislead reader with a bias and underdeveloped article, means, they have some responsibility (unlike in the "verified content only" model where author becomes just quotation monkeys). And this is a very fine goal and worked well the first years of WP. See, with the "verified content only" approach much, much content gets filtered out and the readers are ripped of their chance to make up their own mind. I see the point in aplying such strict polcies on highly controversial articles where factiosn fighting for dominance and every word... but for 95% of non-controverisal articles, which starve for content... no, it is unneeded burden and limits the progress of WP. About non-controversial facts, these are facts which rise the bloodpressure of no-one, not peopel associated with this topic...like was some software released 1979. To have this information in is significant more important than to have it in "verified" form , which is in the majority of cases not avialable, therefore is here a weak primary source very fine. "Verifiability" for the reader is fullfiled, he make his own mind. cheersShaddim (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to WP:V: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. It’s fine to have your own opinion about it, but not if you ignore the consensus of policy. There’s nothing reliable about an unofficial GitHub project. We could take this to WP:VPP or something if you don’t believe me. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You focus on the minor idea, "reliable source" (if you follow the links you see the complicated, convoluted, helpless tries to fixate this vague idea), while the big idea is "verifiabilty", which is a clear, undebated and easy to verify concept. And a github reference can be easy verfied by a reader, just follow the link, who can than make up his own mind. This is also the usage in the academic domain, use and bring sources, be verifiable. Next step there (secondary importance), use good sources ("reliable sources") but this is only a guideline not a requirement. It is a pity that several policy interpretation deviated in direction of overfocussing on distracting details with only small benefit. Shaddim (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: as last point, this policy was formulated so strict like that to filter out the mis-usage of sources in the form "unreliable Source1" says "party 2" said "opinion 3" about "subject 4" -> hearsay. Which was a serious problem as such formulations were used in WP to constitute content which indicated "truth". This stuff needed to be filtered out, the SNR ratio needed to be imrpoved. Therefore the requirement for "reliable sources" was introcued especially for controversial topics. Problem is, this policy is mis-used to filter out also perfectly fine statements of the form "party 1 says something about subject 2" (not hearsay), on non-controverisal topics. Such an excessive interpretation was never intended. Shaddim (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you disagree with me on the importance of reliable sources, we can always request more input. Until then, let’s please follow the policy, however overly strict you may personally believe it to be. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpete the policy of verificabilty. Short and plain. Also, it would be beneficialy if you would do complete work on articles. Research work not only policy "checking work" ... fixing identifyed problems, not increasing the pile of unsolved problems for WP. Shaddim (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not adding to the problems by pointing out that they exist. In fact, that’s the only way one can reasonably expect the problems to be solved. Flaunting the need for RS, as you have been doing, is what adds to the pile. Please stop. These links may help: WP:SOURCE, WP:RS. Please read them and heed them. If you disagree with them, or with my interpretation of them, let’s ask someone else: would you mind if I pinged you in a helpdesk question? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are excessively overfocussed on "reliable"... which you use as synonym for truth. It seems you are one the people who can't stand ambiguity and weaker forms of reality. No, not everything is yes or no, sometimes reality is more subtle and an "reliable" answer is not available. But these are the interesting parts, ESPECIALLY worth being mentioned. This is a normal situation and readers can (and should) handle that. The core mission of WP is not truth but transparency and verfiability of the content. Unlike what many teachers and other people in academy believe goal is not to simplify the interpretation of the world to black/with yes/no schemes. Reality is complicated, nuanced, subtle and we as authors have to handle that. Stripping out everything "grey" is doing the readers a dis-service and treats them as childs without reading competency. May I remind you that we also the have the simplified English wikipedia for the case you, it seems, fight for? Shaddim (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine clippings and unreliable sources

Regarding these edits, please see the article’s Talk page at Talk:Tornado (1993 video game)#Magazine citations where I explain my rationale, as well as this helpdesk discussion (permalink) which informed it. A personal website is not a reliable source of magazine clippings. The magazine issue itself is perfectly reliable, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here: WP:RSN#Endgame: Singularity. If we can agree to abide by whatever decision is made there, we can hopefully settle this once and for all. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your sole argument is (non-)"reliable", this is your only mission. Who cares that this scans are made from someone else not deemed reliable by you or an arbitrary list? This is a non-issue if it is presented to the reader in transparent way. Because also the the so called "reliable" sources called fucked up such an scan the same ways. Again, verifiabiltiy and transparency are the big goals. Shaddim (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
“Verifiable” means supported by a reliable source. You are the first established editor I’ve encountered who did not accept this consensus. Please carefully review WP:V, or ask for outside input and stop relying solely on your own personal interpretation. Post to WP:Teahouse/Questions or WP:Help desk or WP:Village pump and see what the community says. If the consensus is not with me, I will back down in shame. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can try present me as exception but reality is, your excessive literal interpretation of the policies while missing the intend for WP's greater goal ("creating a repository of all human knowledge") is the anomaly. Also, this fight is not new but goes on since years. PS: this should be not about shame, but about "how we work together for the greater goal of WP". I acknowledge that the articles we worked now together on are better in the mean. Shaddim (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I’ll ask for input at WP:Help desk. You should get a notification when I ping you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Escalating should be not required here, but well, then escalate it. You are aware that we face since too long a dwindeling number of authors who create content? You are interested in reducing this even further? go on Shaddim (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Same user on a public computer.) You are mischaracterizing my position. We do need more editors to create verifiable, reliably sourced content. We do not need more editors to recklessly add dubious content from unreliable sources, and spread misinformation about core content policies. Please be the former. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, I see the complete reliable source debate & policy as highly problematic. In the end, it is futile to try to binary classify sources into reliable and unreliable one, it is an continuum. And for many things there are only weak sources available. Now, can we as authors present this weak information in non-misleading way to the readers with a net benefit? I believe yes. In the end, the authors have to decide how place and present carefully the information. If we take away too much freedom for the authors and try to reduce them to "reliable source copy monkeys" we will have problems gathering more authors. And also we limit the scope of WP significantly, far below the original vision "the sum of all human knowledge" which would be a shame. Shaddim (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the longstanding consensus is that if only weak sources are available for a claim, in general, we do not include that claim.
I think you’re kind of missing the point of Wikipedia. Yes, the scope of this project is limited. We report what reliable sources say about subjects. That’s what we do. If you don’t want to be what you call a “reliable source copy monkey,” well, that’s kind of what a competent Wikipedia contributor is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed hope for a greater wikipedia beyond the small minded vision of exclusionist, my vision follows the original idea: "'sum of all human knowledge'". A Britannica we had already. (And about reliable sources... I understand the beauty in the vision to have something like that, but... in reality there are no "reliable sources", despite how hard we try to believe and define them into reality) Shaddim (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Philosophy aside, I mean “reliable sources” as defined in WP:Reliable sources. I’m surprised that wasn’t clear, but I apologize for any misunderstanding caused by my use of common Wikipedia jargon. Please also note that when I speak of “verifiability” or something being “verifiable,” I’m referring to the sense used by WP:V, etc. If you think some other sense of the words should be preferred, I encourage you to make a proposal at WP:VPP to change the relevant page(s). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this definitions are weak as hell. A big pile of policies for the weakest part... reliability is a continuum not a binary quality. Our policies are not as binary as you try to present and apply it. I think you can't deny that primary sources are not forbidden. Shaddim (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not forbidden, but certainly discouraged for anything other than simple facts about the source itself. Any dummy with a web host can make a website with any sorts of wildly inaccurate claims about anything, including himself and his projects. It’s about credibility, basically. And please note that “primary sources” and “unreliable sources” are not the same thing (and I don’t think I’ve ever claimed as much); some primary sources are reliable , and some secondary sources are unreliable. That’s why “reliable secondary sources” are commonly referred to. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's reality, it's complicated. Also, the definition what is (more/less) reliable is complicated, as there is no pool of naturally tagged "good" reliable sources available and a non-tagged nonreliable source pool. Reality is nuanced and gray. Therefore we have authors here who do balancing, reviewing and cross checking of all possible sources. Can we agree on the "strive for" formulation from the 5 pillars? We should "strive for verifiable accuracy" utilizing, if possible, better, balanced and many sources?Shaddim (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as long as you accept the fact that some sources may be considered unreliable and unsuitable. We’ll use the best sources available, unless there are no decent sources available. And if you find yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel, whatever it is you’re trying to support probably doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn’t belong on Wikipedia" and exactly this is not written in the five pillars. But thanks for making your exclusionist agenda/motivation public. Shaddim (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the response you got when we asked the help desk about reliable sources, it seems more likely the issue is your extreme inclusionist tendencies. You can’t just ignore the standards that the community has set for the project. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Standards are set by the 5 pillars and policies, and as I laid out, I'm very well in. While you seems to go beyond, trying to enforce "mandatory" where "recommended" is requested for sensible cases. Shaddim (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Standards are set by consensus. Policies are set by consensus. Everything we do is governed by consensus. Be wary of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you talking about? Where I said something else? Obviously the policies are the written form of such consensus. Beside, I like how you ignore things you don't like. I laid out the compatibility of my position to the five pillars (in the from you initiated helpdesk discussion) and how your position goes beyond. Care to answer a single time on that? Shaddim (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, the five pillars… well, the three which are relevant:
  • Wikipedia is intended to be a high-quality encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. A self-published announcement of a personal achievement is not an independent source for itself.
  • Wikipedia must be neutral and balanced. Discussion of isolated events […] about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance, and including a mention of unofficial ports that have received zero coverage does exactly that. (I may be stretching this one a bit by applying it to concepts other than viewpoints, but that’s a common practice accepted by consensus.)
  • Improving and maintaining Wikipedia trumps almost everything. Don’t be reckless in ignoring the rules, but If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Publishing information that hasn’t yet been reported by a single secondary source is generally not considered an improvement. But the best way to make sure something is an improvement is generally to ask other editors, which I’ve been urging you to do.
There you go. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea why you seem so convinced that including material wholly based on original research or weak self-published sources is good practice for an encyclopedia editor, but please stop trying to rationalize it, especially when you refuse to even try to get a second opinion about any of it. If you plan on responding to any of my comments on Talk:Endgame: Singularity with the same sorts of rationalizations, please post instead to some kind of noticeboard. If you don’t, I will, and to make sure I don’t misrepresent your position I’ll quote you directly. Fair? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said "wholly" ? The point is: you want a black-white easy scheme for handling material to include, in that case removing bunch of material, and even including wrong information. See Endgame singularity, where you over-focussed followed your simple pattern and decided to stick with them literally. Believing it would be a benefit for WP, interpreting sources literal and including then even wrong information. Pennywise (literal policy compliance), but pound stupid (missing the greater goal of WP). Shaddim (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this comment: It’s not just that we follow different schools of thought. The issue here is that I don’t believe your school of thought is compatible with Wikipedia’s. You want to improve the encyclopedia, but you want to do it on your terms, not the “excessive” terms set by the community, such as only discussing something if it’s been covered by the sources. And it sounds like you’re aware that you’re acting against consensus, so why have you persisted? It’s as if you’re waging a rebellion against the oppressive community, trying to subversively cause change through disruption. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endgame: Singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropes. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Endgame: Singularity". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amd-k6-3.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amd-k6-3.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freesouls, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attribution and Christopher Adams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If reliability is a pipedream…

I’ve just noticed what you’re now featuring on your userpage. If you think Wikipedia would attract more editors and be better off with looser standards for verifiability, great—let’s talk about it at WP:Village pump (policy). Because a change of this scale needs to be taken to the community as a whole; acting alone on it would be disruptive and likely create more resistance to the idea. In fact, I could make that proposal for you, if you’d rather not propose it yourself. Or is that what you’re working on putting together? If so, I’ll leave you to it and ask that you notify me of the proposal. I honestly don’t expect it would succeed, but it’s worth a shot, right? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The piece is not finalized and the point is not get rid of the policy, which had some good intent originally, but the misformed, hurtful, excessive interpretation applied by some misguided authors. (Example here) Let's see. Shaddim (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a huge difference between some editors and the consensus view. What you deem a misinterpretation appears to be the consensus view. This is why I strongly recommend making a proposal to change the policy. Not to get rid of it, but to change it to make the intent more clear. Because if you’re right, that thing really needs to be cleared up. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please make sure to make enough advertisement when it's ready. I would strongly support it! --Johannes Arnold (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Business models for open-source software
added a link pointing to Simon Phipps
Software relicensing
added a link pointing to Simon Phipps

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of commercial software with available source code
added links pointing to Microsoft Exchange and AGPL
Fish Fillets NG
added a link pointing to Czech
Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders
added a link pointing to Powerplay

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Confusing caption

Hello, Shaddim. You have new messages at Talk:License compatibility.
Message added 16:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you believe that your additions to your re-creation of that diagram do not constitute WP:SYNTHESIS—that is, the inclusion of information not included in the original image (see page 119 of this PDF)—then please justify the discrepancies with the original. Otherwise, please consider replacing our image with a direct and unadulterated copy of Välimäki’s, or removing it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be blunt: I don’t care that you, as a lone individual, disagree with the community consensus about what “reliable” means and how important it is. Especially not when you have refused to start a wider discussion about the issue, because you were afraid of an opposing consensus. If you want me to listen, then post about it in a central forum (such as WP:VPP) so I can see you’re not just some rogue outlier, so I can see people agreeing and disagreeing and providing policy-based rationale. If you don’t, and if you keep objecting to my edits, then I’ll start a public conversation on the topic myself, and quite likely wind up reporting you to ANI for ignoring clear consensus.

Also, I really do not appreciate the way you belittle my efforts—your “work” here[5]. If you have so little respect for a fellow editor who’s acting in good faith and actually following a policy that you just don’t like, I am done with you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried hard to find middle groudna grement with you, but you insisted on a excessive interpretation where no consensus exist. There was the option that you just work somewhere else, WP is big, but you liked to keep escalating trying to enforce me to comply to your interpretation, disrupting my contribution and workign processes. To say it blunt: I will not accept your excessive and harmful interpretation you try to enforce. I would appreciate if you would work somewhere else. I admit there is indeed enough and good an valuable work for organizers and policy enforcers on WP to do, but I'm not a suitable target. Shaddim (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Shaddim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation information

When adding references to an article, please strive to include author name, date published, date accessed, the website’s name (not its domain name—e.g., Free Software Foundation, not fsf.org), and the original links and archival dates if using Archive.org or similar. See WP:CITEHOW for rationale. Also, please try to keep your formatting consistent with other citations in the article, to minimize reader confusion. I find WP:CS1 templates helpful in including all relevant information in a consistent format. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, I'm aware of this, but don't consider it important enough and my time and motivation is limited (thanks for doing some formating work, I did this years ago myself for others). Formating issues are secondary vs the importance of adding content & refs. If you feel the need for improved formating, do it yourself. My goal is to provide content, a goal most active authors don't follow. Shaddim (talk)
I’m more concerned about the information about the source. A lot of the refs of yours that I’ve seen are missing important information like dates (especially access dates) and website names, or the sort of archive information that you added here. That’s why I named this section “Citation information” and not “Citation formatting.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also this I consider secondary as this information is available/reconstructable from the edit history of the article. Infact I'm more concerned with the question of not webarchived sources (robot text set) where the information get lost if overly eager bureaucratic editors remove my inline quotes in the references, as it happened already (while also in this case still in the history). Shaddim (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the personal attacks, and avoid terms like “overly eager bureaucratic editors.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, I’ll say again: Please include the website’s name (not domain name) in citations. The domain name is already included in the URL. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start a public discussion or leave me be

If you have a problem with the way I edit Wikipedia, I encourage you to open a discussion someplace like WP:DR or WP:ANI rather than ridiculing me on obscure article talkpages. If you’re right about me, other editors will agree, and I will comply. If you’re not confident enough to involve other editors, then please cease and desist in criticizing my actions or methodology. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“Reliability is a pipe dream” essay

I take it you’re working on an essay on your userpage? I’d just like to comment on one of your points:

Reliability is not verifiability. Of course it isn’t. They can’t even be applied to the same things, so the comparison is nonsensical. Verifiability applies to information, whereas reliability applies to sources of information. “The sun is hot” is verifiable. A bestselling book about the sun’s hotness is reliable.

But the two concepts are related. Verifiability comes from reliable sources. A piece of information is not verifiable if no corroborating sources are reliable. A post about “Why the sun is actually pretty cold” (or in fact about anything at all) in the comment section of a blog could never be used to verify anything, because it is entirely unreliable. Such a comment may make claims which are themselves verifiable by other sources, but the comment itself couldn’t verify anything.

Hope this helps to clear up that distinction for you. If you disagree with any of this rationale, I look forward to the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

one subchapter about the confusion of reliable encyclopedia with reliable sources. Which are not the same at all, maybe the ugly second milk cousine. Shaddim (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
second note, verfiablity and reliability are totally decoupled concepts. verifiabilty lives very nice on its own, reliability was put on top, after it was found out verifiability is too weak. The line of thoughts was: "we want a reliable encyclopedia" -> "let's request sources! if it is verfiable it will get more reliable!" -> "crap that didn't worked well... let's ask for "reliable" sources. clearly, with reliable sources we will have reliable encyclopedia" -> "crap, what are reliable sources? let's discuss that endlessly" -> "crap where are our authors?" Shaddim (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is reliable if and only if it uses reliable sources. Otherwise, we’d have no grounds to claim our own reliability. The “endless discussion” is in fact called “governing by consensus,” which is how Wikipedia operates, and is also why we require reliable sources. Key word being “require.” You are of course free to petition for a change in that consensus, but until you have successfully done so, please abide by it and do not seek to obstruct (or insult!) others like me from abiding by it. I understand that you don’t agree with that requirement, but by editing Wikipedia you agree to accept it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"An encyclopedia is reliable if and only if it uses reliable sources." You imply, this is the one and only way to achieve it. Which is obviously this is wrong, there a many: this is a "means" not the "ends"! Maybe this is one of the policies over applied by a group of authors but not the only approach. First, there are no "reliable sources", even the most reliable source fails sometimes. Even if we select the top 10% most reliable sources (currently, we even have no clear metrics and consensus where to draw thr cut...while the idea of an bianry cut is stupid by itself), the result would be still not a reliable WP (in the absolute sense). Second, there are other ways of achieving reliability like, peer reviewing, letting knowledgable people lookign on things. A variant is trusting a crowd, a concept we still have and had in former times more prominent. Shaddim (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Last point, you keep on trying to imply there is "clarity" and "consesnsus" in the polcies but there is not... they are conflicting and contradicting. Also, authors' interpretation varies heavily... which could be seen as healthy thing. (will make an chapter about that) While some believe broadness in authors' vision an approach is weakness and we need the exact on policy and strict interpretation. No, we don't need that at all. This is totally secondary and distracting from our main goal: creating a reliable encyclopedia of all human knowledge. This is the only hard policy we have. Everything else a weak guidelines, futily weak trying to sharpen this goal in "manageable" policies. manager thinking who get nervous on a unmanageable mass. Let the crowd handle that again, see reddit who took the model conseuently, the valuable content is voted up, reddit trusts the crowd without excessive policy temples and it works, like it worked for us in former times. Shaddim (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of an encyclopedia that is widely regarded as reliable, which does not itself use sources that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia’s standards? In other words, can you give a counterexample to my “if and only if” claim?
And you seem to forget that I recently notified you of a second discussion to clarify the consensus. As well as the earlier such discussion I had alerted you to. Turns out the consensus still clearly contradicts your own position. Please stop ignoring/denying any and all evidence of this, without offering any evidence of your own. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wikipedia before the excessive polic extension. Was evaluated by Nature and was considered as reliable as the Britannica. As I pointe out already in the essay. Another example: the Britanica, which does not relies on reliable sources but authors. Exactly as we did before.
About your second point: you fail to show that there is "consensus", beside, that there are polices. And in the interpretation of the polcies there is space, even if you hate and deny that. You chose to interprete an extreme variant into them, I chose another. And this is fine. Shaddim (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And while I don't really follow your tries to escalate this discussion to higher levels, your response is not as clar cut as you hoped for... there is not a consensus in the way you try to enforce it. Shaddim (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure that at that time, Wikipedia was widely regarded as not reliable. I know that schools had discouraged or even banned using it as a source for research papers. But I was asking for examples other than WIkipedia, which may not have been clear. You said there were many ways. This naturally means there should be many examples. Like what?
Starting a Village Pump discussion isn’t “escalation to higher levels.” That’s absurd. Escalation would be reporting you to WP:ANI for disruptive editing or something. Policies reflect consensus. Public discussion establishes consensus. If you need me to pull quotes from those discussions to show that they back up my argument, let me know and I will. Your position, that WP:V only requires reliable sources in limited circumstances, has no backing that I have seen, and no support from other editors in these discussions. In fact, in an earlier discussion you were directly told that you were wrong. My position, that reliable sources are required for anything that isn’t patently obvious, is the consensus view (and, again, let me know if you need me to directly show evidence). If the consensus is “extreme,” I don’t know what you think that word means. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" I know that schools had discouraged or even banned using it as a source for research papers." indeed, but this was FUD, spewed by competitors and academia who felt threatend by the amateur movement. I gave you already reliable sources which proved that WP was at that time reliable!!!! Shaddim (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement from Nature is heavily qualified. But I asked for non-Wikipedia examples. If you were right about the many other ways of writing a reliable encyclopedia, there should be many examples. Are there any? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to copyedit a paragraph of your work in progress here, before discovering that IP editors can’t edit userpages. I suggest perhaps moving the draft to a subpage like User:Shaddim/"Reliability" is a pipe-dream, or even Draft:"Reliability" is a pipe-dream, to invite collaboration. In the meantime, I’ll leave this proposed edit here for your consideration:

One of the failures of current policy enforcement is mistaking the means for the ends. This is understandable; on one hand having simple, clearly applicable policies is charming, simple, and clear-cut, and therefore provides a personally rewarding activity. Deletion of 20,000 characters of content on a Wikipedia page, created by some other author in a long night's work, is rewarding… and all to the benefit of WP. But is it? If we look back to our very origin, the intended and original vision of Wikipedia was (and is) to provide a reliable source of information. Plain and simple. The ways to achieve that are plentiful. In the beginning, the approach to reliable information was the very Wiki principle, also called Linus' law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"—or just "trust the crowd". Gather enough authors, and no bullshit or lousy content will survive long under their gazing eyes… plainly, trust the crowd, no complicated policy bullshit. And it worked well, Wikipedia grew successfully… until the traditional media fought back, by accusing Wikipedia of being unreliable. Now Wikipedia grew nervous in their approach of "trust[ing] the same community to self-regulate and become more proficient at quality control."

Please note that though I attempted to make it easier to read, I did nothing to address what I consider the more fundamental flaws in the rhetoric. Also, please do not overlook my last reply above. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RPL usage

Re this reversion, please answer my question on the Talk page regarding the suitability of the content regardless of sourcing. And in general, please address any Talk issues before reverting. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are the one with excessive deletions without discussions. Shaddim (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll ask you again to refrain from personal attacks. Where discussion is ongoing, I discuss. You restored contested content while leaving concerns unanswered, and apparently had to be reminded of the discussion. Also, please stop characterizing my edits as “excessive” while you are the only one making such a claim. I could similarly say that your unsourced contributions are reckless or irresponsible—but I don’t because that would only be my personal opinion, as well as a personal attack, neither of which is helpful to the project or its editors. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I agree, we should cool down... also this discussion here is out of loop on the actual status of our discussion. Shaddim (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linux.com

I didn't intend to remove the Linux.com reference. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 16:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the linux.com as new ref. Where it is stated the that the removed source is scam? It looked legit to me. Shaddim (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing ideologies

Moved from Talk:License compatibility

I mean your interpretation of the policies. As you should have accepted now, following from the discussion on WP:V or in the Third Opinion, there is not clear consensus how and how strict to interprete them. And you fall clearly on one extreme end. Please accept that there is interpretation space, conflicting requirements, grey areas which result in space for the authors. I would recommend you as experience, switching the sides and building up a page from ground. seriously, do that.Shaddim (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do acknowledge that I had misinterpreted BURDEN as supporting the removal of unsourced content due solely to the fact that it was unsourced. But I believe you repeatedly blatantly violated that same bit of policy by restoring challenged content without establishing its verifiability (which is not the same thing as making the unsupported claim that “it’s verifiable”), as well as attempted to shift the WP:ONUS to a consensus for removal rather than inclusion. But, again, this is getting into discussion of editors rather than discussion of an article, which is why I’m replying on your personal Talk page instead.
As I’ve said before, provide quality sources and I’d be happy to attempt to build something out of them. I thought we’d made such an arrangement at Talk:Flatpak, and I’m still waiting. Or was that what you had in mind with the interview you linked at Talk:Reciprocal Public License? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would never attempt to build a wiki article in a language I was not fluent in. Just seems like a bad idea. I won’t go into my reasons (unless you ask) because they may come across as an attack on you, since you don’t seem to be quite fluent in English, based on your general sentence structures and difficulty interpreting it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you admit that some burden is on remvoal, and that "no sources" is not sufficient. On verifiability, I believe I fullfil WP:V suitable and reasonably well, where required and beneficial. We disagree over the interpretation of WP:V, you try to enforce a literal interpretation, I apply and argue for a pragmatic and adaptive approach. "never attempt to build" see, here lies the chance of collaborative approaches. If your are knowledgeable in fields where most are not, you can contribute and your potential and knowledge shouldn't be wasted by such a secondary aspect...other authors, knowledgeable in other fields will provide other parts. Some are even specialized in improving other secondary aspects, like sentence structure, spelling etc. (And yes, I'm aware my written English does not reach mother language level. But I'm near mother language level in reading and understanding, so your second observation I think is wrong: I can read and understand policies very well.) Shaddim (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All material. It’s quite explicit in that. I think you may be confusing “verifiable” with “cited”; being verifiable means a claim could be cited to (ideally an abundance of) reliable sources, if needed. Not everything needs citation. But it needs to be findable in reliable sources. This means that a piece of information that comes from one’s own experience or analysis, or from one’s uncle who works for the government, or from divine revelation, cannot be included in an article if supporting sources do not exist—if it cannot be verified. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"verifiability" means only that it is verifiable. Not that every bit actually needs to be verified. Then, the "quality" of verification may vary. For many things, primary sources or no sources are fine due to being trivial or being obvious ("blue sky") or directly direct checkable. And your continous mixing in of reliable into verifiability is annoying. And I'm aware that we should not include hearsay as fact. But what we can and should do is inlcude and describe the scope and level and source of this information, in detail and transparent: THIS IS THE TRUE MEANING OF VERIFIABLE, that you also give the origin and strength, THAT THE READER CAN IT VERiFY HIMSELF. This means it is totally fine to write: "it is commonly beleived that" ... giving majority opinion of weak sources, as it is good to give an secondary text book on that topic and say "academic consensus is that..." This is commonly confused by mistaken authors with the simplified approach: finding "reliable" sources and than presenting it as "truth" ... which is horrible misguided, and fails our end-goal of making an reliable encyclopedia. Reliablity is the minor aspect of verfiability. Reliable is a horrible, fuzzy problematic term. For once as it is relative and not absolute quality: there are no absolute reliable sources, this is an fact of the universe we have to handle. But not in the way we insist there are reliable sources and other are not. Reality is grey and fuzzy and so is the concept of "reliability". Shaddim (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And your continous mixing in of reliable into verifiability is annoying. This is what I meant about your difficulty interpreting the language. Read WP:V, particularly the second named section. Or even the very first sentence on the page, which literally defines the one WP concept in terms of the other: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Nowhere in that page, nor in any other policy, guideline, or widely accepted essay or other page of any sort, is it implied that non-reliable sources may be taken to verify anything, or that editors may substitute their own definition in place of Wikipedia’s. You may also find it useful to read WP:IRS, which explains in more depth what is meant by “reliability” in the context of Wikipedia. If any confusion remains afterward, just ask and I’ll attempt to help clear it up. You could also try asking at WP:RSN, WP:HD, WP:VPP, etc. to get wider response. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that reliability is linking to verfiability and way around, this is to what I refer as "stupid, self-referential, circular mix up of seperated concepts". It's plainly bad, an horrib le artifact of hisotry. The confusion is on your side to use it in this mixed up way. Shaddim (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is the way we use those terms. If you disapprove of the semantics, you are free to avoid using these words. Let me have a go of it:

Wikipedia policy requires that all claims be attributable to sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or sources which have undergone peer review.

Better? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued already with you multiple times, and wrote in the essay: we aim for a reliable encyclopedia, this is the overarchign goal, everythign else are just means to this end (DON'T CONFUSE MEANS and ENDS). One property to achieve this is goal is verfiablity (NOT SOURCES!) to achieve transparency, ideally rooting in more reliable origins (VISION! NOT HARD REQUIREMENT! AND NOT ONLY WAY!) to prevent POV and propaganda. Again, you miss the main goal by overfocussing on detail formulations, missing the intend. May I ask you a question: how long are you active in WP? Shaddim (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see… wow, since 2005. Not continuously active, though. Took wikibreaks.
I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion, the definition of verifiability currently outlined in WP:V is the best means to our ends. It wouldn't serve anyone to deliver dubious information coming from a sketchy blog as if it were fact. You're welcome to try and get consensus to change, but in the meantime, we all need to respect what the consensus is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) on public network 151.132.206.26 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No!!! I'm not about pushing blogs as fact, I'm about presnting information as it is, "unreliable", independent from where it comes! Maybe just a little bit more reliable (but not absolute "reliable") from "Nature", and only less reliable when coming from an blog. It is all about the presentation which makes it clear and transparent to the reader where this information comes from and what acceptance this information has. I will argue and defend this point of view that pushing "reliable" sources and presentting them as fact is worse and harming the over arching goal creating a relaible encyclopedia. (approx. you are as long as me part of this project... this makes things not simpler ;) ) Shaddim (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would you have an encyclopedia state anything, if not as fact? Would you have every cited claim include in-text attribution? Example adapted from WP:CS: The Sun is pretty big, according to academic Edward Miller's book The Sun,[1] but a Scientific American article reports that the Moon is not so big.[2] Miller also claims the Sun is quite hot.[1] I really don’t think that would be beneficial; it would make articles less readable for no good reason, and be downright unworkable in a good many articles.[17][20][23][24] How would you even do that with extraordinary claims supported by several sources? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For this case we look on a long establisehd fact. For what the sun is exist clear consenus, agreement ("the standard deviation is small and the sample number is high") and very good secondary and tertiary sources. The selection of "more reliable" sources which represetn such a consensus is encouraged in this situation. Presenting of minoty positions is not required (but would be no "hard" failure). Now lets look on more fringe informations, more specialized, newer. In the majority of cases there is not such clear consensus but only some "specialists" defintiion which is not directly contrary but also not identical ("standard deviation is higher, the distribution is still normal distributed, but the sample number is small."). I would argue this situation is the majority of case. In these cases the more specific presentation inlcuding also the source is the proper and correct way which leads to an reliable represnation. Shaddim (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source is included in a citation footnote. Do you consider this insufficient?
It may be simpler to ask you to just grab a piece of WP content and use it to demonstrate your ideas, as I did with the CS example. Show, rather than tell. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did in the articles you callenged. E.g. license compatiblity, which is closely connected to the concept how software parts are "combined": either as derivative works or as composite works. To describe that (and to prevent getting challenged by you for OR) I used the formulation of specialist laurent as exmaple for the common but not universal understanding. (You removed the soruce that the FSf use this definition too, while maybe not literally in that specific source.... focussing on details missing the big picture) Shaddim (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On your sepcific question "The source is included in a citation footnote. Do you consider this insufficient? " yes, source citing alone 'is inusfficient for an good article. We have the responsiblity to balancing articles and embedding them in context ("alternatives, hisotry, origin, motivation") so that the reader get the whole picture. We should act as authors preseting a topic unbiased, whole and NPOV, not just throw a unconnected bunch of "reliable sources" at readers. Shaddim (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, take a paragraph or something that’s in good standing with respect to current Wikipedia policies, and post a version here reflecting how it might look under your policies. Like, say, how would your ideas affect the following paragraph? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koechlin has been acknowledged in the media for her unconventional roles in films and her straightforward personality.[1][2][3] Reviewing her work in Printing Machine, film critic and journalist Subhash K. Jha deemed her the "free-thinking actress this industry [Bollywood] needs".[4] Megha Shah of the GQ called her "someone who can speak her mind, sound intelligent and also look stunning in a bikini".[5] Members of the media have subsequently labelled her as a role model for women across the country.[6] Bhavya Sadhwani, describing her as "a real life heroine", lauded her for "voicing her opinions without an iota of inhibition".[7] The Week stated that with her powerful performances, and by voicing her opinions, she "has always stayed ahead of her contemporaries in the industry".[6]

  1. ^ "Kalki Koechlin turns 32: 5 unconventional roles played by versatile actress". India TV. 10 January 2016. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  2. ^ "There's something about Kalki Koechlin". The Indian Express. 14 January 2016. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  3. ^ "Verve's Power Women: Kalki Koechlin". Verve Magazine. 6 October 2015. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  4. ^ Jha, Subhash (16 January 2016). "The K Factor: Kalki Koechlin is exactly the bad***, free-thinking actress this industry needs". Firstpost. Retrieved 30 March 2016.
  5. ^ Shah, Megha (22 October 2012). "Kalki Koechlin is our kind of woman". GQ. Retrieved 7 March 2016.
  6. ^ a b "Kalki Koechlin's The Printing Machine: powerful and thought-provoking [Video]". The Week. 12 January 2016. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
  7. ^ Sadhwani, Bhavya (12 January 2016). "Kalki Koechlin Puts Out A Powerful Poem On How Badly The Media Treats Women And It's Scarily True". India Times. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
I would not change that, this is a fine WP chapter, well backed with sources (several sources said "has been acknowledged in the media" -> several sources given ... maybe here should be indicated if that was the majority recpetion). Maybe see the last sentence: something more specific can and should be described more specific: "the Week" said... Shaddim (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: and again, I believe I'm inside the policies, you believe I'm outside Shaddim (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The last sentence does go like that. Not sure what you’re trying to say about it. Or about me being “outside the policies,” considering we agree that this example is in line with current policies. You’re suggesting making changes to policies like WP:V, but not making it clear what effect those changes would have on article content. That is what I am asking you for. I’d grabbed a paragraph from the day’s Featured Article, but if you could find something in WP:TFAA that would be affected, it would be very helpful to show the likely changes here and give me (and others) a concrete idea of what you’re looking to propose. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you are trying hard to frame me as acting outside the policies and wanting a change. I reject totally your presentation of the situation: it is vice versa as we have seen with the third opinion and the wp:v discussion, i acted fully inside the existing spectrum of authors and their policy interpretation. It was you who tries to push a restricter interpretation beyond the current census. You want change not me. Shaddim (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You vocally disagree with how our policy defines “verifiability,” for one. If you don’t want to change that definition, why do you complain about it? Why do you complain that I act on it? I’m genuinely confused here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I complain about the convoluted & conflicting form they are written. While I and many authors are still able to extract the "intent" out of them, others authors got totally stuck in their detail formulations and entanglements ... and for them a rewrite and clarification would be helpful (e.g. separating verifiability form reliability, stating that reliability is an unreachable ideal and not binary, what is main policy what is auxilarly etc). You want a very strict intrpretation which is and was never the intent of current polcies and is also not the consens or onyl interpretation of the authors (see third opinion and WP:V discussion). I see it that way that you want a more strict policies as they are written and meant, e.g. "no sources" instead of "verifiability" . (Or the examples you brought were badly selceted... we should stick to the cases we had already: e.g. your try to remove "examples" as "trivia" from articles which is hilarious--- Or your insisting that being specific on the origin and author of sources is, how you caleld it, "bulky"? In the example you gave the author group and scope of an statement was more or less well defined, as I want it "someone said in some context something has this property", not in the form you want "something is")Shaddim (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:In-text attribution. In short, statements of opinion should be attributed (in the text, not just in a footnote) to the holder of that opinion; statements of fact should simply be stated as fact. It sounds like this is also what you believe so I’m not sure where the disagreement is there. But statements of all kinds must be attributable to reliable sources, per WP:V. If you desire verifiability to not be based on reliable sources, then yes, you desire a change to policy. Which is fine, as long as you acknowledge what you’re trying to do.
You keep saying the threshold of reliability is too nebulous. Have you read WP:Identifying reliable sources? That page gives a lot of information on determining how reliable a source is. You really should read it if you’re concerned about the clarity of using the word alone—and we don’t use the words alone; we use the words to refer to policies and guidelines, as jargon. When a Wikipedian talks about “reliability,” he’s not using the dictionary definition of the word as some ideal. He’s discussing how well a given source fulfills our criteria for a reliable source, which are laid out in policies and guidelines. Make sense? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing what does not make sense is your overfocussing & stuckness on the bad worded reliabilty inclusions in our poclies. Other authors (and me) handle it pragmatically, are aware thaht this is an ideal while you try to imply there is a clear definition or even the possiblity of the existence of "reliable sources". There are not. The only meaning is relative, use more reliable sources if available. (yes, I read this bickering around if or if not somethign is considered reliable or not reliable... it's horrible, waste of time & totally arbitrary where "thresholds" are placed ... and in conclfict with the pillars and other polcies which I consider signficant more important. Reliability is loved by authors who want to have simple checks if something belongs or not, which is applyable even if you have no clue about the article...which is a sserious problem.)Shaddim (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear definitions, and they are outlined at WP:IRS. Please stop denying the existence of this guideline. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Inherit the Earth
added links pointing to European civilization and Kagi
Software relicensing
added a link pointing to MPL

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Pursuit of Greed review

Here is a scan of the review you requested! [6] --SubSeven (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you :) Shaddim (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bob's Game
added a link pointing to The Escapist
Independent video game development
added a link pointing to The Escapist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lightning's Shadow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bit rot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FastTracker 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unreal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Extensible Embeddable Language
added a link pointing to Scripting
F-1 Spirit (series)
added a link pointing to Ubuntu
The Dark Eye: Blackguards
added a link pointing to Huntress

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gravity Force
added links pointing to Power Play and Split-screen
Molleindustria
added a link pointing to World Trade Center

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Emacs GPL Violation

Hi Shaddim. I noticed you reintroduced a sentence in the GNU Emacs article, one that is confusing at best. The sources there are very clear in explaining that, if anything, it was downstream redistributors who violated the GPL by virtue of distributing a version of GNU Emacs that was released without complete sources. It does not make sense to speak of GNU Emacs as violating the GPL. As I explained in the edit summary that saw that sentence removed, the copyright holder is under no legal obligation to himself to observe the license. Indeed, the whole point of a copyright license is to tell third-parties what they can do. Therefore when you say no lawsuits were filed, the only true sense one can make of it is that the FSF didn't sue third-parties for a mistake the FSF made. This meaning however stands in stark contrast with the idea that "GNU Emacs had been violating the GPL for two years", which in my view suggests that the FSF could have been sued, which is nonsense. I'm reworking the paragraph to make it more clear. Let me know what you think. --isacdaavid 20:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bandits: Phoenix Rising
added a link pointing to Wasteland
List of open-source video games
added a link pointing to 2D

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

email

Hello, Shaddim. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nthep (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Trail

Hey! I saw that you reverted edits to the Oregon Trail article. I agreed with your action and warned the user who blanked the content, and they then notified me that they simply transferred it to a new article The Oregon Trail (series). Just wanted to let you know that's why I reverted your restoration. The user should have stated that in their edit summary, so none of this is your fault, but it all seems kosher now. Thanks for your continued efforts and I hope there are no hard feelings. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks, for the infos. While I can agree with that, I think currently the integration & interlinking between all this artiles is weak and needs to be improved. cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon's Eye

Hello, I would like to thank you for the well maintained state of the Falcon's Eye article. However, I have a small concern about the infobox: Clive Crous and community are the ongoing developers of the Vulture for NetHack fork, not Falcon's Eye whose website is given in the infobox. The current state of the infobox might lead users to confuse the two, or to contact the wrong developer. One possibility to clarify it might be to list Vulture as its own part of the infobox (for example by moving the "Developer(s)" line under the Website line, renaming it to something like "Developer(s) of the Vulture for NetHack version", and adding another Website line under that for the Vulture version). In order to avoid a conflict of interest, I do not want to make any edits to the page, but I wanted to bring this to your attention.

PS. I Apologize if I raised this in the wrong page - maybe I should have used the talk page of the article?

Best regards, Jaakko Peltonen (developer of the Falcon's Eye interface for NetHack) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.1.65.125 (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jaako, thank you for your input on the Vulture wikipage, highly appreciated (and I hope you monitor this page for possible responses). Some remarks and a recommendation: while I agree with your reasoning, the reason for the handeling of Clive's fork "Vulture" as separeted entity is that it is not "officially" blessed as continuation of Falcon's eye (while defacto it is) by someone with authority (the original author or the community etc). I would propose you announce Vulture as official continuation on your falcon's eye webpages: http://falconseye.sourceforge.net/ and https://sourceforge.net/projects/falconseye/. Then I can referre to this announcement and structure the article differently. Currently I have to differentiate between both with later as fork and a kind of defacto continuation. About the infobox update, currently http://www.darkarts.co.za/vulture-for-nethack seems down, do you know something about this? Another question and topic: the commercialization of vulture on steam and elsewhere, what are your remarks on that? cheers and many thanks for the game Shaddim (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation would be to continue to describe Vulture as a separate fork/derivative, as it has a fully separate development team and has its own direction (for example, to my understanding based on its Facebook page and Steam discussions, there are plans for a graphical update that would diverge a lot from the Falcon's Eye look). I have no affiliation with or participation in the Vulture project myself, so I have no internal knowledge about its current state or the website. I understand your point about an announcement, but at this moment I would not like to nominate an "official continuation" - despite the long delay it is still possible that I may continue Falcon's Eye myself in a different direction, or other people/teams could make their own forks, which is all allowed under the licenses. The great thing about open source is that it allows alternative variants and directions to coexist. Thanks for appreciating the game! --Jaakko Peltonen
About commercialization: Nethack - Falcon's Eye has always been distributed under the NetHack General Public License, which states "You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." So some form of charging a fee is allowed, as long as that, and the distribution otherwise, comply with the license. I am not a legal expert and don't have enough information about the various commercial distributions to comment on them in detail. --Jaakko Peltonen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.1.65.125 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jaakko, thank you for your valuable remarks and claifications. One question, when did you start the project? Your old page http://www.aalto.fi/~jtpelto2/nethack.html seems down and the webarchive mirror is nonfunctional https://web.archive.org/web/20160521092407/http://www.aalto.fi/~jtpelto2/nethack.html ;P cheers Shaddim (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to define exactly when a project is started - I had done early work on graphics primitives etc. before it was associated with the Falcon's Eye interface for NetHack. My NetHack - Falcon's Eye features page (which had a timeline) is indeed currently unavailable, this is because I need to restore it following changes at the web host, I aim to do that soon. Meanwhile, at least one old version of my NetHack - Falcon's Eye page is available in the archive.org mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20010406092028/http://www.hut.fi:80/~jtpelto2/nethack.html and it indicates that a preview version was available in September 2000 already, so counting back from that, I would guess that internal development started in fall 1999 or spring 2000. --Jaakko Peltonen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.28.90 (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Do you not understand what original research is? You cannot make statements like "official end of life" or even change it to simply "end of life" without a direct source making that claim. The last patch was in 2011. That's all you can state. You seem to be trying to make claims of end of life and orphan works to suggest or justify that the open source project has no copyright issues or conflicts with the publisher. But that's simply not backed by any sources, and cannot be included as a result. Your edits are becoming disruptive when you keep editing in content that is not backed by sources or policy. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what improvment over eradication is? If you take issue with formulation details, improve them. The formulation meant official support was ended in 2011. Which is correct even with out an official announcment, the formulation was not "as the publisher announced support was ended" ... the formualtion was "the official support ended in 2011". Shaddim (talk)
"to suggest or justify that the open source project has no copyright issues or conflicts with the publisher" this is an interesting speculation / accusation, not intended at all by me. and there is in fact also no reason in my formualtions to speculate that. What I intented to say with that text is that support is not existing anaymore, which makes this software an orphaned work in the legal sense -> the producer can't be reached for support (the develoeprs and support team members are gone). Whcih means openRCT2 has potential copyright conflicts with RCT2, I indicated nowhere otherwise. In fact, these are aspects which the Openrct2 poject circumvented by requiring the original work to be present and legally bought. The user has to apply openrct2 as patch. which is legal. Which should be discussed in the section too. Shaddim (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Without a direct statement from dev or pub, you can't say "official support ended" just because of a lack of patches. Take [7] for example - where 4 years after a patch to a 20 yr old game, a patch was later issued. The logic above would have had us say "Valve ended official support for HL in.." when it is clearly not true. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that the formulation could be misunderstood and could be improved. Shaddim (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fact is, for 6 years no patch and that the community felt after 3 years the pressure to do it themselves. Shaddim (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would be more suitable: "as after 3 years no further oficial patch arrived from the original developers, the community took the support in their own hands to fix the remaining bugs with ..."' ? Shaddim (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's factually correct and not OR. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine with me as well, though I would personally word it along the lines of: The last patch for the game was released in 2011. In April 2014, a community project was started to recreate the game, fix bugs and make improvements." -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Music tracker. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You are well past the three-revert rule, so consider this notice a courtesy for an established editor who should know better. You will be blocked on your next revert. Rely on other editors and noticeboards instead of unilaterally reverting, and seek consensus on the talk page. czar 21:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, this rule is always applied against the side which fits the currents authors needs: the IPs reverted without proper comment and reason a reliable source: why is my argumentation "vandalism" not suitable her like for more "establishedTM" authors? Shaddim (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Status is now a revert by the IP agian. Why is this accepted? I tried to motivate the IP to propose another formulation... without success. I proposed another formulation, which got reverted. Why is my compromise version reverted and the stubborn IP is allowed to revert? Shaddim (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When an editor articulates a reason for the edit, it becomes a content dispute. It almost certainly isn't vandalism if the edit has any possibility of being in good faith. This is straightforward in the definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Editing back and forth is unproductive, so onus is on the person who knows Wikipedia's culture to encourage dispute resolution on the talk page. (Usually this means restoring the version from before the edit war, but I don't necessarily agree that that would be appropriate, and in any event, it needs finality via the talk page discussion. If you wanted page protection sooner, you could have asked for it instead of the otherwise blatant disregard for the three revert rule (3RR). czar 04:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on content. but I disagree on behaviour: if an IP insist on reverting (without proper edit coment and reason) and refuses to improve or start a discussion, I consider continued removal of sourced content vandalism. You are right about page protection, but I have never used that tool; and frankly the usage of these tools are to opaque and too complicated to use (e.g. going to some non obvious pages and convincing admins... pffff); therefore I never used them. Shaddim (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained why it isn't vandalism by our communal definition. The fact of the ongoing discussion on how to phrase the sentence is proof enough that it's a content dispute. Resolve it on the talk page. I'd normally sympathize on the arcane rules of bureaucracy, but there's just no way that your chosen course of action (reverting back and forth) has taken you less time than had you asked for outside help. (Asking for outside help is fundamental to any form of dispute resolution on or off Wikipedia...) You have any number of other editors/admins to ping, noticeboards to ask, or tools to use, but at least make the effort and ask/try, as the onus is on you. czar 18:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I knwo there are tools and places to ask for, but I never did before and , frankly, I have bad feeling in doing so; in general and especially for this (trivial) case: the IP was stubborn and fixiated on removal/reverting instead of improving or disussion: there was no discussion until now. Also, revert is a tool which should be harder to use, in general WP is suffering on to easy to apply reverts. Maybe IPs should be forbidden in using it, and it should be also harder for signed in authors. Shaddim (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are people too—they're entitled to the same rights as logged in users as long as their accounts aren't being used to circumvent checks/balances on their privileges. You call the IP "stubborn" and the case "trivial" but pot kettle black, your edits appear (at least) the same way and if they were trivial, they wouldn't matter to you either. Wikipedia:Edit warring explains why your continued reverts were wrong, even (and especially!) if you felt your edit warring was justified or righteous. I don't think you have a case for changing the ability to revert (any editor could undo edits manually, every editor manages not to edit war as a social rule, every editor is made to see not edit warring as their personal, social responsibility), but in any event, that is a discussion for another forum and altogether a poor defense of your actions. There's nothing left to explicate here, so you can either take your policy grievances to a wider forum, edit productively, or excuse yourself from the conflict. czar 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first one to defend IPs ...but I'm also the first one criticize overusage of reverts. The power of reverts is way to big, and as I said, signed in editors should be restricted in its usage too (no, not the stupid 3 revert rule, this solves nothing). Shaddim (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endgame: Singularity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCritic as reliable source

OpenCritic is being discussed again. This time, regarding whether it can be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia in general, site-wide. The new RfC has nothing to do does not specifically deal with the Template talk:Video game reviews template (as was the case last time). SharkD  Talk  02:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Shaddim. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Subsim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craftsman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

AMAX Information Technologies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Processor
Future Airborne Capability Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Portability
Soldat (video game) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to 4K

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Excalibur: Morgana's Revenge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:JamesBWatson. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The king of the sun (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Shaddim/Hedgewars

A tag has been placed on User:Shaddim/Hedgewars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Speedy deletion criterion G4 recreation of material deleted at two AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgewars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgewars (2nd nomination)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The king of the sun (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metacritic scores

Please don't invent your own scores for Metacritic. If Metacritic doesn't have a score for a game, we don't add up the scores and assign a value ourselves. This is original research, mostly because Metacritic uses an undisclosed weighted arithmetic mean algorithm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

either way, my main point is, good sources should not removed. If Metacritic doesn't use mean as I applied it to the 3 reviews, apologies. Shaddim (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining consensus and disruptive editing

Allow me to be very, very blunt about what I'm asking for you to do, since you seem to not be understanding it. What I'm asking is that you pick a place that has more than just us two - perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software, perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games - start a new section - and say "hey, I'm arguing with another editor about whether computer games should get Infobox software or Infobox video game. There were some previous discussions on the matter here and here, but I think..." Then lay out your argument. Then we'll see how people respond. If everybody agrees with you, great! If everybody disagrees with you, then that is also fine. Right now what you are doing is disruptive because you are constantly claiming community consensus behind your action with absolutely zero evidence. Actual consensus means an easy reference to people agreeing with the specific policy you're advocating.

The reason I'm not doing it myself is because, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion *already happened* and I've linked it to you. But maybe there's been a change in consensus, or maybe I misinterpreted the old discussion. Fine. Do the above, and it'll be obvious if that's the case. SnowFire (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will add it to 3third opinion. cheers Shaddim (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You... didn't add it to third opinion, reverted me and told me to wait for you to do so while the article remained in your version. No. That is not how it works. Your bizarre claim that the "pre-edit war version" is yours is false as well; this is the article on July 4 before I edited it at all. You're the one trying to get your preferred version in from the old version of the article with Infobox VG.
I dropped the WP:3O request off myself. We'll see if anything comes from it. SnowFire (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what the fuc**.... could you please wait some hours? and, your definition of when this starts I disagree. Shaddim (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colobot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cataclysm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm DPL bot. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Pastebin specifically is not an RS and it's not primary as it can be created and edited by ANYONE, the others are also not reliable, do not readd them. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it is a primary source, all primary sources were created by someone, this means norhing. What you are talking about is "relibality" which is a fuzzy quality which is rquired for controversial topics or articles about persons. We should strife then for more reliable sources, (As there are no reluable sources in absolute sense).

In these cases , not on measly technical things. So , readd the primary sources to fulfill our primary goal, verifiability (if you concerned about fluidity use the webarchive version)Shaddim (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand WP:RS. Pastebin is not ever a valid source about anything other than Pastebin. The other two are also not reliable but if you do not believe me, go ask at WP:RSN. Pastebin is also not a primary source - it's not any type of source as it's literally just content anyone can copy and paste. I could add to it that the person who created the game is an alien from outer space. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
as i said, if you are concered about fluidity, use the webarchive version. It is a primary source. Shaddim (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shaddim, Reliability is not a “fuzzy quality”, nor is it optional in any case. Vermont (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it is a very fuzzy quality, as even nature , which is considered very eliable, is ....sometimes non-reliable. Nothing is reluable, we have to manage here unteliabilty. The goal is to strife for more reliable sources if the szrength of the statement makes it necessary. Shaddim (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on N+. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 15:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Your submission at Articles for creation: Hedgewars (September 6)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Chrissymad was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Shaddim! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1001 games...

I was actually about to undo myself as I felt that being one of the 1001 in the book, being a notable book, is worth a 1-sentence mention in the article. Anyways, you said that it my decision was not policy based and based on "stomach" feeling. Firstly, I think you meant guidelines. Second, WP:IAR. We do not follow guidelines to the letter; if community consensus is at odds with guidelines, it's the guidelines that must change, not community consensus. Vermont (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for having the greatness to reconsider and to tell about. Appreciated Shaddim (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. "stop being a bureaucratic prick" is well over the line. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree we should keep the interaction civil, from my perspective Chrissymad crossed the line first when she started hounding me and shut down a draft of me in 2min without proper review. I'm considering a formal complain about chrissymad. Shaddim (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would warn you that if you make a formal complaint your odds of getting a boomerang are quite high, in my opinion. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 18:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The behaviour of Chrissymad is shame and a problem for Wikipedia, she should be called out & stopped to cause more harm to the project. My rage against this behaviour is understandable and was motivated by the drive for constructive work. What I can't see with her. Shaddim (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: regarding the "boomerang" page, "seek resolution on the users page", what I did, where this person had the arrogance to just end a discussion from their side. no resolution possible Shaddim (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well... don't say I didn't warn you. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 13:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Vermont (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Hedgewars has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Hedgewars. Thanks! Waggie (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thnaks for taking a look, but I would expect a more in detail review. Why do you consider the broad reception spanning many years and countries & the shown popularity on the Macstore and download numbers not sufficient? Shaddim (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to what Waggie was thinking, but just a general observation that the many many citations for download numbers aren't to reliable sources (know you disagree with that assessment, but I doubt you will find another editor that agrees with you, let alone consensus about it). In addition to that point download numbers by themselves don't make something notable, in particular refer to this section of policy for where it says

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.

{{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very well aware of that: not everything is notable. The question is where do we draw the line? In detail for hedgewars: "has not a mere short-term interest" -> active and reception over 10years -> check. "has gained significant independent coverage" -> 3 to 5 independent reviews. usage in research and a book. -> check. "recognition (imapct/world usage)" -> million of downloads. Top title on the macstore. included in linux distros and coverdisks, reach 100.000s. used on conferences for competive play. -> check. Shaddim (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be easier to see these alleged RS sources if the article wasn't buried under tons of sources that aren't RS. I'm more than happy to change my position, but I will need to see the evidence. Been searching around and have be unable to find news sources that talked about it in anything other than passing reference. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologizes if some of the sources in German are RS, but I'm not seeing anything that directly talks about the subject that is also an RS. It looks like the papers aren't about Hedgewars, just mention it, Softpedia doesn't qualify as an RS since anyone can edit it, none of the pages about building the software, code repos, official sites, download counters, etc qualify as RS. Others look like blogs, which also aren't RS. I can start a thread over at WP:RSN if you want more people to tell you the same thing. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RS material:
  • Joel Lee (August 14, 2017). "20 Best Open Source Video Games". MakeUseOf. "8. Hedgewars - Hedgewars is an open source clone of Worms — but it’s also so much more than that. It has taken the idea of a turn-based strategic artillery game and expanded it in all kinds of directions, especially when it comes to the weapons available in the game. In addition to single-player missions and multiplayer mayhem, Hedgewars provides all kinds of customization: to your hedgehog, to game modes, and to game assets (through community-made content packs)." (https://www.makeuseof.com/about/ , article by the Editor in Chief)
  • "Hedgewars PC - Open-source'owy klon Worms, czerpiący pełnymi garściami z tej utytułowanej, komercyjnej serii. Program powstał dzięki systemowi dotacji od zainteresowanych graczy". Gry Online (in Polish). March 24, 2006. (Polsih news webpage)
  • Richard Smedley (May 2008). "HotPicks". Linux Format (105): 73. (paper magazine)
  • Sebastian Dziallas (2009). "Strategiespiele - Hedgewars". C't (in German) (24): 138. (major German computer magazine)
  • Adam Saleh (8 November 2010). "Hedgewars: Linuxový remake hry Worms Armageddon - Spomínate na rok 1999, keď známi vývojári z Team 17 priniesli šialenstvo Armageddonu v podaní malých ružových červov? Ak vám tieto časy chýbajú, nemusíte ďalej váhať a stiahnite si Hedgewars" (in Czech). linuxexpres.cz. (Czech linux web magazine, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fcs.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLinuxEXPRES&edit-text=&act=url)
  • Hedgewars 0.9.13 - Gelungener Klon des Spiele-Klassikers Worms Hedgewars" (in German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 2010-05-03. Archived from the original on 2010-11-03. "Das kostenlose Hedgewars ist eines jener Computerspiele, das trotz eines an sich simplen Konzepts eine große Suchtgefahr mitbringt. Die Grafiken und Landschaften sind liebevoll und abwechslungsreich gestaltet." (major German newspaper)
  • Filippo Moriggia (2008-11-17). ""Download del giorno: Hedgewars"". PC Professionale (in Italian). (Italian PC Professionale Magazine)

The other usage indicates broad impact and recognition: for instance Hedgwars was a top 10 game on MacStore which has some significance. Shaddim (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do read some German, actually, but I don't know of any reviewer that is going to read through 100+ terrible sources to figure out that sources 13, 41, and 88 (numbers chosen at random) might actually be WP:RS. The bottom line is that if there are that many poor quality sources to support the content of an article, then even if the topic was notable, the article simply isn't suitable as it stands. Waggie (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
there are no "terrible" sources. There are primary sources which are fine. And if you have quality concerns, voice them specifically. current state is: notable due to RS. Shaddim (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through enough of them and stated my conclusions based on that. I'm not going to link to 100+ sources here and identify exactly what makes each one a terrible source. That you would expect that is ridiculous. Please read WP:BURDEN. Waggie (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I laid out the sources already above. Also, expecting some proper review by going through 100 sources on bottom and indentifying the RS one takes seconds. these can be then openend in tabs and reviewed, I don't think this is excessively burdensome. Shaddim (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you as a result of this discussion at ANI. You may appeal your block by following the procedures at WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thnaks I couldnt even finisk the discussion. :( Shaddim (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was already a consensus to block you, and further discussion was unlikely to change that and it was getting to the point where it was producing more heat than light. You can answer the concerns in the ANI in any unblock request. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I accept the block for the uncivil language. Still, I would like to have seen the behaviour of chrissymad as initial spark seen. oh, well. idefinitive sounds harsh. Shaddim (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==blocked answers

Comment: a decline would have been reasonable, per se. Unreasonable was: I interact with Chrissymad on some topic. She searches ("hounds") my history & starts another topic (and another). She comes in 6 minutes to ill-researched decision with no proper explanation that the draft is not worth. Shut down. Then she blocks, from me initiated discussion on my surprise of this fast decision, unilaterally. Someone who takes bold decision ("shut down drafts in minutes which were worked on weeks, which are alos not my domain") should be able to handle some (heated)discussion for some sentecnes without shuting it downShaddim (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shaddim&oldid=858940292"