Jump to content

User talk:Smuckola

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.162.205.14 (talk) at 04:35, 24 November 2015 (Undid revision 692157574 by Smuckola (talk) If you think you are "too good" to discuss people's concerns with your attacks, then don't create them in the first place.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstars from George Hill

The Original Barnstar
I would like to congratulate and express my gratitude to Smuckola (DTM) a for his great assistance in the design and creation of the article Wikipedia George Hill Chef. I was advised to request help from wiki editors by the deleting administrator following my deleted first article. I fortunately met Smuckola (DTM) on the help Wikipedia channel . Smuckola (DTM) immediately took an interest in assisting and compiling what turned out to be a very fine article created over may hours by him. He has great understanding of the wiki process, is excellent with English expression and understands the wiki mark up to design and put together articles that wiki should be proud of.My sincere thanks George Hill - Australia
The Barnstar of Diligence
There are many Barnstars that Smuckola (DTM) deserves, I also acknowledge diligence. My sincere thanks George Hill - Australia
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I acknowledge excellence in copyediting My sincere thanks George Hill - Australia

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You're a superstar. Thank you for your help! JSFarman (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! You created your Teahouse profile!

Congratulations! You have earned the


Welcome to the Teahouse Badge Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mac" dropped from "Mac OS X" in Mountain Lion

In "About This Mac", the "Mac" refers to the hardware, not the OS, so that's not a reference to the OS as being "Mac OS X". (The window it pops up informs you that "This Mac" is running "OS X".) However, I think I might have seen some "Mac OS X" references of some sort still hiding in Mountain Lion, probably because somebody forgot about them or because they weren't worth fixing. Guy Harris (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's not what the wikipedia article nor the sourced article said, so it was factually and encyclopedically incorrect. ^_^ Besides that, I don't imagine that it's a matter of fixing anything, because the operating system's naming is just a gigantic train wreck of stupid mashed up nicknames. They release software and hardware, and they call it stuff, sometimes. Their machines also have several different layers of pointlessly vague nicknames. They literally release entirely different products with the same names. The company is bonkers. The only thing that matters is the actual numbers. Smuckola (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject percussion

Always good to welcome another drummer. Andrewa (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Special BarnStar

The Special Barnstar
  • awarded to Smuckola as a gesture of very special appreciation for his unrecognized work.

Even in the complete dark you will always know who you are, and we will all ways recognize it for you. May your star shine bright, true and through, no matter the way of day, no matter the manner of night. You will always be you, and special.

Tweny13 (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THANX! ! !

Thanx muchly for the barnstar. I do quite a bit on drum corps & will do more as I get to it... GWFrog (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More Thanks

A big Tumeke for the tidy of the Maori culture article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am most honored to be acknowledged for that. I want to learn about all of the world's tribes. I learned a lot in this process, and yet I know very little compared to your own people. It's pretty weird that the articles about a people would misspell their name all throughout, even inside of the same sentence as a correctly spelled version, but I tried to fix it in all related articles. Thank you very much. Please do keep in touch if I can do anything else.Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
You're a superstar! JSFarman (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

iOS 7

Hi, thanks for your recent edits to iOS 7. Would you be able to chip in to the conversation on the talk page about the criticism section? In my opinion (as I've explained at the talk), it's not necessary and very much bias, especially for an OS that isn't even available as full beta let alone GM release yet. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  10:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man, thanks. Done. Let the other prominent editors know too! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your work at iOS 7, and for proving that I wasn't alone in the fight...  drewmunn  talk  19:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocoding/Voce FX example ideas

Some thoughts post IRC:

1. Early Speech Systems " Please <pause> Adjust <pause>Dial <pause> One One Two Four, Operator

2. Vocoded Robot "This is the voice of a Wikipedia account which is not human! I edit by your instructions operator!" (think Cylon/ Davison Era Cyberman)

3. Formicadae "This is the voice of Primary One, We think that you should be hearing this..."

Arguably this has a LOT of buzz in it as insects would speak with their wings and a 'reed' like mouth motion. Vowel sounds are extended, and the inflexions present in speech may be slightly off.

Some insect speech would be slurred, so Primary One might to a casual observer sound slightly drunk, Also To get really good insect speech, you might need to do some more research as some can only 'sing' in a certain range. My intended example in this is probably a 'female' insect in the

4. 50's OTR Alien - Technically the effect here is that of an echo chamber and unusal intonation. Male OTR aliens seem to be deep voiced.. Male: " We are the gate-keepers, You as children have thought as inoccents, but time it has come for you to in maturity put aside that you as children shall hold in inoccence.."


5. OTR Fairie/Elf. Not sure about female aliens/faries but a sample line might read Female:" I am Primary of Three, I am of the trans-dimensional, and you are a welcome visitor to our viel on reality.

Another suggestions for source material would be Ariel's lines in The Tempest or Titania's in a Midsummer's Night Dream..

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re :Wikilove

Thanks for the kitten,we named him kitty. everyone should know. EVERYONE! HEEEEY, did you hear me? everyone, especially someone who really cares for you. otherwise you could wish your name was earl. Remember Hitler. Facial hair is DYNOMITEI will try to translate the page of your request on IRC.--Carliitaeliza TALK 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carly, you should know that I always remember Hitler! And you as well! How could I forget either one?! So memorable. And yes, keep the hair out of our faces!!!! It's not safe! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! The planet needs you, Carly. Stay pure. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks for your edits for all of your edits for the Chicago articles, especially your edits on Chicago XXXII. I am willing to help you get the article to B class. Rock on! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People in drum corps

I noticed there were several people with the categories of Drum and bugle corps and/or things like DCI World class corps... Since these folks are not drum corps, I created a new category of People in drum corps and moved several of these people there... If you know of or see any others who should be there, please add that category to their pages... GWFrog (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Frog. I'm not clear on this. You say they "are not drum corps" but they're "in drum corps". I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't understand what you're up to, and would enjoy some clarification, please! Thank you and keep up the enthusiasm! Please keep checking out my drum pages (see list)! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look a little closer before you template, please.

Hi. Wanna explain how this edit was vandalism warranting a template? I assume it was just a mistake, but, maybe be a little more caution about templating the regulars. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there bro, we are beta testing a new counter-vandalism GUI and I misinterpreted its layout, thinking I was undoing the vandalism that you had actually already just undone. It's pretty rough. Sorry about that! I'm just glad that the mighty Busey is strong enough to take it. ^_^ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. That's a noble task. It was inevitable that I get templated eventually, so I guess if it's for a good cause I'll just have to soldier on somehow. Of course it would have to be Busey. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Yeah I hear that. It only makes sense. I've seen what he did to that kid on I'm with Busey. We all must answer the wild call of the Busey, when he tolleth, or suffer an unfathomably loving wrath. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Kitten! A Kitten! A Kitten!

Thanks for hitting me with the cheer exactly when I needed it.

JSFarman (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LeBassRobespierre

Smuckola — It has taken me some time to find how to get to this page, and I hope I'm in the right place and it is OK to post here this message: I appreciate your thanks for my minimal contribution of adding a reference to Phineas Gage. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia editing but not to computer as well as old fashioned editing. I have done some work this past few days on Wikipedia to a couple of entries that needed essential info that was missing, namely to the entries on Deep Brain Stimulation, Psychosurgery, etc., as I have interests in various subjects including history and neuroscience. Anyway thanks to you for the unexpected welcoming message of thanks to a new comer! LeBassRobespierre (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good. One glance at the revision history of Phineas Gage or the Talk page, will show you what a social disaster it has been. There's been a huge amount of WP:3RR, WP:COI, WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:ICANTHEARYOU there, and it's just deplorable. So good luck there, and don't feel bad if the trolls bite. Just keep trying, and discuss things in the Talk page, and talk with the people who've come in to mediate.  :-/ Or don't let their mental problems get you down, and move on to what does work. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. You can email me or whatever, as is stated in my signature here! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise required

Extended content

Smuckola, a month ago you gave me a nice barnstar and basically welcomed me to Wikipedia. Thank you again! Now I need your expertise and assistance with a new entry for a medical neuroscience journal that has not been treated fairly by one writer-editor. All I ask is that you study both the Surgical Neurology International SNI Draft page and its Talk Page and render your opinion, whatever it is, about this new entry for SNI. You have experience in this area. Specifically about Notability of this journal, abiding by guidelines, and fair treatment for all — Nothing more! Below are the links:

SNI Draft Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Surgical_Neurology_International SNI Draft Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Surgical_Neurology_International

Thanks in advance for your consideration and assistance in this matter. LeBassRobespierre (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LeBassRobespierre: Hi there. It looks like I'm too late to the party, and the pages have been deleted. I hope you are orienting yourself well with all the many articles on notability and behavior, as they do bear countless re-readings! lol It'll all be worth it sooner or later. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are a bit late, but better late than never! I finally prevailed on that issue but it was a rough going. I have started 3 new entries, which are now approved. One of them was the contentious one, I emailed you about, but a stub was finally approved. Surgical Neurology International. You may want to check what transpired in the Talk page. I will be add to it, as soon as I can find the time. I have also re-written 3 other entries, and in the way, finally developed a working relation with the senior editor (administrator).
Some Wikipedia users have expropriated entries and do not let anyone else edit. Phineas Gage is one of those entries. Psychosurgery and History of Psychosurgery are two others. Check the Talk pages on those too. Those entries need work and alternative references. I'm hoping the expropriator does his work since he does not let others do it! I may still need your help! Is that an area of interest for you? If so, feel free to comment.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@LeBassRobespierre: Yes, Phineas Gage is the most extreme example of WP:OWNER and possibly WP:TEND and WP:COI that I've ever seen. I've heard about major conspiracies across cold fusion but it is astonishing what those two nuts have done to each other, and what the one had done to the metadata. I read a lot of the Talk page long ago, just before you showed up, and I was just gobsmacked. I don't understand how anyone's mind could ever work like that, especially for that long; but I guess to paraphrase Rick James, autism is a heck of a drug. I am astonished that my copy editing was mostly "allowed", though he threw a fit about one of the countless run-ons.  ;) I had intended to let my extensive copy editing percolate before doing any more, because it needs it. They had long ago called in a third party person in the interest of neutrality, but I'm also astonished that the situation was not reported to an admin who would then ban the guy. Seriously the overall situation is completely intolerable abuse of the encyclopedia, but so far, I just don't have it in me to prosecute people to that extent. So I've just been like you so far, hanging back and observing the long-term history of the body content getting slowly improved in the forging fires. So I was sad that it was amongst your introduction to Wikipedia, lol. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Ha ha ha ha ha. Love, Julie JSFarman (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JSFarman: Ho ho ho hee hee hee ha ha ha. <3 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kath

Extended content

Hi, thanks for the support. Don't think we've crossed paths before but I would really like to try and improve this to good article status if I possibly can. See my recent note on User talk:Dr. Blofeld. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Ritchie, you are blowing my mind today, brother. What you've done today is truly outstanding. I have done the equivalent myself on several Chicago articles. I got started and initially met the band by writing Walfredo Reyes, Jr., and explosively rewriting Tris Imboden. The guys were fanatically enthusiastic about getting a completely comprehensive discography (yeah right, I bet they can't even remember all the stuff they've played on), so I threw in bonus timeline graphs. lol. Once Wikipedia came out with the thank button, I researched years of history to identify whoever had introduced that incredibly awesome timeline graph on Chicago (band). I completely rewrote Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus, expanding it by about two thirds based on some books that I bought just for the article! And I had it all proofread by my homie, Tris. And I wrote the whole section about the history of the band's logo and graphics.
This band got me to actually read books again! I bought Danny's book. I know how AGGRESSIVELY hard it is to do all this multi-sourced synthesis. It is brain draining. I imagine that you already did an extensive series of drafts before publishing it, or else you're just an expert. Plus, the stuff Danny wrote about Terry is about as heavy as anything I can handle. :( I did a lot of it around memorial day. I had removed a lot of the alleged quotes of Terry's last words fromaround Wikipedia, because they had been done in such a tasteless, cheap, tabloid, uncited, almost mocking fashion. There was even an article about famous last words, and there's probably junk on wikiquotes. But you did it right, in terms of the essence of demonstrating the notable story. I think the only way to do better would be to get that California newspaper article that is cited at timwood.com, (I wrote to Tim but he said he's been too busy to contribute, and I think he's kind of burned out on Chicago) which I believe contains quotes from the attending police officers. And that may allow one to glean a few more words, but only if it's done in a distinguished and tasteful and notably requisite way. And maybe to quote the guys on how they emphatically said that he was not suicidal and that it was ruled as a drug influenced accident. If one had to magically choose, it could be a superior use of time to find additional third-party quotes and impressions about the legacy and influence of Terry upon others. That might not be so much someone citing Terry specifically but rather the early guitar and vocals of Chicago. I don't know, just a thought.
it is a privilege to collaborate, and I would probably put any more substantial thoughts on the articles own talk page. Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like more of an expert than I am. Basically, to cut a long story short, I certainly remember the 80s Chicago, but then about five years ago somebody played 25 or 6 to 4 on the radio and explained who Kath was and that it really was the same band. So I went and bought the first two albums and couldn't believe the playing on it - I knew he was an early member but I thought he was some anonymous rhythm player, not this incredible guitarist. Anyway, I only really know that stuff and so Kath's article is probably the only one I can do justice. I need to add some biographical notes from 71 - 78, and also document how the significance of his contributions changed over the years. The death was an accident - end of. Okay, it's what all the rock trivia books talk about but I think I can invoke WP:BLP to say it is not kind to the surviving members of the band to remember him that way, instead of his musical contributions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Yeah that's what I'm saying, it's major major tabloid/sensational/intrigue material, sometimes even regardless of actually published facts.  :( Likewise, in all of the band's articles, I have copyedited out all mentions of who was "fired" because the unpublished contractual terms of employment are nobody's business, and "replaced" because you can replace a lineup but you can't replace a person. You just described exactly my impression of Terry, after having been raised on Chicago music past and present. As a kid, I had no idea who this scruffy anonymous dude was until a year ago when we started researching the band in preparation for their local concert. When Terry had died, my mom had been pregnant with me and thus totally distracted, so this research made us actually grieve about it. Now I'm grieving the "loss" of the mighty Champlin! I'll put more info in Terry's talk page. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the IP who's been adding unsourced stuff to this article is back. I've given them a pretty straightforward explanation of why their edits are problematic, which will hopefully be the end of it. Let's hope it doesn't take an indef block to get them talking.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bro. No, sadly, absolutely not. That editor is totally oblivious to the outside world. I noticed one prolific admin who's been also undoing his work all over the wiki, and wrote to him long ago, to no avail yet. I just wrote again because of what you said. I've just been following his contribution list every few days and reviewing it. He does a lot of helpful output, such as tedious categories, but he's also a warpath of WP:OR, uncited stuff, and overkill of categories and credits. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped him a fairly straightforward "start talking or it'll have to go to ANI" note - that should do the trick one way or the other. I've found the page error on Kath's article, and explained why {{sfn}} is my preferred citation format for good articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on E3

Sorry about the junk links-I was just trying to find any source for these anonymous unsubstantiated claims, and I have practically zero experience with article work and references, much less quickly. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 01:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Origamite:Oh hey that's all good! I was just tryin to let people know what works best :) reflinks is the quickest thing for automated citations, as long as you just quickly do <ref>http://urlofcitation</ref>! So I was deleting the stuff down to just the url so that reflinks can automate it, so I can just jump in and jump out, or else reflinks won't handle a partially formatted citation at all. Good job! Enjoy the show, man. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your tireless work on expanding and copy editing in the 64DD article. You have my thanks, as well as the entire Nintendo Task Force. Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 16:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 60.240.185.251 / 115.64.25.61 adding unsourced content into BLPs and not communicating. Thank you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Hi there. Thanks for filing that. I went there maybe two days after you posted it, but it was apparently gone. ANI posts just constantly roll off, without any ticket history, so I have no idea what the outcome was. I just thought I'd let you know that I was going to write details in support. That's all! Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: He's still going. :( I have no idea how anyone could ever check and selectively undo all this, and there are probably a thousand of these a day. WP:FAIL— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The previous ANI thread came and went without comment (probably because an ANI report that is civil, does little but mention diffs, assumes good faith and references policy is devoid of drama and not interesting). I've got to nip out in a mo, so if you want, could you create a fresh thread on ANI, referencing the previous one and including diffs of further problems? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Cup of Coffee for Smuckola

Thank you very much for thanking myself, keep up the good work and if you need any help with anything feel free to contact me on my talk page, It would be a great pleasure to work with another great editor! (excluding myself). Best wishes and kind regards Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Vitale 5:A cup of JOE??? How thoughtful! I shall definitely keep that actively in mind. And best wishes to you as well, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Geo

@Arkhandar and Sergecross73:Hey there, cool dudes. If you had time and inclination, you might like to proofread my recent major edit about Neo Geo and discuss it there if needed. I didn't wanna do it! But it had to be done.  ;) Talk:Neo_Geo_(system)#Reorganization.2C_July_2014. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago XXXVI

Extended content

I know that this isn't related to your edits on Wikipedia, but have you picked up Chicago's new album yet? If not, I highly recommend that you do so! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dobbity Dobbster! Dr. Dobbs! Good to see ya man. This is a Chicago house so yes we have it ;) We've watched the videos and such many times. Because of my Chicago work on Wikipedia, I met Tris and Wally and we got to be pals and they invited us to see them in Kansas City next month <3. We got a Chicago II record so hopefully they'll sign it. I just noticed that you had created some articles, so good job. They're quite robust. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are so lucky!!!!! Wally and Tris are my favorite members of Chicago. I still prefer Danny, but Tris is a great drummer in his own right. I have purchased the album as well, and it is a solid record with only a few weak tracks. Many of the songs seem to be overproduced, which is what to expect from Chicago now (pun intended). Still don't know why they have track 11 as a bonus track though, as every copy contains that track. I wish they didn't include as much Jason on the album, even though his tracks were amazing musically. Lyrically, not so much. Commercially, their album is faring well. But what I'm most excitrd about is that Weird Al's new album is at #1! What are your thoughts? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Personnel and Reception section of this article contradict each other. The personnel does not list Wally playing percussion on Crazy Happy, yet in the the reception, it says the track includes percussion from the great Walfredo Reyes. Which one is correct? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the credits occupy half the article! I created a monster with that "expand section" template! That's literally just about the only contribution anyone else has made to the article since I wrote it! Pretty soon, somebody's going to include the names of all the hotel janitorial staff at all the recording locations. I guess I'll look on the CD liner notes. I just wasted quite a while searching for Billboard's citation (what a train wreck of a web site) of their chart position, as claimed on chicago-now.com. :( — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several of the tracks include session musicians, and there's lots of them! John McFee of the Doobie Brothers appears on one track. I really don't see why Chicago needs session musicians. They have nine members, so why not use them? Poor Walter doesn't appear until track 7, and doesn't close out the album either. This is what likely happened: James Pankow "Hey Walt, we're five tracks into the record and you've yet to play on a single one of them. So, why don't you come over and play on this one? This one we get to play three measures!" Walter Parazaider: "Neh, I think I'll pass on this one." James Pankow: "Fine then!" Anyways, as far as I'm aware, the credits are correct. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I don't know where those credits even came from! Totally unsourced. Do you know? I'm pretty sure that the Discography manual of style requires them to only be a succinct form. I don't think we're even necessarily supposed to list every minor instrument, let alone every minor contributor. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? They're at the bottom of each page. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dobbyelf62:No, I mean I don't know from where these people are sourcing this multitude of credits for the album. Also my woman is wondering whether your username comes from Harry Potter. ;) I think XXXVI is pretty good, and its free-form creation and direct marketing are a true modern innovation in the industry which I hope Weird Al can emulate now that he's free of his contractual indentured servitude. I met Weird Al's band when they played here, because Wally and Tris are pals with them and texted em to find me after the concert. I made a weird "HELLO I'M FROM WIKIPEDIA" tshirt bearing a custom graphic of Jimbo with a bubble pipe like "Bob" of the Church of the Subgenius, and Al signed the fake name tag on it. They all told me that their Wikipedia articles are all filled with lies, but they're not. ;) My repeated and unsolicited advice to Tris in leading up to XXXVI was always "when in doubt, SISYPHIZE IT". Sisyphus is just about the ultimate, and it has some serious Tris juice. See the Allmusic review info I just put in XXXVI's article the other day which shares my opinion about its overall sound. "America"'s lyrics are impactful (and includes a horn lick from "The Pull" which was meant to indicate the heatwaves coming off the ground in a Kansas summer, as written by Dawayne who's from Manhattan, where I used to live) and "Crazy Happy" is crazy happy. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 10:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I don't know where to start on this one, but I'll have a go at it. If you're really curious about the lack of sources, it wouldn't hurt asking. As of my username, yes, I'm a Harry Potter fan! Dobby also happens to be my favorite character from that series, so it only made sense to incorporate into my username in some way. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the character, but he's more of a comic relief. Unfortunately, they minimized his role signifigantly in the movies :( I have heard rumors that this will be Weird Al's album since his contract expired, so it's not likely that he'll get to release another album. Usually, celebrities distance themselves from Wikipedia as they claim it's unreliable. I'm not going to defend it and say it is, because it really isn't. Of course, I always consult Wikipedia first whenever I need information on a certain topic. I'm glad you were able to find a review of "Now". Your work won't go unnoticed. Keep up the good work! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it may not be his last album. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

I understand that I stepped a fair bit out of line with my critiscm and with where I posted it when I made those posts on the Talk page of Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie. Also, it was a mistake when I posted one of the messages not logged in. Sorry about that. Am I allowed to edit my other IP and put my actual signature on it? After all, it was done by my IP, though not logged in of course. --Luka1184 (talk) 13:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Yeah I suppose you could do that signature. Though, I strongly urge you to delete the flame thread. Anybody else should do that anyway since it's an abuse of Wikipedia.
I am a strong supporter of the essay WP:FAIL, though I believe Wikipedia will not fail, is highly redeemable, and that there are processes underway to fix it. Eventually. But what you were ranting about so berzerkly is a complete misunderstanding. You don't seem to understand that it's based on the idea that Wikipedia should stop being an encyclopedia and should merge with its sister site Wikia, which is nonsense that just means that you need to understand WP:5 and what an encyclopedia is and why Jimbo created the two separate sites. <3 As I clearly explained, the two are distinct and necessary. The neutral work I just did there on AVGN's articles served to accentuate your more elaborate work, and I can't even imagine how anyone could think that it makes any sense to advocate for two web sites to be duplicates anyway. Also I explained exactly why a WP:PRIMARY source is not inherently reliable, as it's prone to bias about its own subject, and because an encyclopedia relies upon a wide diversity of reliable sources. So please re-read those comments, especially the essays, guidelines, and policies that I'm linking. Seriously, a person can only understand them after having re-read them a zillion times and letting them grow in you over a period of time. They are truly the bare minimum by which to resolve your issues with Wikipedia, and you've got to understand those basic concepts of its mission and purpose before you can start to fix its problems from within. Or walk away from whatever is too upsetting. You don't want to rage against basic misunderstandings. I can see that you care about all things involved, and I hope this helps. Read on, bro. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of my edit to "Cocoa (API)"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Cocoa (API) article. I made the edit because the MOS 1) prohibits external links in the body of an article, and 2) specifies that the "See also" section come before notes and references. Making the external links references in the article seems to me to be the best workaround (do you have another solution?); I notice that you did not object to the second change.—DocWatson42 (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello hello hello! First off, I'm sorry to hit the 'revert' function, but the GUI that I have for "AGF undo" or "Vandal undo" is based on the revert function, so I hope that doesn't do anything lame on your edit history. I'm sure it's a rounding error but it's not exactly fun to see that silly fraction of a percent of undone stuff, in your overall stats. ;) Secondly, I can not believe that I missed the "See also" misordering! I believe that those web sites are not presently references yet, because they are overall web sites way beyond the scope of a literary reference, including software repositories and other functional things. According to WP:EL, it's meant to send someone down an optional but highly relevant avenue if they want to read all about it, to incubate until the day when an expert can work it properly into the article body as a proper reference -- but for now, there's no specific reference. A reference should be able to eventually have a fully specific citation, like a book page, a movie timecode, etc. And with a web site, we should have an exact URL to a literary resource (a text page). Thank you so much for collaborating, and I'm pretty sure I recognize your username from long ago. How do you like the way I put it earlier tonight? Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
<amused snort> I check my stats very irregularly (less than once a year), and then only for my total contributions, so that point is no matter. As for the rest, the difference between the main MOS and WP:EL is annoying, but I can't blame you for it (can I? ^_-), and the article looks good. Moving the Web links from the body of the article to the External links section is a solution that had not occurred to me, and one which I will likely adopt. As for recognizing me, you did just thank me for my edit on Super Mario Bros. eight days ago, but I don't remember beyond that.—DocWatson42 (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DocWatson42:Ha, I hear that. I am supremely glad that my longsuffering in research of Wikipedia policy has yielded any new tips for anyone. I love it when that happens and I wish people would do that more often for me! Sometimes it's tough to work around insufficient provisionings. Let me know if I can help with anything. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi sir but the PS Vita did sell 10 million units

look at this article and find the PS Vita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_million-selling_game_consoles Diemor50 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diemor50:Hey there, friend. We don't mean to be harsh, and some of us are dealing with a lot of abuse and a lot of weirdos every hour of every day, so I don't mean to just dump a warning on you without talking with you. But we just absolutely must have *reliable* citations for important information like that. Please see WP:RS. And you can't repeatedly defy other people under any circumstances. Please see WP:3RR. For an orientation to Wikipedia, please see WP:5 and WP:FIRST. I looked at the citation in List_of_million-selling_game_consoles and it's a guesstimate, which is not allowed. Sony quit publishing sales statistics, which sucks for us. Your enthusiasm is encouraged! I know it's tough to learn at first, but please do read those articles carefully, several times. It's weird stuff but it's how an encyclopedia has to be.  ;) Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very tardy response

Dear Smuckola, you messaged me some time back about the naming issue with Chicago XXXVI: Now and other matters. I haven't been on the site at all since then, but I did read and consider your message. Unfortunately a lot of times it just boils down to page-level consensus if there is a dispute. A lot of articles end up using the title most often used in RS, and then including a "sometimes stylized" phrase like we currently have in the XXXVI article. On pages where the dispute keeps emerging, I've seen FAQs put in to place. When the next inquiry comes in, usually from an editor unfamiliar with the history of the page, they can just be directed to the FAQ where you would list the various objections people have to the current title and your rebuttals to all of them. Of course, this requires a pretty strong consensus for the existing title, otherwise you'll never get the FAQ done! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

I couldn't care less about politics, or about prosecuting anything myself. I don't know how, and I can't stand this level of negativity in life at all, but I won't just let a free community fall to the abject tyranny of a few people. I care only about these threats against the very existence of the free encyclopedia. Assuming that you're not also crazy (unless it's "here's to the crazy ones"), and assuming that you're going to utilize purely nonviolent and just means, I wish you GOOD LUCK. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I hope we can sort this out. Arzel, of course is the editor who tipped CFredkin off to the fact that I'd discovered the latter's gross violation of Wikipedia policies. I would have thought he or she would have had more sense. Euclidean Elements (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Euclidean Elements:I just can't even imagine. Now, you realize there's only so far I can trust a sockpuppet! And I feel dirty for having any mention of this on my Talk page, like I should start another page just for crimes against humanity, blasphemy, and this. ;-D — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo 64 announcement

Hi! In response to your email, I have to say I was rather surprised myself to learn that Nintendo had made public the details about "Project Reality" that early on. I've uploaded a scan of the source here. Apart from everything else, I think as an enthusiast of the N64 you'll find it an amusing read with the gift of 20/20 hindsight.--Martin IIIa (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Martin IIIa: Hey there. I appreciate you sharing your article. I've read it several times over the months. I am ecstatic to find several sources of retro magazines at archive.org, retromags.com, and outofprintarchive.com. Go get em!!!! If you haven't noticed, I've been exploding out into Nintendo 64 and 64DD history in the last several months, and that includes Shoshinkai and the history of cartridge vs. cdrom and Nintendo's online history. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin IIIa:Say, do you think you could help find this magazine article (preferably the whole issue), either on an archive site or just as a photograph if you have the print? <ref>{{cite news |title=Project Reality |work=[[GamePro]] |issue=58 |date=May 1994 |page=170}}</ref> It doesn't seem to exist https://archive.org/details/gamepromagazine?and[]=mediatype%3A%22texts%22#collection-creator here, right?  :( I'm burning up Nintendo 64 for the last few months! Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 07:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry for the late reply, but I didn't see this post until just now. I found the whole issue at Emuparadise. Here's the link.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

irc

Hey there. i just realized that you answered my message on this page,sorry for late,join IRC to talk,you'll find me with the nick Carly,thanks for your contributions! :) Carliitaeliza TALK 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC) @Carliitaeliza: carlalalalalala — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi! Thanks for your thanks for the YOLO page. :) The last few times anyone gave me a message, it was for not attributing a statement or for linking to a disambiguation page. Careless! So I opened your message with dread, and read it with delight. It was great of you to take the time. Happy New Year! OcelotHod (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC) OcelotHod[reply]

@OcelotHod: Ha!! I completely understand that, and isn't it mostly because people mostly don't thank each other?  :-D Well I usually don't thank people for each edit, because most contributions are boring or poor. lol. But I do thank a lot. Wikipedia is starting to to creep in some features that curb its collective denial of the fact that it is a social network. So that's nice, and it's nice to be nice. Doing Wikipedia well, is very hard. Let me know if I can help. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're great. I won't forget you, and I certainly will call if I need help. May 2015 bring you awards, health, and wealth! OcelotHod (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC) OcelotHod[reply]

Despite

The modern use of this word has nothing to do with "spite" as a "desire to hurt". I'd argue that most of the replacements with "aside" are actually more awkward. czar ⨹ 12:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Well that's noted, but mistakes and hyperbole aren't encyclopedic. The only issue there is encyclopedic (correct) prose. There are some valid uses, just not these, and I can't imagine any in an encyclopedic context outside of a quotation. There are a number of alternatives to that particularly clumsy faux pas, which I've been adding to my list of clumsy faux pas common to Wikipedia, and you're prompting me to think about it even more. You're a big cat and I take your interests seriously. By the way, I will get with you and others someday hopefully soon to proofread vast oceans of content that I've been writing about Nintendo history. I've still been blasting away on 64DD and I'm not done yet. Also, 64DD disks just became dumpable within the last few weeks, and development is hot with dumping and emulation. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting my s**t straight re Michael Stipe

I really don't know where my brain wandered off to! I am so grateful to you. I believe I will seek you as a mentor for my next several edits, just to make sure I'm not "going dozy", as my Cornish friend says.

Hugs,OcelotHod (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC) OcelotHod[reply]

@OcelotHod: Worrrrrd. Let me know if I can proofread or do any technical advice. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Robert Lamm source

Hi, is this reliable enough?http://members.core.com/~mjoann/Robert_Lamm/RLBio.html Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cap'n Tightpants: No, that's not reliable whatsoever. Patently non-reliable. WP:RS describes the criteria. It's gotta be a major publisher with editorial oversight. The goal is for the source to have made its editorial criteria publicly known, where we know that there are multiple authors or multiple individuals backing up the author, with a formal quality control process. And things that can't be arbitrarily changed, and that aren't crowdsourced. So we're looking for things that have traditionally been in print: books, magazines, newspapers, and certain web sites. So this means no weblogs, no forums, no wikis, etc. Wikipedia is the last link of the chain, so we're the only allowable wiki in the equation, but we still can't cite our own Wiki. You really should expect to need to read everything linked from WP:5 (WP:N WP:NPOV WP:RS) countless times, top to bottom, to have it start to sink in. Neutrality is the opposite of how people are, and it basically requires a reformation of one's personality or perspective, especially paradoxically if you're a fan. You've gotta dig in and read those policies and essays, and read existing articles that are of a high project rating. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cap'n Tightpants:By the way, I am a superfan Wikipedian. I have just learned how to translate my passion into neutrality -- that's not the same as neutralizing one's passion. I am indeed a Chicago superfan, I'm friends with the band, and I've written two of their biographies from scratch. Those things all aligned. I took the photograph on Robert's article. Same with my superfandom with Nintendo and other companies and whatnot. When you become enough of a Wikipedia geek, and a technically neutral mentality sets in, you learn how to find and inject the right things. Chicago and Nintendo got me back into reading books occasionally for this purpose, as a "refminer" (mining for references). I familiarize with existing articles so that when I read books and magazines, I know where to fill stuff in. I bought a pile of obscure Chicago-related books and DVDs on ebay. You'll find random personal heresay like the web site you mentioned, and you'll use it as a clue for finding real sources. Google for those ideas or those quotations, or just email the person to ask for their sources. Sometimes I read mountains of rough, to learn how to search for the diamond. If you can find old print and video resources that nobody else has found for Wikipedia, that's beyond the "low hanging fruit" that everyone else has already picked over. Or read the same old sources to arrange facts in a different light. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll keep digging. Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the kitten:)

Thanks for the kitten! You asked me about my interests, also. Well, there's Firefly, xkcd, Star Trek, and, of course, Chicago. Only 15 years old, and already I'm living in the past! Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cap'n Tightpants: And already at Captain status! Superb. What a prodigy! FYI, feel free to reply in place and use {{reply to | Smuckola}} to notify the person. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: Thanks! I was wondering how to reply! Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your thanks

...that came out of the blue sky, for such a small thing. Is Online and offline on your watchlist maybe?

The main problem of the site though remains, that all the waffling in the lede that I edited, have no sources in the body to back it up.... BTW, I've always been dragon and gnome at the same time - even though I dont state it on my userpage -:) Nice to meet you. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: Yeah it was on my watchlist because I'm secretly writing the history of Nintendo's online strategies. There are some elements of the article that are obvious and/or noncontroversial and not very cited, but it's a cool article though. It's nice 2 meet u 2. Your Talk page conversations led me to fix up some Autism related articles, and I appreciate your User page. Let me know if you need any help with anything. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smuckola, Do you know how to increase the image size in "my" article Bakken pipeline?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuerzele: Yeah I got it. The size was fine but there was a huge amount of whitespace. Most of the image was blank white space. So I downloaded, cropped, and reuploaded it. You might need to hit shift-reload in order to see the change. I was going to say "hey google it or find some other image in another article and replicate its options", but that wasn't working. ;) Huzzah! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smuckolaawesome, thanks. I dunnow what happened.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gentler warnings please

Hi, Smuckola. I saw the "only warning" message you put on a problematic new editor's talk page with the optional message "Serial vandal-only account". Seems a bit bitey to me. In Twinkle's warning selector dialog, there is a link about choosing a warning level. It suggests that "only" warnings are appropriate for "excessive or continuous disruption", which clearly didn't apply here. I understand that there was a danger of the user continuing on a spree but it's also plausible here to believe that Cluebot had already caused the user to stop. I also understand that it's often ambiguous regarding which warning level to use. Even with that in mind, Twinkle has many gentler options available that would have been a better choice. I think {{uw-vandalism2}} would have been a very sensible choice back when there was a danger they would continue. Or since, Cluebot had already warned them and they hadn't made edits since, perhaps the {{welcomevandal}} template I added would have been a good idea. Dogpiling warning templates (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to warn vandalizing users) doesn't help reform Wikipedia reputation for being hostile to newcomers. Lastly, three poor edits in 8 minutes is not a track record that establishes a "serial vandal". We should be avoiding the v-word anyway with newcomers (see the essay Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"). My main suggestion is to please be gentler with the newcomers. It benefits Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Quinn: Hi there. I'm sorry to differ, but three deliberate defacings is clearly exactly what "excessive or continuous disruption" means. Willfully disruptive, not accidents. Furthermore, the warnings are not just there for the user but also to serve as documentation for the other CVU members and everyone else who's forced to deal with their abuse, so they do sometimes get put there in series. It's a series, not a dogpile. This is a basic civil response to vandalism, a neutral message of instruction and a link to further clarification and other resources is not harsh or in any way emotional whatsoever. It's neutral. There is absolutely nothing personal about it, nor is it a matter of making or breaking friendships; presuming to turn it into an emotional issue or a social overture is totally inapplicable. I am not personally responsible for having created the whole world of other people's behavior toward newcomers, and I take individual responsibility for my role in my actions; nor is a counterabuse response the place to evaluate that. I personally am overwhelmingly generous and kind to newcomers who have genuine contributions, usually personally mentoring them -- in the relevant context. The social overtures you're describing are all appropriate elsewhere, such as the Teahouse or such. But your sentiment is noted, and I do strongly share all those same general concerns all day every day! In the relevant contexts and ways. I'll read the stuff you've linked again anyway, because you are absolutely correct that it's all general info that comes down to an individual assessment. It's a serious process, and I would rather walk away than make serious mistakes. I wish you all the best! Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: Three deliberate defacings is not what "excessive or continuous disruption" means under reasonable interpretation of the phrase. If it did, there'd be no point for warning levels 3 through 4 to even exist as template {{uw-vandalism2}} already assumes "edits" (that is, plural). The existence of the intermediate templates is sufficient argument against your rebuttal. (Plus, in this case, the editor's first edit arguably shouldn't even count as vandalism but rather just a poor edit.) Further, as I already stated, ClueBot had already warned this user and the editor had made no intervening edits. By letter of the Vandalism policy ("A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it.") about how to warn editors, your additional warning template should not have been added. So in terms of warning being "a series", you are forgetting the role that the editor has to play in that series. I'm glad you are generous and kind to obviously beneficial editors but some new editors start off poorly and are reformed. Even at RfA you'll see candidates asking to excuse their initial edits now and again. The problem with jumping to the "only warning" template is that the candidate hadn't even been given the material to read to know our policies, let alone time enough to read them. For all we know, the editor may have just falsely assumed that any edits are acceptable after seeing our "anyone can edit" slogan as with many wikis (Unencyclopedia and so on). If we push them away because they were even exposed to the proper editing standards, we may miss that chance to reform them. Although an understandable mistake in the rush to try to prevent vandalism, adding the extra template was simply wrong here, literally by policy and making it an "only warning" template was a lapse in judgment. As for the "I'm just being neutral/civil/impersonal" argument you presented above, I reject it as a myopic excuse. All our warning templates are carefully crafted to be very neutral in wording but if you jump to the higher levels warnings, they can carry a non-civil tone and have a personal impact on the receiving editor. This is getting long so I'm going to skip the reason why ramping up the harshness slowly is better for editor retention and the encyclopedia's reputation in general. I think I have said all I wish to say so I don't intend to debate this further as I'll end up repeating myself. I really hope you reconsider your view of this case. For all I know this was just an isolated incident and an anomaly anyway so I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill. I have no reason to doubt that you are a good vandal fighter. I just hope my comments help make you an even better vandal fighter. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn: There is nothing non-civil or personal about it, as it's neutrally informative text. As you described, the true fundamental fault lies within the ludicrously open and vandalism-inviting-and-enabling nature of Wikipedia as a project and as a social phenomenon, with its needless lack of qualification or orientation of open volunteers. Wikipedia is a chaos generation machine, throwing us all into the churn to rescue each other, and to rescue it from itself daily. If it was a physical phenomenon, it would be like a giant open pit at a construction site, and would be shut down or walled off on the basis of wanton negligence in any civilized country, lol. Even doing our best, we're bound for continuous imperfections. There's only so much a person has to work with, in a text-based medium with no physical reception facility featuring real cookies, kittens, body language, hugs, and especially real physical administrators. And yes I sadly do have some isolated events amongst many many many events, and I primarily work with other admins who explicitly mentor and approve the process overall. I try to stay as chatty as I can with admins and other senior editors, even just to routinely sanity-check my overall comprehension and to avoid a battleground mentality amidst such pointlessly manufactured strife. That's a constant threat to everyone. So I hope that assuages your concern. I would never want to be a vigilante or even work in isolation. :/ I see what you mean about the policy as you stated, and I'll read that thoroughly. Thanks for your factual clarification and interest. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please enjoy these yummy assuages. Courtesy of EEng

You do what I do, eh?

Hello Smuckola, I dream of horses has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
@I dream of horses: At all times! FYI I'm dtm on IRC in case you forgot. And if you forgot that we're friends there, then I dunno. LEAD ON and dream on, o fearless platypus. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you were dtm. For some reason, that didn't ping me, by the way. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USgamer & Eurogamer

Hi Smuckola, I'm Supernerd11, and I'd say you did a good job over on WP:VG/RS. The general convention seems to omit the ".net/com/org/etc" at the end of the site names, but that's just from a small sampling, so I doubt it's a big deal. Thanks for adding it! Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: Wow, I'm used to a lot of regular everyday nerds, and I'm used to seeing a lot of super nerds, but I don't always see officially identified super nerds. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Your recent comment on Wikipedia in Jan

Hi Smuckola: The editor you had an exchange with on the talk page at Wikipedia appears to have a history of deletions on this article [1] with Engineering Guy. He appears to have also delisted the article from peer review status. Is this a concern? LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LawrencePrincipe: Hi. It looks like there was absolutely no administrative response to your filing at ANI, was there? It just went blank. What a huge amount of diligence by you and others. Yeah I did try to engage the guy as you see on the Talk page and edit comments. Generally I despise politics, and I stay completely away from such articles, but I had just recently engaged the Wikipedia article out of respect for the project. So I'm pretty unaware of what's going on except for what I actually said. Geez. What a world of crap. This is what happens in a project that totally lacks reputation and authoritative oversight.  :( So I don't know what to tell you, or what to do. I'm shrugging my shoulders really big. If I had something more specific and recent, I could notify an admin friend. Otherwise all he could do is maybe a warning or basic verbal engagement, I dunno. Hasn't this already been engaged by an admin, or would that be pertinent now? It seems like it requires an investigation for WP:TEND or something, but yours went dry. Is Chealer doing this across a lot more articles, or just this one, over a long period of time? What do you think? And what do you mean by "delisted from peer review status"? What's that? Is that the "protected" status, against IP editors? In your ANI filing, you said "with the apparent objective of delisting the page for Wikipedia at all costs". What does that mean? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smuckola; My general feeling would be supportive for your showing an interest in this and maybe bringing it up with your admin friend. It may also be helpful for you to try to contact @Engineering Guy on his Talk page since he went through a lot of what you went through as well and he might have some helpful information. A small percentage of Wikipedia articles reach "peer review" status, known as either Featured Articles or Good Articles, and get to display a special star at the top of such an article which you might have encountered around Wikipedia. The "Wikipedia" article which you tried to edit used to be a GA status article and that was when I tried to report the disruptive edits which that problem editor was making. It did not help protect the article's star status and the article had its GA (Good Article) status revoked because of the disruptive edits done by the problem editor, or, it was "delisted". If you need further info then let me know and I can try to help. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LawrencePrincipe: :( It is essential that a person has current information, like from the last 48 hours or so, in order to pursue something administratively. And that's not because that makes any friggin sense but because even at an administrative level Wikipedia generally operates as a loosely organized anarchy and thus an atmosphere of fear. So everyone needs to have a "good admin" friend, which is hard to find. In two years, I personally have one and I might be able to garner another. But your documentation could serve to show WP:TEND if the pattern arises anew. Have the issues been resolved or addressed regarding the article's degradation in status? — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Smuckola; My look at the "Wikipedia" page just noticed that he is apparently edit warring with @EngineeringGuy again as of today. Not that anyone really wants to but if the 3 of us were concerned then we could request a page ban to protect the page from his disruptive editing. If you would like to do this then ping me and I can support. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at WP:VG/RS

I've tried to present some of my personal considerations (and ones that are commonly used at the RS board) here. If you keep these considerations in mind then you can usually predict how WP:VG/RS will regard your source. This should also give you an idea of what aspects of a source you are offering should be emphasized in order to convince the board that your source is reliable. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X68000

Hi Smuckola, there are wrong informations in the article about the X68000.

1. "Floppy disks came in a couple of different formats ...". This is wrong because the floppy disks came only in one format, but in two disc sizes (3,5" and 5,25").

2. "... none of which are natively readable on other platforms." This is completely wrong because all Japanese standard platforms, the NEC PC-9800, the Fujitsu FM-R, the FM-Towns, etc. can natively read these disks, as long as the user restricts himself to use filenames according to the 8.3 MSDOS scheme.

You undid my edit with the corrections: why is it "unencyclopedic" correcting wrong information? --Allgaeuer (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Allgaeuer: Hi there! You made large verbose edits far beyond what you just described. And you did so without any description whatsoever, as is required of all edits. You're now twisting what I clearly said in my revert message while ignoring the given encyclopedic definitions, as if your uncited and unexplained wall of text was an obvious and necessary correction. So I'm glad if you found an error in the article. Please do write a properly formatted, cited, and trimmed down correction that simply defines and identifies the technology without being a "howto" guide. I'm sure there are very few people who are able and willing to do that with this obscure product, so it'd be great if that's what you're going to do!  :) Do you have reliable sources such as the product's user's manual or a book? Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Smuckola. Now I understood what I did wrong, essentially it seems to be my "verbose" style. Because I tend to explain something in-depth when I have the feeling that several related things are probably also unknown to the reader. But you are right, I should restrict myself to only correct the error and leave it to the reader to search for more information. My knowledge about the X68000 has three reliable sources: 1. the Ｘ６８０００　テクニカルデータブック (X68000 Technical Data Book) edited by the Television Department of Sharp, printed by ASCII (ISBN4-87148-426-2 C3055), 2. the original user's manual, 3. my personal experience, because I am one of the original users of this computer. I bought my first one in 1988 and another one in 1991, the latter is still here though I do not use it often. So I will give it another try and write a concise correction. --Allgaeuer (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Allgaeuer: Hello there! I reviewed your editing history to read more about your background. You are a dedicated researcher. I found the same information that you posted in the "long filenames" article, where its details are more poignant. So I cleaned that article up, in an effort to collaborate. If you've got those sources onhand, please be sure to cite the page within them, on both articles. I mean you may as well do that, since you're the rare person with access and inclination! I'm excited just to get such a precise citation about long lost obscure information, about a topic that I care nothing about!  :-D But yes in this case it was the combination of the somewhat offtopic nature of it, and the total lack of sources. I know exactly how you feel, because I am a refminer (a miner of references) about obscure retro-technology. If I find an interesting or long-lost fact, I want to include it. But the challenge is to find where and how. Sometimes you need to post two versions of things, like in this case. You did a good thing in finding that silly "long filenames" article, because that's exactly where that goes, in the context of actual research and not trivia. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola. This is now funny for me, because I did not "find" or recently read any article about long filenames - the information I wrote about is still present in my head, because long ago I had a lot to do with Japanese computer systems - including the X68000 as well as the PC-9800 series. So for me my contribution was "trivia". When I once tried to copy a file from a X68000 to a MSDOS computer I first failed because I was not aware that all filenames under MSDOS are upper case only. Using MSDOS you may use lower case characters in commands, but MSDOS converts them all into upper case before writing them into a directory entry on a disk. On a X68000 there is no MSDOS, and Human68K is case sensitive: if you use a lower case letter in a filename, this letter will go into the directory entry as it is - when a MSDOS system reads the disk, it will show you this file in the directory listing (DIR), but never succeed to access the file because it will then try to match its own self-produced upper case version of the filename with the directory content - which will always fail. --Allgaeuer (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Allgaeuer:Yeah I was referring to your old work on the Wikipedia article Long filename.  :) I meant that it was a good thing that you located Long filename as a target for some of that data. ;) — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola. Oh, did I ? Must be years ago, I don't remember any more. I do Wikipedia edits only from time to time, usually in the German or the Esperanto Wikipedia. But if I see an error in another Wikipedia that makes me feel bad, I also feel obliged to do something about... however I am now surprised that there is no article about the Fujitsu FMR computers. That was the second important Japanese PC family for many years. However in the moment I do not have the time to write it myself, I hope somebody else does. ;-) --Allgaeuer (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Allgaeuer: At least I can say that when it comes to obsolete technology that was long lost in Japan, I have the 64DD covered! So don't forget to cite Long filename too! ^_^ — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 18:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: It's the first time I read the name "64DD" - I did not know this system. But I am no gamer, so this is kind of natural. Many young people know about Japanese computers only because two of them (the X68000 and the FM-Towns) were fantastic game machines. The "normal" Japanese PCs of 30 years ago were unknown to most Europeans then, and remain unknown till today - however to me they were a revelation in that time. --Allgaeuer (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Competitive Gentity

[2] EEng (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 2

For this month's issue...

Making sense of a lot of data.

Work on our prototype will begin imminently. In the meantime, we have to understand what exactly we're working with. To this end, we generated a list of 71 WikiProjects, based on those brought up on our Stories page and those who had signed up for pilot testing. For those projects where people told stories, we coded statements within those stories to figure out what trends there were in these stories. This approach allowed us to figure out what Wikipedians thought of WikiProjects in a very organic way, with very little by way of a structure. (Compare this to a structured interview, where specific questions are asked and answered.) This analysis was done on 29 stories. Codes were generally classified as "benefits" (positive contributions made by a WikiProject to the editing experience) and "obstacles" (issues posed by WikiProjects, broadly speaking). Codes were generated as I went along, ensuring that codes were as close to the original data as possible. Duplicate appearances of a code for a given WikiProject were removed.

We found 52 "benefit" statements encoded and 34 "obstacle" statements. The most common benefit statement referring to the project's active discussion and participation, followed by statements referring to a project's capacity to guide editor activity, while the most common obstacles made reference to low participation and significant burdens on the part of the project maintainers and leaders. This gives us a sense of WikiProjects' big strength: they bring people together, and can be frustrating to editors when they fail to do so. Meanwhile, it is indeed very difficult to bring editors together on a common interest; in the absence of a highly motivated core of organizers, the technical infrastructure simply isn't there.

We wanted to pair this qualitative study with quantitative analysis of a WikiProject and its "universe" of pages, discussions, templates, and categories. To this end I wrote a script called ProjAnalysis which will, for a given WikiProject page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek) and WikiProject talk-page tag (e.g. Template:WikiProject Star Trek), will give you a list of usernames of people who edited within the WikiProject's space (the project page itself, its talk page, and subpages), and within the WikiProject's scope (the pages tagged by that WikiProject, excluding the WikiProject space pages). The output is an exhaustive list of usernames. We ran the script to analyze our test batch of WikiProjects for edits between March 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015, and we subjected them to further analysis to only include those who made 10+ edits to pages in the projects' scope, those who made 4+ edits to the projects' space, and those who made 10+ edits to pages in scope but not 4+ edits to pages in the projects' space. This latter metric gives us an idea of who is active in a certain subject area of Wikipedia, yet who isn't actively engaging on the WikiProject's pages. This information will help us prioritize WikiProjects for pilot testing, and the ProjAnalysis script in general may have future life as an application that can be used by Wikipedians to learn about who is in their community.

Complementing the above two studies are a design analysis, which summarizes the structure of the different WikiProject spaces in our test batch, and the comprehensive census of bots and tools used to maintain WikiProjects, which will be finished soon. With all of this information, we will have a game plan in place! We hope to begin working with specific WikiProjects soon.

As a couple of asides...

  • Database Reports has existed for several years on Wikipedia to the satisfaction of many, but many of the reports stopped running when the Toolserver was shut off in 2014. However, there is good news: the weekly New WikiProjects and WikiProjects by Changes reports are back, with potential future reports in the future.
  • WikiProject X has an outpost on Wikidata! Check it out. It's not widely publicized, but we are interested in using Wikidata as a potential repository for metadata about WikiProjects, especially for WikiProjects that exist on multiple Wikimedia projects and language editions.

That's all for now. Thank you for subscribing! If you have any questions or comments, please share them with us.

Harej (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dummy "Reception" section in Marmalade_(software)

Hey Smuckola - i saw you reverted me removing the empty/dummy section "Reception" in the Marmalade article, with comment "and will remain just as necessary". Can you please explain what is the point of having such a "placeholder" nuisance in the article? Does not seem "encyclopedic" at all to have such "under construction" signs hanging, even if it were a template to follow. I am looking and indeed Unity_(game_engine) has Reception section but Box2D and Cocos2d don't, so it's not like there is some mandate?

Mind you, it's been over half a year for that banner hanging there and nobody has bothered to fill it. Unless you feel like filling it now, let's remove it? It can always be added when there is content for it, that's for sure!

I don't spend much time editing here, so if i did some horrible violation, let me know pls EnTerr (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

technical question

dear smuckola, can you please help me with a technical issue? I created an article Dennis Keeney, and moved it out of my user page with a redirect. Now I cant delete it on my userpage: Dennis Keeney DRAFT what to do? I'll never do that again....Thanks for your attention.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: It's no problem at all. This is just one of those mind-bogglingly ridiculous usability failures; if it wasn't for usability failure, wikipedia wouldn't have any usability at all. You did the right thing, because by doing a 'move' instead of a copy and paste, you're preserving all your editing history. For posterity! So you go to the link as you presented it, you get redirected, and look closely at the top where it tells you where you got redirected from. You click on that. Then you'll actually be looking at the redirection page. You edit that and you place the {{db}} template there. See here Template:Db. This is how Wikipedia works: X steps forward, X*Y steps back, Z sidesteps. I left out the part where I have to google "wikipedia delete an article" every time I do this. — Smuckola(talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you . I did it and assume i dont have to indicate a reason and justwait for deletion--Wuerzele (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 3

Greetings! For this month's issue...

We have demos!

After a lengthy research and design process, we decided for WikiProject X to focus on two things:

  • A WikiProject workflow that focuses on action items: discussions you can participate in and tasks you can perform to improve the encyclopedia; and
  • An automatically updating WikiProject directory that gives you lists of users participating in the WikiProject and editing in that subject area.

We have a live demonstration of the new WikiProject workflow at WikiProject Women in Technology, a brand new WikiProject that was set up as an adjunct to a related edit-a-thon in Washington, DC. The goal is to surface action items for editors, and we intend on doing that through automatically updated working lists. We are looking into using SuggestBot to generate lists of outstanding tasks, and we are looking into additional options for automatic worklist generation. This takes the burden off of WikiProject editors to generate these worklists, though there is also a "requests" section for Wikipedians to make individual requests. (As of writing, these automated lists are not yet live, so you will see a blank space under "edit articles" on the demo WikiProject. Sorry about that!) I invite you to check out the WikiProject and leave feedback on WikiProject X's talk page.

Once the demo is sufficiently developed, we will be working on a limited deployment on our pilot WikiProjects. We have selected five for the first round of testing based on the highest potential for impact and will scale up from there.

While a re-designed WikiProject experience is much needed, that alone isn't enough. A WikiProject isn't any good if people have no way of discovering it. This is why we are also developing an automatically updated WikiProject directory. This directory will surface project-related metrics, including a count of active WikiProject participants and of active editors in that project's subject area. The purpose of these metrics is to highlight how active the WikiProject is at the given point of time, but also to highlight that project's potential for success. The directory is not yet live but there is a demonstration featuring a sampling of WikiProjects.

Each directory entry will link to a WikiProject description page which automatically list the active WikiProject participants and subject-area article editors. This allows Wikipedians to find each other based on the areas they are interested in, and this information can be used to revive a WikiProject, start a new one, or even for some other purpose. These description pages are not online yet, but they will use this template, if you want to get a feel of what they will look like.

We need volunteers!

WikiProject X is a huge undertaking, and we need volunteers to support our efforts, including testers and coders. Check out our volunteer portal and see what you can do to help us!

As an aside...

Wouldn't it be cool if lists of requested articles could not only be integrated directly with WikiProjects, but also shared between WikiProjects? Well, we got the crazy idea of having experimental software feature Flow deployed (on a totally experimental basis) on the new Article Request Workshop, which seeks to be a place where editors can "workshop" article ideas before they get created. It uses Flow because Flow allows, essentially, section-level categorization, and in the future will allow "sections" (known as "topics" within Flow) to be included across different pages. What this means is that you have a recommendation for a new article tagged by multiple WikiProjects, allowing for the recommendation to appear on lists for each WikiProject. This will facilitate inter-WikiProject collaboration and will help to reduce duplicated work. The Article Request Workshop is not entirely ready yet due to some bugs with Flow, but we hope to integrate it into our pilot WikiProjects at some point.

Harej (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bowser_(character)#Voice_Over_Portrayal

I've been trying to have a consensus with an i.p on Bowser's Talk page, so far I can't handle it on my own. Do you think you can participate and/or get others more common in this to join if it's alright with you? --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that's not my fualt

im sorry I'm not responsible for grabage edit one of my friend did that without my knowledge please understand i don't perform such edits you can see my edit history all are usefull myfriend was using my phonewifi hotspot in another phone the he was using my IP address that's why it showed me as responsible for that edit please understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs)

@Krishnachaitan: Do you mean this edit? Because a personal hotspot wouldn't make the edit from your account. Origamiteⓣⓒ 11:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks: History of chess

Thanks for reverting that drivel! Parcheesi is also on my watchlist; I just cleansed that article. J S Ayer (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4

Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.


Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Odoo article

Hello, just added a comment here. You feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Dreispt (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Percussion

I didn't mean to cause offence when I rated the importance levels of your articles. I reinstated the importance scale more than anything as a way of breaking up the mass of articles into strata, so I can see what hangs together, and which pages need to be better linked, brought under the umbrella of an overview page, or even merged, as I've just nominated some drum tuning stubs for. For this reason I've grouped into top level some technical articles which are quite small in scope. High level is for the most part instrument and instrument grouping pages at present, but there is certainly a case for also including to most notable figures and companies. Overall the reinstating of importance lets us see which Stubs and start class articles to tackle first, in the mass of these, and which B or C class articles might server the percussion category better if they were improved to feature articles. I'll repost this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Percussion/Assessment to open a broader discussion on the assessment scale. Feel free to make adjustments to the scale, because I'm not 100% that I've adequately covered the different types of articles in the project and which level of work importance they should be assigned. It's nice to see there's still a few active wikipercussionists. Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.K. vs K.K. Slider

Hi! I noticed that you changed K.K. back to K.K. Slider because I wrote "seems to officially refer to" in my edit summary. I apologize if I used the wrong wording here. Instead, it should have been "does officially refer to", as it's clearly the Amiibo's official name according to its dedicated site which I linked to in my summary: http://www.nintendo.com/amiibo/detail/kk-amiibo-animal-crossing-series Given that the figurine is officially called K.K. as the site states, why would the Amiibo card be called K.K. Slider then? 88.68.129.30 (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't raise any further objections in the last 24 hours, I changed the figurine's name back to its official name K.K. and added a ref. I didn't change the card's name though, as the North American version hasn't been shown yet and there's the small but unlikely possibility that it'll be called K.K. Slider instead. Please let's discuss here first before reverting my changes again if you still don't agree with my arguments for some reason. Thanks, 88.68.129.30 (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to give you a quick update. We now have a picture of the NA card and there he's called K.K. as well: http://www.nintendo.com/amiibo/detail/animal-crossing-cards-series-2-amiibo-animal-crossing-series 88.68.129.30 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I had undone that just on general principle of having an uncited and unexplained nontrivial change. And I'm not an Animal Crossing expert to know all the trivia. So I'm basically also an example of why it should be clearer. You're saying it's WP:NATURAL vs. WP:COMMONNAME, so It should state basically both names once. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 04:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for explaining. The character was referred to as K.K. Slider in the past and is still called so by Nintendo of America in rare occasions, but they've named him simply K.K. in all of the recent Animal Crossing games, as well as the two amiibo. I think in cases of collectibles like amiibo, it would be better to use the items' official names, especially in case of cards where they're printed directly on them. We could add a lower-alpha ref explaining that the character is also known as K.K. Slider if you like, although I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who knows who K.K. Slider is, also recognizes him with the name K.K. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just "K. K. Slider (also known as K. K.)". — Smuckola(talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks too long and complicated for a character name to me, especially compared to the other amiibo names. It would be like writing "Super Mario (also known as Mario)". If e.g. the amiibo card has "K.K." printed on it, I wouldn't use anything else as that would be misleading and contradict the actual card name. If you still insist that the best character name is K.K. Slider despite what I wrote, then feel free to change it. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if "Super Mario" was a name, which it isn't, then that would also be correct, as is standard practice through the entire encyclopedia as per common sense. It's up to you to fix your error because total deletion is just a distortion. There's nothing long or complicated whatsoever about four words, one time in the article. — Smuckola(talk) 23:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me, K.K. is still the most correct name when considering character name in his recent games and amiibo name directly printed on card/packaging. If we were to follow your suggestion, the figure name would be K.K. Slider (also known as K.K.) and the card name just K.K. Slider, which as I told you in my previous post, contradicts the name printed directly on the amiibo. I told you everything I have to say on the topic. If you think I made an error, then go ahead, correct me and make all changes you think are necessary. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star Wars: The Interactive Video Board Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endor (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) 09:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2015

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 8, No. 3 — 3nd Quarter, 2015
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2015, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 5

Newsletter • October 2015

Hello there! Happy to be writing this newsletter once more. This month:

We did it!

In July, we launched five pilot WikiProjects: WikiProjects Cannabis, Evolutionary Biology, Ghana, Hampshire, and Women's Health. We also use the new design, named "WPX UI," on WikiProject Women in Technology, Women in Red, WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health. We are currently looking for projects for the next round of testing. If you are interested, please sign up on the Pilots page.

Shortly after our launch we presented at Wikimania 2015. Our slides are on Wikimedia Commons.

Then after all that work, we went through the process of figuring out whether we accomplished our goal. We reached out to participants on the redesigned WikiProjects, and we asked them to complete a survey. (If you filled out your survey—thank you!) While there are still some issues with the WikiProject tools and the new design, there appears to be general satisfaction (at least among those who responded). The results of the survey and more are documented in our grant report filed with the Wikimedia Foundation.

The work continues!

There is more work that needs to be done, so we have applied for a renewal of our grant. Comments on the proposal are welcome. We would like to improve what we have already started on the English Wikipedia and to also expand to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. Why those? Because they are multilingual projects and because there needs to be better coordination across Wikimedia projects. More details are available in the renewal proposal.

How can the Wikimedia Foundation support WikiProjects?

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will be held in San Francisco in January 2016. The recently established Community Tech team at the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in investigating what technical support they can provide for WikiProjects, i.e., support beyond just templates and bots. I have plenty of opinions myself, but I want to hear what you think. The session is being planned on Phabricator, the Wikimedia bug tracker. If you are not familiar with Phabricator, you can log in with your Wikipedia username and password through the "Login or Register: MediaWiki" button on the login page. Your feedback can help make editing Wikipedia a better experience.


Until next time,

Harej (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wii U

According to this article [3], Mario Kart 8 got 5.87 Million copies as of yesterday. And here, I asked for help with the ref tags. Can you help please? ShyGuy8 talk 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ShyGuy8: I don't even know what you're saying. What help with what ref tags? And we are not citing the article you linked above, because it is not a reliable source. The actual source is Nintendo itself. Ya know? Also, citations can be automatically generated by WP:REFILL. Thx. — Smuckola(talk) 20:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: It's their financial report. Did you even click on the link and read it? Mario Kart 8 got 5.87 million copies. How is it not reliable? And what I was saying is how do you add refs. It won't let me add them because I don't know how. ShyGuy8 talk 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ShyGuy8: I just answered you clearly and explicitly, with exact and authoritative instructions. You didn't read anything I said, and you didn't read anything I linked, and you're talking to me as if I'm the one who didn't. You are being totally incoherent. So, I once again kindly advise you to stop trying to do anything that you were trying to do, and stop wasting everyone's time, and learn how Wikipedia works at all. By reading exactly what I gave you. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: I wasn't trying to be rude and Im not trying to waste anyone's time. It's true, and I did read the links you put. I'm sorry. ShyGuy8 talk 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On foreign titles in the lead and User:Italiangamer

Hi, Smuckola. I thought I'd bring two things to your attention: Regarding this edit, there was a recent discussion at WT:VG about moving foreign game titles to footnotes. As for Italiangamer, he or she has been a problematic user for a while now. I don't know whether you saw his or her talk page's history, but I and several others have warned the user about removing full citations, edit warring, etc. I manually re-added and updated a fair amount of citations after the user removed them a few months back… Seeing as he or she has continually ignored warnings and consensus, removing and/or breaking citations on a large number of pages in any given editing session with no apparent intention of stopping, I think it may be best if we notify an administrator. What do you think? —zziccardi (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zziccardi: Yes I did see that edit history. Astounding. I see that he just deleted it all, and then he deleted all of my warnings, and then I undeleted them, and then....he clicked "thank" and left them there today.  ?!?! I just left him another comment to try a last resort of assuming good faith. Maybe he can barely read what's being said and is too embarrassed or lazy or selfish to do it right. Wowwwwww. There are a lot of people who are too pedantic to just leave something how it is or not update it, but too selfish to do it right. Anyway yes, I thought about it for a while and yeah he's breaking enough stuff (even just the factual sentence structure that's disrupted by an update) and he's ignoring enough warnings that it's WP:TEND and warrants an administrator. As for the nihongo discussion, thanks for bringing that to my attention. It looks to me like a lot more unenforceably hyperactively legalistically pedantic busywork by a tiny group. A broken solution in search of a problem, as is so often the case on Wikipedia. — Smuckola(talk) 21:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I find hard to believe is that someone would spend so much time updating sales information—a helpful task—but simultaneously break citations after being notified about the harm in doing so time and time again. In any case, I think the amount of work his or her edits are creating for others is doubtlessly outweighing the benefit said edits add by updating games' sales. —zziccardi (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zziccardi: Yeah I totally understand. It's super bizarre or weird to see such behavior and we can't really presume as to whether they have a major language barrier or mental problem, but it can't just be tolerated. WP:TEND doesn't mean that they're deliberately trying to sabotage anything, but are as systematically disruptive as if they were doing so nonetheless. I'm definitely not going to fix all that. I moved that discussion to his page. — Smuckola(talk) 21:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I pinged czar on this page intentionally… —zziccardi (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I think it's important that czar read this discussion; I'd appreciate your input doesn't make sense on Italiangamer's talk page. The other thing is you included my signature on that page and didn't indicate you were quoting me there. —zziccardi (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, again. Just thought I'd let you know about this conversation. —zziccardi (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid power

You're right, and I usually do. But that's a pretty bad article and I think fails WP:EL as it really doesn't add anything, while I think the Skeptics.dict article does. If you meant one of them was redundant it's surely the one you replaced. Meanwhile, this might amuse you:[4]. And thanks for your thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stone of Sisyphus

Thanks for the efforts on the Stone of Sisyphus article. It looks pretty darned good right now. I have that 1993 VHS tape and I've about worn it to the nub over the years. I actually saw them at Pine Knob outside Detroit that year and they played "The Pull"; I believe it was a regular part of their set for that whole tour. I remember being blown away by Dawayne Bailey's guitar work and being very excited for the album to come out. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike Wilbury: Yeah dude, thanks a lot. You're one of the very few people to have contributed anything since I wrote the whole article plus Tris Imboden and Walfredo Reyes, Jr. and others about two years ago, and had the articles proofread for accuracy by Tris and Wally!  :) Wikipedia work is how I met the band! That was just months of work, and buying books for it. I just need to find a better way to format the pull.....quotes.  ;) Pull quotes are tricky to do correctly and tastefully. I just checked my video collection and I see that I don't have that one, and that it apparently didn't come out on DVD. I just have youtube! I worked a lot on Dawayne Bailey and I've written to him but he didn't reply. Yeah, Dawayne is beyond everything. I saw Tris and Dawayne on the Twenty 1 tour. Please do let me know if you wanna collaborate on anything, and feel free to email me about whatever. Here's my other stuff. — Smuckola(talk) 02:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you got to meet Tris and Wally! I like the way you are using the quotations. In my opinion, it makes the narrative much more interesting to read, especially when readers don't likely have easy access to the sources. The original Greek Theatre tape never made it to DVD, nor did And the Band Played On which was from 1992. There are lots of funny interviews with Jason when he was relatively new to the band, long curls and all. I have kept up with Dawayne a bit over Facebook, but he also has an assistant who handles most of his business and career-related matters. If I can find her contact information, I'll email it to you. She might like to help with his article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Spike Wilbury: All I know is that I emailed Dawayne and a long time later, someone else replied from his email address like a guard dog, and informed that they maintained his web site and Wikipedia article. I didn't bother replying to inform them that they can have the web site but absolutely no such thing is true of Wikipedia. WP:COI, lol. They can give us sources, ideas, directions, or even a wishlist, but that's it. And I would be honored to do so, based on reliable sources. So I contacted Dawayne on Facebook and told him that Sisyphus is one of the greatest albums ever made, and he added me but never directly replied. I'm a little bit surprised, because I know Tris, I'm from Kansas, and I've lived in Manhattan, lol. I've been meaning to follow up more seriously. He is most active as Terry Kath's volunteer master archivalist. What a guy; Dawayne knows everything. You have poked me at a time when the mental cobwebs of formatting have shaken loose and now I have more confidence in the article. I just now implemented all the rest of the changes I'd had really stuck in my mind! Thanks! And you can see the overall todo list on the Talk page, some of which can be crossed off, thanks to you. You can see that I made this article into a monstrous achievement consummate with the band's own achievement, which is indeed worthy of having major sections of books written about it. — Smuckola(talk) 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed the notices I'm posting on some of the talk pages...

A user has placed a request for renaming all of the Generations pages (eg, History of video game consoles (third generation) → Third generation of video game consoles). I'm trying to help avoid what happened last time this came up. See talk:History of video game consoles (third generation)#Requested_move_9_November_2015 BcRIPster (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BcRIPster: Hey there. I know you're probably busy and this is a huge gnarly issue. I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate the outreach on an important issue, and I appreciate that the issue kinda sucks. I have read the linked discussion and I believe that I lack the comprehension of the history of the subject and of its ramifications. So 1) deciding the name itself is one issue, and then 2) the impact upon renaming the body of Wikipedia content is another issue, and then 3) the impact upon the world of Wikipedia renaming it is another issue. And you're saying #3 feeds back into #1? For some reason? In other words, the issue looks clear as mud. It *seems* to be an intense issue with a scope and ramifications that I just don't think I completely understand, and have no way to feed back into. If there's some way that you wish to make the understanding of the issue more accessible to more people, so they can have a better position, then that's another thing. But it sounded like you were saying that you could go either way, because of the logistical loop? It seems like something where I'd nod and back away and trust that nobody's going to rename History of video game consoles (third generation) to History of which band is better, Megadeth or Metallica, and why is it Metallica even though they suck now?. Please correct me if I'm missing something obvious, and again, thank you for the invitation! And yeah I had missed all the other notifications, because Wikipedia's ludicrous hodgepodge makeshift 1995 infrastructure totally sucks. — Smuckola(talk) 04:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what I just wrote up for the categories project talk page:

These pages are used to categorize eras in video gaming history not only on Wikipedia but due to what some believe is a documentable case of citogenesis, has probably helped form a standard naming convention outside of Wikipedia as well. So these pages have some level of influence and visibility beyond this site.

The reason I'm here is that the current structure of the category names is likely flawed and not up to Wikipedia standard, but historically this often becomes a contentious change debating semantics (the last time this came up it sure did) and I believe that if it's going to be changed it should be changed to a Wikipedia standard form. I just want this current vote to have high enough visibility to get a clear consensus so that we're not back here in a couple of years when the next new crop of editors decides they have a better way to phrase the category titles.

So I'm bringing this debate to a greater audience so we can hear your thoughts and help us video game editors in the process. Thanks for your attention and I hope to see your thoughts on this vote.

  • I felt that this current vote while not as stealth as the last time was still not going to get enough visibility being tucked away on a the Third Gen page like this. And I've been a little irritated at the suggestion that we should just rename the pages and deal with the fallout (if any) after. Seeing this before it's more likely guaranteed fallout once the changes trigger everyone's attention. Anyways... does that help? BcRIPster (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your misuse of templates

Oh, really? And who are you to judge that your templates to me are supposedly any "more valid" than mine to you are? 75.162.205.14 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smuckola&oldid=692157892"