Jump to content

User talk:czar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LaloMartins (talk | contribs) at 15:27, 24 July 2015 (→‎Wii U system software and its redirects: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


I am obsessed by the plain facts:
writing them literally down
is all the poetry I can.

Know that I esteem my editorial independence. Even as

I reject payment to edit or advocate on anyone's behalf.


Declarations



    Re: Fire Emblem series

    I have been gathering sources on Fire Emblem If in a minor way, and I have given editors access to development information on the talk page of Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, but none of the other Fire Emblem games are pulling on me that much. Awakening was very much something I did for a lark, plus at the moment I'm more involved with completing my work on the Persona 2 games. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Just thought you aught to know. I've done the work I've been planning for Fire Emblem Fates. Feel free to add and adjust. Given that it's looking like it's my kind of story and game (unlike Awakening, which had a really trite story), I may well stick with it. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HISTMERGE request

    Hello czar! I would like to request you for an HISTMERGE of Draft:Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates into the mainspace article Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates, without leaving a redirect. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ done – czar 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Leonard's Bakery

    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Photos

    Hey Czar, what's with the heavy Verge bias on the Google Photos article? It's definitely a NPOV issue. I'm just surprised since you're a longtime editor and an admin. - Kollision (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I wrote the article the day the service was announced and used what was available before leaving on vacation. That the article used a single source (in my opinion, the best secondary, reliable source for the material) is hardly "non-neutral"—any imbalance is resolved through regular editing as more sources appear. I added a few and have a few more to add. Feel free to boldly fill in the gaps. – czar 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: your revert, the reason that a citation is needed, is because I too think the article suffers a pillar-two-issue, from TheVerge being the main source. The particular sentences that I objected to were close summarization of a paragraph in TheVerge. Before my edit, which you have reverted, the article states flat-out that Google launched Google+ to compete with facebook, that GooglePhotos is the "successor" (note lack of qualifier) to Google+ photo-features, that Facebook has the largest marketshare in the online-photo-sharing-subindustry (even TheVerge was careful to explicitly note that is merely what Facebook claims-slash-boasts), and a few other things. Technically speaking, inline cites aren't even required in articles, and inside-the-sentence cites do add clutter. But methinks you should strongly consider junking the close paraphrasing with end-of-a-couple-sentences-cites, and switch to a blockquote, or just eliminate the google-versus-facebook "history" ... the article is supposed to be about Google Photos, and can prolly link to background info in other more general articles about photo sharing as an industry. Although it is true you are definitely quoting/paraphrasing what the journalist at TheVerge said, that's not the same as NPOV, since that one source's summary of the photo-sharing and photo-organizing industry-niche, as a battle between GOOG and FB and nobody else, might itself be biased/flawed/simplified/rushed. After all, he was writing the day the new app was released, after playing with it that day at the I/O conference. Anyways, I don't have enough energy to mess with that article further; the see-also section consisting entirely of Google(tm) products, and the faux-history section composed entirely of Google(tm)-vs-Facebook(tm) were the most obvious warts. I'll leave the fixing, or not fixing, up to your discretion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Verge is cited there for statements of fact. If you find their characterization inaccurate, the best course would be to put sources that say so either alongside or in place of their reports. The rewrite, with its ersatz quotes and multiple references to the same source in a single sentence, is not helpful to readers. The History section is not just the history of Google Photos (GP) in its current form. It makes sense to include the conception and development of Google+'s photo features, spurred as it was by Facebook, to provide a complete picture to Photos' development. As the source notes, GP is a standalone successor to the G+ photo features. I agree that more can be added on its history and market influences, and invite you to do so, but disagree that cutting down the summarized information already added is the way to get there. – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi czar, end-of-paragraph-cites for statements of fact is fine, but citing journalistic oversimplification *as* statements of fact is not so fine. Please either blockquote the journalist with full-name-attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as I suggested before, to show the reader that this is one person's take on the overall industry, or do as you suggest, and provide proper balanced citations from non-TheVerge sources that WP:PROVEIT your contention (shared by TheVerge guy) that Google Photos was entirely and solely and only "spurred as it was by Facebook."[citation needed] As mentioned, I personally don't have the energy for pushing the latter to completion, but I strongly disagree that leaving the multi-sentence-summarized-'history' is the correct path, as you seem to. As to WP:OVERREF, the reason for insertion of a bunch of refs was specifically to visually tag the parts that are contentious, for the edification of potential contributors to help improve wikipedia, and only to a lesser degree, to 'help' readers to understand that everything in those two sentences was to be taken with a grain of salt. I considered just sprinkling [citation needed] tags at all the same points where I mid-sentence-cited TheVerge guy, rather than just at the single CN place where I noticed a gap, but I've always found that annoying. Anyways, as I already said, I won't be working further on GooglePhotos, and leave you to leave it as it is, since you seem fine with it. But despite what TheVerge guys says, the photo-sharing niche-industry is not composed solely of Google-n-Facebook, and for wikipedia mainspace to pretend that is the case, is a violation of NPOV in-the-now, even if Someday it will presumably be corrected/balanced by Somebody... as other folks pointed out, in more general terms, about the NPOV of the in-the-then state of the prose back when the article was first written from a singular source. (Yes, articles are supposed to reflect what the sources say, not what individual wikipedians know to be true... but that means *all* the sources, not just whichever one happened to get written first about the GooglePhotos topic.) The article overall *is* at present reasonably balanced now, with the Dvorak criticism (though he ought to be mentioned in the into paragraph which as of now just says 'best photozapp evah' without qualification), but those two unbalanced sentences on history-of-the-online-photo-storage-and-sharing industry still definitely suffer severely from single-source-overly-simplistic-journalist-disease. Not sure we have a specific policy on that exact malady, but we do have a non-negotiable pillar. Hope this is helpful, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    http://xkcd.org/1539/ Funny, if you like that sort of thing, and tangentially relevant. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking for your views

    Dear Czar,

    Apologies for the intrusion. I saw on WP:PRV that you contribute to education-related articles and that you made some very good contributions to the entries of some universities. So I thought I should ask if you would be willing to take a look at the University Canada West article. Please let me make it clear that I have a conflict of interest with the University, but I am determined to work with the community to improve the article in a way that reflects Wikipedia’s best practices. In other words, yes I am a PR guy, but I like to think I am a reasonable one. I used to be a journalist, so I understand how important it is to ensure publicly-available information is factual and unbiased.

    You’ll see that the article has a few issues, including a lack of details about the university’s history, academics, courses, etc. You’ll also see that there may be some issues related to original research and undue weight in the Reception and Authorization sections. I believe most of these issues are due to the lack of reliable sources available about the university. Despite that, other editors and I are trying to reach a consensus on a draft that I had proposed, but we feel that we need further input from someone with more experience in university-related entries. Unfortunately my proposed draft has been deleted despite being under discussion (though you might be able to access it here).

    I’d be grateful if you could take a look at the original article and share your views with me and the other editors in the talk page. I saw that your main interest is in education as a subject, rather than articles about institutions, so I completely understand if you’re not interested.

    Many thanks, -- BrandDude (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @BrandDude, there's a whole lot there and I don't have time to wade into it. If there's a specific concern for which you'd like a third opinion, make the question clear and let me know. – czar 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dev donating images

    Hi Czar! I'm in talk with a dev to get some non-fair-use images from their game, and you've had some experience with the process, so what would be the best way to guide them in that process? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    At least a wikilink to some relevant Commons guide maybe? I'm trying to look around but there's just SO MUCH STUFF about licensing and copyright and I'm not sure where to say what. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey? :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've been away—hope it doesn't hold you up. Most important is the first email hook that explains (1) that you're writing an article, (2) how they can help, (3) how to donate/license images for free use. I ask the devs to send the text from Wikipedia:Consent (and the stuff they'd like to donate, either attachments or links) to the listed permissions-commons email and to cc me so I can follow up on the ticket. I then upload the material and tag it with {{subst:OR|id=<ticket #>|reason=processing}} to save the OTRS volunteer some time. Make sure they own the copyright to all the material (e.g., audio from videos, rights from photographers). Let me know if you have any more specific questions or feel free to forward me the thread and I can help. – czar 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot. They sent me the image by DM on Reddit already, so I know they're okay with it; I'll upload them with OTRS pending and ask them to send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org + myself to confirm it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes devs think they consent without realizing exactly what consent entails. I've had a few retract their word and files once they saw the suggested consent language, especially when they see that cc-by-sa files can be used and sold commercially. I'm grateful for their contributions, but I try to make sure they're crystal clear about what free use entails (saves a lot of frustration later too). – czar 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be perfectly honest, I didn't know exactly what the license entailed until I just read it myself, and it does go further than I expected; if permission doesn't end up being given, the file'll be deleted from Commons and we'll make due with fair-use. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I miss your purple/boxed signature. It was easier to "spot" in a thread the your current basic black-text one. Surely some color to set it apart from the surrounding text can't hurt too much? ;p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to place this here so I don't lose it again: User:Czar/free image request
    I miss it too, but while the purple is royal, the black is less ostentatious. I'll count you in Team Purple, though. (I also use a script that highlights all identifying links to admin pages in light blue, so many sigs are just light blue to me. – czar 22:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I considered that userscript, but it annoyed me more than it helped -- most users have easily identifiable sigs, and I also have the userinfo script which puts the rights (along with age and editcount) right at the top of every userpage. And damn! You're clearing stuff out of my to-do list that has been there for ages (because I'm a lazy bastard), thanks! :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Albany Free School

    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Albany Free School

    What an informative, well-written, and well-sourced article! Bearian (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! – czar 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophie Hunter

    Hi czar, please, I have a small favour to ask. I have been contacted through email and Twitter asking that if I could add the fact that Sophie Hunter has recently given birth to a son, but the page is protected. There have been two edit requests on its talk page but they are yet unattended. You're the only one I know with the tools who might be willing to help. Or would it be easier for me to nominate myself for adminship just so I can edit the page...? But thank you, I will forever be in your debt. JAGUAR  18:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jaguar, done—no big deal. I know the edit requests are patrolled regularly, but sometimes it takes over 24 hours. Feel free to run anything past me in the future, but no need for debt. An RfA's a bit more complicated... – czar 19:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that! I think an RfA for me would result in the end of my Wikipedia career... JAGUAR  20:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaguar - You've probably been contacted by a sock of Fairyspit. Do you mind e-mailing me what Twitter handle they were using? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Emailed JAGUAR  21:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP

    Thanks for reverting the IP blanking. I'm almost wondering if that should lead to a bit more than a warning since they did make a not so veiled threat here. It's probably an empty one, but a warning might be necessary. I dunno what I deleted of theirs, but there are better ways to go about getting stuff restored. (sighs) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tokyogirl79, I did think the Level 1 warning looked weak after I posted it, but as long as the editor desists, it serves the same purpose. I'm watching that one page but if they come back, let me or WP:AN know – czar 05:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I'm hoping that they just went offline and played video games vigorously to work off their anger. I'd much rather avoid an ANI issue if I can help it. (LOL, I think that any ANI regular could probably say that!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving MODOKA to Modoka

    Hi,

    I saw you moving the page. Isn't it more logical to move Modoka to Modoka Studios? Since that's its official name.

    Regards, Fouad

    --19-FOUAD-97 (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We go by the common name, though the official name factors in. Most of the sources in the article refer to the company as simply "Modoka" (stylized in all caps), so that would be the common name. This said, looking at the sources, most appear to be primary, so the article lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) I wasn't able to find any more sources myself, so I brought it to Articles for Deletion. – czar 14:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    EarthBound

    I just wanted to post a note to thank you for the excellent series of EarthBound/Mother articles. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Admin's Barnstar
    For doing due diligence on the Big Pharma (game) afd Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Re/code

     — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Apple Music

     — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Console-only games

    They are non-diffusing because it was decided years ago to have both categories in the articles. Some of the console-only categories were already tagged non-diffusing, all I did was add the others. Users like User:Sergecross73 can probably explain better why this decision was made years ago. SNS (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Homeschooling

    In response to your query. Sources are listed on the talk page at 31 Improvement of sources needed Isthisuseful (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Star Trek Beyond

    Hello C, I want you to move Draft:Star Trek Beyond to Star Trek Beyond - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Vg welcome}}

    Deprecating some TFs has created redundant links in {{Vg welcome}} that redirect to the main WPVG page. Any idea what to replace them with? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Salvidrim!, perhaps some variant of User:Czar/template/vgwelcome? That would be my personal preference, but it depends on the intent of the template (not sure when other editors use vg welcome). I use mine for new editors in the topic area. – czar 23:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... I use it for new editors in the topic area too! It's easy to pick in Twinkle's dropdown. Do you mind me "borrowing" the text in your short version to staple at the bottom of the big one? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it – czar 01:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Thanks for letting me rip you off! I should mention though, the "to do" and "announcements" links in your template now go to the same place. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was on purpose. I think if anyone's going to get excited about "the project", it's in interacting with other editors' work or seeing how they can help with a backlog. And I should note that I donate all my contribs to the public domain, so you didn't necessarily need to ask me how I felt about copying the template, but thanks nonetheless – czar 14:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Aztez

    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianna Hildebrand

    Hello Czar! I need you to HISTMERGE Draft:Brianna Hildebrand into Brianna Hildebrand and please keep the latest content from the draft. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ done, but I'm not sure that she meets the actor notability or general notability guideline, so I sent it back to draftspace. – czar 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's okay, I was going to do the same. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dunnet (Game)

    Hello, I would like to protest the removal of all of the content of this game. Please advise the best forum to do this. I disagree that there is insufficient reliable sources, and the page has been used since 2004. Thank you, (User aviators99) 73.39.51.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @73.39.51.187, we can start here and if we can't find agreement, we can take it to a communal forum, perhaps the Emacs talk page or Articles for Deletion. What kind of insufficient reliable sources do you have? The page's lengthy existence isn't a factor. Articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Do you have such coverage on this game that I was unable to find? – czar 14:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aviators99: Additionally, if you are indeed the game's creator (as stated in your talk page posts), you will want to review WP's conflict of interest guidelines and likely not edit that page. – czar 05:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game) – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Czar, you have two basic points. #1. you think the AfD is TLDR. I agree, and suggest that I collapse our back-n-forth conversations, now that we have boiled down the sources. (I'm also replying here on usertalk to keep from further adding to the AfD in the meantime.) However, I'm way more concerned about your second repeated assertion. #2. when you filed the AfD on July 6th you said you were unable to find sources where the game was "covered in any more depth [i.e. more than a single sentence] by reliable sources",[1] and after several more sources were provided you still thought on July 17th "there is only one listicle"[2] and now here we are on the 22nd and your position is that "all of your recent links are passing mentions!...those single sentence mentions...". Are you really saying that ALL the provided sources are single-sentences, and/or listicles which you seem to dislike just as much even when they have multiple sentences? If so, then we very much disagree, see below.

    I have one basic point: these are the known-so-far dedicated articles (aka zero listicles included) specifically about Dunnet,

    These have, respectively, not counting text-sentences in the screenshots: 25 sentences, 9 sentences, 19 sentences, and 9 sentences. Are these the sorts of long verbose articles you would find in some kind of bloated review in a playstation-oriented zine? Nope. Are they dedicated articles, specifically and only about the game, which is the topic of the wikipedia article in question? Yup. Are they WP:RS? Yup. Four sources, including an international one, means WP:N is proven, especially when you consider the WP:RS WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in completely different fields of inquiry that also exist, across multiple decades.

    You disagree? They please say why, specifically, but please stop saying how absurd this is, that somebody is trying to use a bunch of one-sentence-passing-mentions to prove WP:N. That is not what is happening, and it mischaracterizes the sources. With the exception of the Australian source, I posted the dedicated macworld/lifehacker/cultofmac articles *long* ago. Have you skimmed them? If not, please do, they aren't long ... but that doesn't mean they don't have sufficient depth to meet the "significant" criterion, which as you know is subjective. I expect the Dunnet article, once rewritten properly, will have about ten sentences, give or take. Which is perfectly kosher; articles don't have to be the size of 7500-word Skyrim. The rewrite of Jigsaw has five sentences (plus one wp:aboutself-sourced sentence that seemed helpful to the readership so I left it in there). Do you really and truly disagree that the four sources (plus all the other supporting evidence) do not count as 'sources' or are somehow 'unreliable' or are not enough to whatever-it-is-you-think-they-must-be-made-to-do?

    If so, then we better call for some second opinions to weigh in, because otherwise we'll just keep going around in circles with each other. If you *do* agree those four sources are dedicated non-single-sentence articles, and just missed them in the verbosity, well then no problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only one listicle. The rest are copies. Re: your four links, I responded in full at the AfD, but God help us, it will not get us anywhere to keep rehashing the same points. It should be abundantly clear why I think that there is not enough source material to write an actual encyclopedia article about this game. A bunch of mentions do not constitute significant coverage. And for the last time, "noteworthy" has nothing to do with AfD's notability—this discussion is about what broad coverage this game has had to make it important, not a catalog of every trivial way in which it is mentioned. I don't think the refbombed Jigsaw is looking so hot either. – czar 01:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, we're finally making progress here.  :-)   I understand what your sentences *mean* now, though I still strongly disagree with your phrasing of those sentences. (Originally I had a few response-paragraphs here. I've collapsed it, to save us both time.)
    optional reading
        You are asserting that there is a burst-of-coverage-in-2005, and that there is a burst-of-coverage in 2013. That is reasonable, especially for software, per essay WP:NSOFT. It will help the increasingly-adversarial nature of the AfD, if you'll stop calling those bursts "one listicle" since that is un-necessarily-belittling, especially when you don't make clear what you really mean (aka the initiation-source of each burst was a listicle). Ditto for calling sources 'clickbait' and other non-policy-backed-jargon, though I tend to agree with you about the reason the articles in question were written. What we have, is two coverage-bursts, both of which include at least one dedicated article. We also have a mini-burst in 2007, which was "just a listicle" but that explicitly *can* be counted per WP:GNG, which says that 'significant coverage' addresses Dunnet directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, and is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
        Your fundamental fails-WP:N-argument is that the sources are not giving enough detail, right? They do address dunnet directly, four of them, and even the listicles are non-trivial-mentions-that-happen-not-to-be-the-main-topic-of-the-source-material, so those can also count. The disagreement isn't over which sources exist, it's over whether enough detail exists to write a good article. Jigsaw is a really borderline case, since instead of half a dozen sources with some depth like Dunnet, it has exactly *one* WP:RS source with any depth; the reason that Jigsaw gets a pass, juuust barely, in my book is because the english phd prof calls it "notable" and the NYT calls it "acclaimed". I've not seen the WP:BOMBARDMENT essay you mentioned before, but I agree with it, and as you know, I explicitly tried to make Jigsaw differentiate between 'notes' culled from WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLOGS such, versus 'refs' which are only WP:RS (albeit not necessarily in-depth-WP:N-proof).
        So basically, where we disagree on Dunnet is qualitative: you think that two-and-a-half bursts of coverage, each source only giving a dozen sentences or so, is not 'significant' enough because there is not enough detail. Right? I disagree, because I think there is enough detail to write up a ten-sentence-article on Dunnet, and I am fine with short articles. (By contrast, I suspect you want every videogame article to have a detailed plot-overview for instance -- which is impossible to do for Jigsaw and Dunnet since WP:RS basically just mention the plot vaguely -- and to me that just means *wikipedia* mainspace should reflect the sources and mention the plot AND THERE IS NO PROBLEM with being terse like that... for me anyways.) The only serious policy disagreement we have, is on the question of whether WP:NOTEWORTHY material in WP:RS sources can have *any* bearing whatsoever on wiki-notability; you, following the essay WP:42, assert it flatly never can. I, following the guideline WP:Notability_(events)#The_coverage, believe that duration of coverage, international character of coverage, and especially *persistence* of coverage across two decades, can in fact have bearing.
        Now obviously, one must have *some* dedicated sources, for any of that WP:NOTEWORTHY stuff to matter in terms of swaying the wiki-notability argument... but with Dunnet, we have 2.5 bursts of coverage, including a few dedicated sources (and from a policy-backed-standpoint calling those dedicated articles 'clickbait' is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT ... even though your criticism happens to be pretty much true). While the wiki-notability of Dunnet still requires some human judgement, aka you have to assess ALL the sources and weigh whether notability has been achieved, not merely count up how many big long newspaper articles you have on your fingers, to me it is clearly persistent and diverse and multi-burst, and *enough* depth exists (subjective judgement here!) to write a 'decent' non-permastub article.
        To you, any such argumentation is mind-bogglingly-illogical, because rules are rules, and bursts are bursts, and if all the articles are less than two dozen sentences, OBIVOUSLY they are all just retreads, and CLEARLY should be ignored. To put words in your mouth, but not by much, methinks. So we disagree, but mostly on qualitative grounds. The correct way to handle this, then, is to call for help. See suggestion below.
        So, getting to the point, I suggest two steps. First, I would like to aggressively collapse down the overly-verbose portions of the AfD -- the discussion about who or who did not canvass, the long back-and-forth between you and me, the long back-and-forth between you and aviators99. Once we are both satisfied that everything that CAN be collapsed away *has* been collapsed away, I suggest we ping some trusted names for help. Here are ten usernames I suggest, left non-wiki-linked so as not to ping them just yet: AmaryllisGardener Secret Salvidrim Scray TP MelanieN Chillum Hahc21 Tezero DocTree. If you agree that these names can be fair and impartial, then after we have collapsed and cleaned up the AfD page, I suggest we should leave a neutral message on their usertalk pages, asking them to please look at the AfD. Even if only half of them comment, that should be enough to determine consensus pretty conclusively, right? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So... can I collapse down the AfD, to elide the TLDR stuff? Or you can do it, if you like. That may be all that we need, to attract some more input, at this stage. But it does need doing, prior to asking other folks to step in for sure, and probably even if we *don't* end up needing to explicitly ask for help. I don't care which of us does it, but one of us needs to aggressively collapse all the back-n-forth stuff, so we can hope to attract new eyes. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to collapse your long analyses or any of the obsoleted discussions that were later summarized, but please leave the notice of offsite canvassing. I haven't seen most of those editors around AfD in a while. Might I suggest one of the templates that asks for a third opinion? I think there's a third opinion noticeboard somewhere too. For what it's worth, I'm not sure where you suggested it, but I'm the last person who would believe in the immutability of rules. I don't feel a need to uphold any sort of principle with this, I just haven't seen a leniency towards sourcing like yours in hundreds of AfDs, hence the party line. So, alternatively, since you've already written enough in volume to twice surpass whatever length the Dunnet article would be, would you want to just write the article using just the reliable sources and the interviews without dragging it out? If you feel that you have enough for a dedicated WP page after all that (and that the text still wouldn't make more sense merged into a place where similar blurbs can be stored), then I can live with that (at least for now). – czar 00:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Google Photos

    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Interview request

    Hi Czar, those of us who hang out in the newsroom of the WP:VG Newsletter feel that it's high time you were interviewed. No pressure of course, but would you grant us this privilege for Q4? The deadline is far off in early January 2016 so there's plenty of time to mull over your answer. -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thibbs, sure, just let me know when. Thanks for thinking of me—hope I can give you something interesting – czar 01:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Thanks, Czar. Most likely the interview will be conducted by me, GamerPro64, or Torchiest. We'll get in contact when it's set up. -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary ban asked

    I think it is time to ask KAVEBEAR to voluntarily walk away from the articles related to the Hawaiian Royal Family. His disruptive editing seems to be traced to this specific portion of his seemingly sole interest in Hawaiian related articles. While clearly an editor worth retaining at the moment, it is time we ask this editor to refrain from the areas he is proving to have an extreme bias with. His user page demonstrates a bias as he has used it to literally add his opinion and biases of historic persons with genealogies and histories linked to living people who have Wikipedia articles. Insulting is only a individual perception, but this user has demonstrated that their bias is probable POV pushing at best, and agenda or advocacy editing at worst. It is possible this editor may need an Arbitration filing. I do strongly believe that editor retention is a real issue here. The editor has been in a number of disputes very similar to this with other editors who have stopped editing altogether. This has really stunted the improvement of Hawaii related articles. But since the editor is also a highly prolific editor in this area, it is possible that getting them to step back voluntarily can keep this from taking up arbcom time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A show of good faith has been demonstrated, however I don't believe it is not enough to believe that further disruption will not occur ( I have offered good faith truces as well as good faith demonstrations of offering collaboration, information etc., to the user to demonstrate my ability to collaborate and offer a civil path forward as I have done with every other editor I encounter a behavioral issue or severe content issue with, but this editor has by far been the most stubborn about not collaborating) I believe my contributions to the Wikipedia community do demonstrate my willingness and ability to work with others from my contributions to WP:WER, WP:DRN as well as many other notice boards and venues like WP:RSN and community consensus articles like WP:BRD. From the pattern established by the other editor, I believe I may have been to quick to dismiss the possibility of a voluntary IBAN, where the editor, agrees to stop further mention of me in any way, or interact with me on articles, including reverting me, discussing me or mentioning my editing in any manner. I therefore wish to escalate this to some form of official or unofficial determination. Since the editor has extended a limited amount of good faith, but also demonstrated the ability to act in bad faith to further an agenda, bias or personal belief, it is my opinion that the voluntary ban be changed to a voluntary Iban on their part. For now I am disengaging for the night, but wish to state that my contributions to Wikipedia, have shown my willingness to learn and advance to the foundation and the projects core ideas, where this editor may actually have some competency issues. They might be overcome if, we try. I can also demonstrate I have and continue to try with this editor. I do not believe they can demonstrate the same. After years of abuse, it is time this is settled one way or another.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to see you make greater strides to deescalate whatever is fueling this conflict. I see no reason why the correct orthography cannot be discussed dispassionately. If the Hawaii MOS needs to be resolved first, put the discussion on hold until then. Humility and deference are far more effective techniques for finding equanimous common ground than ANI sanctions. – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Schools for deletion

    I don't edit schools too often. I just know that elementary schools rarely have articles. Can you help with the redirect? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Magnolia677, if you'll withdraw the AfD nominations (or at least respond that you wish to withdraw), I'll take care of the rest. – czar 21:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hey, thanks a lot! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for Fifty Years of Freedom

    Do try and pass this thank you on. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Drafts merge

    Hello Czar! Would you please merge Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3 into the Draft:Untitled Star Wars Anthology: Han Solo? I don't know why they didn't just move Draft:Star Wars Anthology 2 to the new title, instead moved it to "Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3" and wrote Han Solo movie makes this one the third anthology film in the summary. But in the sources it is confirmed that the second "Star Wars Anthology 2" is the "Untitled Star Wars Anthology: Han Solo," and there is no "Star Wars Anthology 3" coming ever - for now I mean, not announced yet(even at IMDb, the Star Wars Anthology/project 2 is now renamed to new title). Please merge it and keep the redirects. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, all of the repeated content makes this very confusing. What's the official title right now? If it isn't "Untitled Yadda Yadda", why not redirect the other drafts to the main draft? I can't histmerge the two you wanted without making a mess because their dates overlap. If the issue is that another article is sitting at the proper title, rename it to another alias and then move as you need. Your main draft is the draft with the longest history so it's fine to redirect the others there. – czar 03:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, dates overlaps but no time. Is time making an issue too? Or just remove the Draft:Untitled Star Wars Anthology: Han Solo (only have two edits) and move Draft:Star Wars Anthology 3 to its place. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really a different film coming, I just read the THR news. No need to merge now, and I'm sorry for wasting your time. Thanks for the help as always. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HistMerge req

    Please merge Draft:Florence Foster Jenkins (film) into Florence Foster Jenkins (film), no dates overlaps and please keep the latest content. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing with the dates is that the two pages should not overlap in consecutive edits—the edits to be histmerge should completely precede or follow the other page's edits. The histmerge page has an image of how it works. Anyway, ✓ all done. – czar 19:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again here. And tell me one thing, can I nominate the article for DYK? I mean it was already existed but its characters were short and now we have moved a draft to mainspace. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It would need to be 5x expanded over [3] (the last public revision before your recent edits were mainspaced). It's also at 1300 characters (short of the 1500 character minimum) so it wouldn't be long enough anyway. At 5x expansion, it would have to be over 4100 characters. – czar 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah sure, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blast Corps and DK3 sources

    • Jevons, Dan sub nom Knightmare. "Nintendo 64 Theater: Blast Corps". GameFan. No.48 (Vol.4, Iss.12), Pp.104–105. December 1996. ISSN 1092-7212.
    • Jevons, Dan sub nom Knightmare. "Nintendo 64 Theater: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble". GameFan. No.48 (Vol.4, Iss.12), Pp.108–109. December 1996. ISSN 1092-7212.
      • I'm not sure why he signed this one as "NK"...
      • PG.108
      • PG.109

    And you didn't request this one, but maybe you could use it anyway. It's an "update" to the Dec.96 "preview":

    • Jevons, Dan sub nom Knightmare. "Nintendo 64 Theater: Blast Corps". GameFan. No.52 (Vol.5, Iss.4), Pp.60–61. April 1997. ISSN 1092-7212.

    Both are great games. Blast Corps in particular is underrated. Thanks for working on these. -Thibbs (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re:Magazine req

    Hey, Czar. Unfortunately, sites like Metacritic and GameRankings have a long history of posting fake or misleading dates for magazine reviews. This is particularly true of EGM reviews, which are often improperly dated 2003 or 2004. I checked the magazine you mentioned, and all that's on page 189 is a useless summary listing of their original Blast Corps review. I almost certainly have the real review in one of my magazines, but it'll take some digging. I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able to locate it. In the meantime, there are a couple of Blast Corps reviews in the OPA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @JimmyBlackwing, oh well, thanks for checking. EGM doesn't have an index online somewhere? Do you have the Stamper interview in Next Gen #38 (Feb 1998) scanned by any chance? – czar 22:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the interview scanned, but I can do that when I scan the others. I managed to find the Blast Corps review, alongside a two-page preview of the game that I'll throw in. Expect scans later today or tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here you go:

    Next Gen Feb 1998, ish 38: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
    EGM May 1997, ish 94: 52
    EGM April 1997, ish 93: 96, 97

    Hope these are useful. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Desaparecidos

    Oh man, I absolutely forgot that Payola was coming out/has been released. Just purchased. Thanks ;) Keegan (talk) (wearing his Desaparecidos t-shirt) 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Southside With You

    Please move Draft:Southside With You to Southside With You - Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ✓ done (though I think you could have moved it yourself—"with" is lowercased as a preposition in a title – czar 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Neil Casey and other

    Hello czar! please move Draft:Neil Casey to Neil Casey without leaving redirect. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 04:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is another, please move Draft:Brain on Fire (film) to Brain on Fire (film), please do not merge because I want to nominate the article for DYK. Just delete the mainspace article with one edit and move the draft. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks czar. Please delete the Draft:Brain on Fire (film) and move Chris McKay (animator) to Chris McKay, and Brad Carter (actor) to Brad Carter. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just leave Brad Carter (actor) as it is but move the other one. Thanks.--Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ done. Last I checked, it was common practice to leave redirects behind, especially if the Draft redirect might be removed. I do usually move without creating a redirect if the article is new enough that the redirect was never used. Brain on Fire had substantial text at its mainspace location, so it can't just be deleted. I merged it and noted in my merge that it should be fine for DYK (draft mainspaced today, the 18th, and the existing mainspace copy independent of your edits was from the 16th, so that's when the DYK timer starts). If anyone gives you trouble, point them here. The others were fine to move (even Carter) as the primary topics at that name. – czar 17:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and all understood clearly. Can you please remove the following redirects Untitled Woody Allen Project, Untitled Woody Allen project, and Untitled Woody Allen film? Because another untitled film of Allen is in development and it needs a space to create. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't delete those redirects without a reason. Common practice is to just G6 the necessary title once the move is necessary. Usually doesn't take too long. – czar 17:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, can you please fix the links of Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Carter (actor)? I think it needs fixation after you moved the actor's page. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ✓ done – czar 18:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rare Replay articles

    Hey, please sit tight on making a start with the Rare Replay topic as I'm in the middle of a FAC (shouldn't take too long, although it will distract me from any other GA work). So how do you want to do this overall? Should I pick an instalment, then you do one after I nominate one, or should we just write separate articles at the same time? Or make a start on DKC 2 + 3? I don't know what would be more efficient. I may be overcomplicating things but it is a big list though, so there should be some order! JAGUAR  22:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd prefer divide and conquer, if that works for you. I prefer to write article from scratch so I can be completely aware of how everything's sourced. It may not make sense to TNT the ones that are C- or B-class, if you have any ideas for splitting those (unless you just want to take them). And if you need help with sources or vice versa, we can cover each other. I have all the sources lined up for Blast Corps, so I'm starting there. (Found some nice Rare sources in the process—check the Rare talk page.) This is going to be a long process, so no rush—pacing myself. – czar 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like the best idea, I like it. I'll let you know when I'm able to start. I won't nuke any that are C-class or higher, but that being said there are only, like, three in the list! I don't know where to find development sources for some of the older games, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it... I have sources for Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts, so I'll be happy to take that. JAGUAR  20:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm able to make a start on some of the earlier Rare articles, but I'm absolutely lost on where to find development sources. The good news is that the ZX Spectrum and BBC Micro games are well covered with extensive magazine reviews, but the bad news is that there's nothing else to compare development sections with. The Jetpac series have no shortage of reviews (thanks to the link you gave me), but I can't find any "preview" sources. Time travel back to 1982? JAGUAR  18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "Preview" as in info about then-upcoming games? Not sure you'll need it, but any article (preview or not) is cataloged in World of Spectrum Infoseek. Best bet will likely be interviews with the developer, and from that you might only get a sentence or two. It'll be fine if the development section is short—we can only use the sources we have! Some of those interviews I posted on the Rare talk page might have good info. Otherwise try searching for interviews by Rare's old company name, depending on the time period. – czar 21:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sikander Rizvi

    Hello czar! Can you please review Draft:Sikander Rizvi, the actor got a lot of media coverage, and he is a brother and grandson of well-known actresses. I think the article should be moved to mainspace, his film coming on August 14 (not too far). If you agree then move it to mainspace. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good as long as those Pakistani sources are indeed reliable – czar 09:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reassessment

    Hi Czar! Thank you for reassessing article Crysis 3 and giving some suggestions on how to further improve it. So, I have followed your advice and fix most of the problems you mentioned. Do you think that it meets the standard now? AdrianGamer (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @AdrianGamer, definitely an improvement—nice edits. I'm bumping it up but I think it still needs some work on the readability. Lots of individual sentences can be tightened and clarified for people actually unfamiliar with the game:
    • "Players can strengthen their armor when they are being attacked by enemies." What?
    • "weapons and Nanosuit can be customized and upgraded" passive voice → "Players upgrade and customize their weapons and Nanosuits."
    • "Energy for splinting and armor boosting have their own meters in the multiplayer mode" What? (jargon)
    Now I can, as a reader, re-read and pick apart these sentences and try to make sense of them, or the sentences can be massaged to be understood clearly the first time. That's where I think the article can go next. Also the plot can be further summarized (too many characters and details, leave out some stuff, needs broader plot arc) – czar 17:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing more advice on how to improve the article. I will start working on it again AdrianGamer (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    DualShockers

    Hi, please point me to the discussion where the a/m source has been determined to be "unreliable", I cannot seem to find it. Cheers. Keri (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Keri, WT:VG/RS#GameRanx_and_DualShockers – czar 18:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers. Keri (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    AWB: I made the necessary revisions to Life Is Strange. However, I kept one video interview that just happens to be a DualShockers source. I assumed the bot was only doing what bots do—bureaucratise. I think the video interview speaks for itself. But I'm curious as to what your thoughts are. Glitchygirl (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Glitchygirl, nice! Yep, the video interview is fine as a self-published source (though videos tend to go offline after a while, so it'd be good to have it archived in writing if another site else covered the interview...) But with the unreliable sources tag, the page still has a bunch of references linking blogs and other sites without reputations for editorial quality: continue-play, gameskinny, etc. A list of vetted vg sources is available at WP:VG/RS. There's also a custom Google search for easily searching all of them at once (to source the stuff otherwise linked to unreliable blogs). – czar 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll look into that as soon as possible. Glitchygirl (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now revised numerous references. I'm not 100% sure about some of the ones that remain, like APG Nation's original reporting on the episode 2 leak whose work was later mentioned by Gamereactor. If this was redundant from the start, it can be removed—though I have found Gamereactor to be a trustworthy source.
    I thought reference #6—Destructoid—was reliable because of the author's title as associate editor. Researching Paste Magazine, I found it acceptable due to its accolades, traffic and endorsements. The author of the Digital Trends piece had background in The Escapist and Wired and the website also seems to draw substantial readership. Metro has a team of sub-editors to check for accuracy despite its ties to DMG Media. International Business Times checks out, as does The Verge. Reviews from Push Square, Gamereactor, PC World and Headlines & Global News seemed to warrant their inclusion only because it isn't a matter of accuracy, but opinion. I'd like to know if my criteria hold up to scrutiny and hope this post wasn't too overwhelming. I do care about making a good article out of this—and perhaps one day, _a good article_. Glitchygirl (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glitchygirl, I'd remove APGNation. If the information is important, a reliable source (not some guy's blog) will cover it. Push Square is borderline, so it's better replaced. Even if it's just opinion, we use critics that the public cares enough about to read. I don't really know what to do with Headlines & Global News—they appear to be something between a Huffington Post and a tabloid blog. Less than ideal. I'm not particularly worried about the rest of the ones you mention. It's well on its way to GA, but I'd try to stick with the big name reviewers and coverage as much as possible. – czar 16:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubtless, the list you relayed is going to be invaluable. I appreciate your perspective in all of this. Cheers again. Glitchygirl (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    David Coleman follow-up

    Hey Czar, just wanted to check in with you to see if you might have time to look over the The Common Core section I drafted for the David Coleman article. If not, I can reach out to other folks no problem. Let me know when you get a chance. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like 75.108 has it covered, but check back if you need anything else – czar 00:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep! Thanks so much. Heatherer (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I got sidetracked. But I won't forget to return to the Coleman BLP, as soon as mayhap occur. User:Heatherer, if you are in a hurry, or would like to get multiple helpers, you can always feel free to use WP:Q facilities -- in particular the teahouse and the live-help-chat (fka IRC channel) are good places to ask for insta-help. Just open up one or the other, explain you have I-work-for-the-company-type WP:COI, and ask for somebody to help you check over the suggested changes at Talk:David Coleman. You won't always get a bite, but sometimes you can get instant gratification thataway. I won't be offended if you tell them Czar and 75108 were too darn slow-pokey.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: A barnstar for you!

    How beautiful are you to give me a barnstar added with a humorous note. You have just brightened my spirits, Mr. Czar. I need that. Thank you!

    And ahhhhhhhhhh! Good catch on pointing out that we already do have rewarding acknowledgements here at Wikipedia in the form of Barnstars. I wonder why I've failed to think of that fact at all since reading the article on me. Good call!

    To be fair though and no shade at the individual who wrote that article but it doesn't sound like he's very familiar with Wikipedia at least based on a few other things he wrote, such as about his note on the upvotes and downvotes system he claimed we have at Wikipedia. I might be wrong here but I don't think we have a system for upvotes and downvotes on Wikipedia. I could be wrong but at least I've never heard of it. He notes in the article that one of my edits got a huge number of upvotes and I am confused as to what he exactly he's talking about. Anyways, thanks once again! =) AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    the neverending story, it seems

    Please see TradeInDetectives , Talk:TradeInDetectives , and especially Rubber Road. Suggest that you nominate these (again in the former case) for regular-non-speedy-AfD, and see who shows up to bangvote. This article-group looks like it needs cleaning up pronto, but if we go about the clean-up-process slowly and deliberately, we may flush out more usernames/articles/etc that need attention. As for my AfD vote, if there was any coverage of TradeInDetectives outside q3 and q4 of 2013, I would change my mind. As it stands, I would vote to redirect to a sentence or two in comparison shopping#Niche players, which currently has [citation needed] on a sentence about gamer-specific comparison-shopping-websites. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Eggerland: Sōzō e no Tabidachi

    FYI... You created a redirect to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bgwhite, fixed, thanks! – czar 07:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wii U system software and its redirects

    Hey Czar.

    The removal/redirect of Wii U system software killed Wii Karaoke U, which now redirects (thanks to a cleanup bot) to Wii U#Hardware, where there's no mention of Karaoke U at all. I noticed because I got a notification (since I was the last to edit Karaoke U).

    I don't even disagree with killing Wii U system software, but now Karaoke U is IMO dangling. I'm not a regular contributor so I have no idea where to discuss this or how to fix it. Put content back as a separate page? That would probably be fluff again, is Karaoke U notable enough? I guess not. Or maybe just kill the article entirely? Or add a paragraph or so about it on Wii U and then point the redirect there? No idea, but the latter idea sounds best to me.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czar&oldid=672891106"