Jump to content

User talk:czar

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Holanthony (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 4 January 2017 (Tory Lane). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Know that I esteem my editorial independence. Even as

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


Declarations



    Pantsuit Nation

    Hi Czar - thank you for the welcome. This is my first experience with editing Wikipedia. I think my source for my edits would be screen shots from the group, taken when I was a member. I've left the group, and so no longer have access to that documentation. I suppose that leaves me no way to communicate the basic fact that a book deal, trademarking, and merchandising of a "secret" group was carried out without the knowledge or consent of those who contributed to the group. Once the Pant Suit Nation book is out, people will be turning to Wikipedia for more information. I think it's important that those people know where the book came from. I'm especially concerned that people's stories will be fictionalized and used without consent - her application for trademark (which was found by a member, posted, and which I can't access now) lists "fiction" as one of her uses for the trademark. The way the information for the book was gathered is important. Thank you for taking the time to introduce me to the basics of editing. Ann345! (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Ann345!, I hear you, but instead of primary source screenshots, we look to reliable, secondary sources (such as major periodicals and books) for citations. If a source is concerned with the ethics of how the book is published, articles will (in turn) be published on that topic and then we (in turn) can cite them. This helps us determine what standard of content is worth mentioning on a page. But WP isn't a platform for original research such as extrapolating the intent/outcomes of the deal. Instead, you can take your case to a reliable source and have them write about it. For more about the purpose of neutrality and verifiability on WP, you might be interested in the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Let me know if you have any other questions while editing and welcome again czar 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Senile Team

    I see that my Senile Team article has been deleted. Could I please receive a copy of that page.-Cube b3 (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cube b3, yep, you asked in March and I moved it here: User:Cube b3/Senile Team. Everything I said then still applies—I'd focus on making the RRRR article's development section good and only pursue splitting the dev if there is reliable sourcing to warrant it. czar 16:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, completely forgot. Been out of Wikipedia since probably March. Will start again soon. Don't worry won't make any new pages. Just work on the old ones.--Cube b3 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    This Month in Education: December 2016

    Home • Subscribe • Archives • Newsroom - The newsletter team 18:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


    Re:DK64 scans

    Sure thing. I'll have access to my magazines in a few hours, so I'll grab the review then. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the page: 1. All the citation details you need should be on the page itself, barring the issue number, which is Vol 1, Issue 4, Lifecycle 2. Hope this helps. It's a sure thing I've got the EGM review buried in my magazines somewhere as well, if you end up needing that one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Had to go looking for the thread from earlier! Anyway, the list wasn't in April 2005's issue, but I looked around in the adjacent issues and found it in May (issue 191). Apparently the magazine was ahead an issue when the list was released. You can see the page here: May 2005, issue 191, page 50. As was typical for this kind of feature back then, there is no author listed. Hope this helps. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG are they shitting on DKC 1-2-3. BURN THEM! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not the best list in my magazine collection. A cheap stab at controversy-baiting if I've ever seen one—which isn't surprising, given that EGM was shuttered only 45 issues later. And without stunts like these, they might have been dead even sooner! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, knives out for Rare—half of the list... It's funny to read through these passive-aggressive DK64 reviews that can't directly complain about the "collect-a-thon" being a waste of time... only to watch how the game is ultimately remembered. But to their credit, EGM and GameFan were the only two mags that put in any sort of complaint at the time (EGM was mild, GameFan went all out). I wonder whether it was because of advertising/marketing relationships, given how Nintendo wanted to promote the game. Thanks for the scans, JB. czar 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Re:DKL scans

    • 1 - DieHard GameFan. Vol.3, Iss.7. Pg.12. Dave Halverson is the editor, and from left to right the three reviewers are Dave "Skid" Halverson, Nicholas "Nick Rox" Dean Des Barres, and Kelly "K. Lee" Rickards.
    • 2 - DieHard GameFan. Vol.3, Iss.7. Pg.82. Author is Kelly "K. Lee" Rickards.
    I'll also see if I can find the Famitsu index I have used in the past. Just so you know, it's all text and it's entirely written in Japanese. Remind me if I haven't gotten it to you in a week's time. -Thibbs (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Crush 40

    Hey there! I see that the Crush 40 page has been merged. I know that it's an old article and all and the merge happened in 2014, but I see that it was once a 'Good Article' and I do see it as such myself. I'm not going to revert without someone else following the idea it because I read the talk page and see that there was reason to merge it (Also, I am still a kinda new to Wikipedia to do that). Anyway, I was thinking, could you do that? I just feel that the information on Jun Senoue doesn't reflect the information that was given on the old Crush 40 page. Thanks for reading, Amir Abdullah 08:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YemeniFriend (talk • contribs)

    Hi Amir (@YemeniFriend), the discussion is on its talk page (Talk:Crush 40). In short, the Good Article criteria is more of a check for basic structure, not for whether the topic is independently notable from Senoue, etc. The sources that were used in the article were largely unsuitable for an encyclopedia (not reliable, secondary sources). My understanding is that the section covers everything that we have sourced to say about the topic. As for who can merge, anyone can, and you can read more about the process at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If a discussion is challenged or otherwise controversial, it'll go to talk page discussion first, as it did in this case. (The talk page is a good place to ask questions, as is WT:VG for video game-related questions.) Welcome to Wikipedia and let me know if I can help further czar 08:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A cup of coffee for you!

    Thank You! Amir Abdullah 08:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

    Question

    Hi Czar -- can you move Draft:Captain Underpants (film) to Captain Underpants (film) since production has evidently begun? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @NathanielTheBold, done czar 00:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos

    Hi Czar. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 10#FC Dinamo Bucuresti logos. You deleted one of the two logos being discussed, but your close did not address the non-free use of the remaining logo. This was one of the issues I raised when I started the FFD discussion. I don't think the remaining file should be used in the reserve team's article based upon No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI and this also seem to be the opinion of the "Jon Kolbert", whereas the argument made for keeping the file in both articles by " Jkudlick" seems to be more of one based upon WP:LONGTIME than on policy. Could you clarify your close to touch on the non-free use of the file as well if you feel it should be kept in both articles? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly, done, though I'd say you should feel free to make those straightforward changes boldly, absent any objection czar 06:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the bold part when it comes to removing files, but it might be misconstrued as "putting words in your mouth" if it's not something mentioned specifically in the close. Plus, it is sometimes possible that a closing admin might feel differently about a particular non-free use. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify and appreciate you taking the time to take another look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Orphaned non-free image File:TheDowntown.jpg

    ⚠
    ⚠

    Thanks for uploading File:TheDowntown.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

    Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    wp:Articles for deletion/Tung-Chai Ling

    Hello, Czar. I don't know if you noticed in closing this AfD, but this article has been created multiple times by an editor who may be the same as the article subject. [1] Does salting apply to this type of article? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Eggishorn, yep, saw that comment when I closed but didn't see a history of deletion on the page itself. (Turns out that there was an A7 on a different spelling in 2014.) A bit too early to salt, but I put the other pages on my watchlist (feel free to do the same) and will be proactive if the page returns without sources. czar 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I will take your suggestion and keep an eye on those three versions, as well as Tung-Chai ling. I think that should cover the bases. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    re: Motivation

    There is indeed a lot of papers talking about his issue. Check WP:ACST for several surveys that asked this question, for start (the motivations and the general editor surveys). This was one of the classics, check on Google Scholar who cited it and you'll find some more, including my paper which has a paragraph, at least, on that. There is also a wiki about wiki research, check [2]. I hope this helps :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Piotrus, ironically, almost all of the links are down, but the paragraph in your paper was a useful summary. I'll dig around. Thanks! czar 18:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    January 2017 at Women in Red


    January 2017

    Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons
    Faciliated by Women in Red

    (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin Franks listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Benjamin Franks. Since you had some involvement with the Benjamin Franks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    With apologies for this. I wish to stress that, despite our disagreement, I have considerable respect for the good work that you do on Wikipedia. I have no desire for this disagreement to sour our relationship. Josh Milburn (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken—it's only content, after all czar 05:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivan Van Norman Page Deletion

    Hey Czar, I saw you were the administrator to redirect the page Ivan Van Norman to King of the Nerds on the grounds of notariety and visibility. If possible, i'd like to open the page back up since he's had significant contributions since then as a Board Game Designer, Media Host, and Personality in the Twitch/YouTube space. Right now there is no way to re-instate the page from what I can tell. I'm happy to make edits to be reviewed later, I can also provide additional source if need be to help the process. Hydra Lord (talk) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Hydra Lord, believe you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Van Norman. I wasn't involved in that discussion (apart from relisting it for more input) but I can still help. Since the article was redirected and not deleted, you can find the page history is still publicly available here. I could help restore that content to a draft but I would first have to ask what kind of reliable, secondary sourcing you've found that would make the topic require its own article. I recommend reading through Wikipedia's golden rule (and its links) before investing more time into this. czar 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Pantsuit Nation

    Hello, I noticed you undid my merge between Pantsuit Nation and Pantsuit. As per WP:MERGE and WP:BOLD I, believing the merge would be uncontroversial, decided to do it without marking it on the talk page. Clearly, there is a lack of consensus but I don't think the edits I made were tantamount to "unexplained blanking" as you put it in your edit summary as I thought I provided a reasonable explanation. In hindsight, the merge may have been hasty - would you suggest better linking the Pantsuit article to the Pantsuit Nation article or would you be open to the discussion of a merge? Thank you and Happy New Year! - DrStrauss talk 01:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @DrStrauss, the edit summary only indicated that the content was merged but not why. I don't think there is any question that enough sources exist on this subject to meet WP's standards of significant coverage. Feel free to expand in either article, but I think it's likely that both have enough content and sourcing to stand on their own. Happy New Year to you too! czar 01:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi - good idea - they do seem well-sourced but I'll look for any bits needing expansion. Best -DrStrauss talk 01:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Your draft article, Draft:Clark Street Community School

    Hello, Czar. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Clark Street Community School".

    In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

    If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

    Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Vg release listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Vg release. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Vg release redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lordtobi (✉) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tory Lane

    Hi!

    Can you restore the Tory Lane page? She is now inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame [3] and thus qualifies per WP:PORNBIO. Holanthony (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czar&oldid=758353207"