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 Lourdes (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 4 February 2017 (→‎Curious: resp). 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



    Burning Rangers FAC

    Do you have a moment to take a look at the Burning Rangers FAC? You're one of the best prose writers among the video game editors, and I would like a second opinion. I'm considering an oppose, mostly on prose grounds. I've also seen a couple of examples of sources not quite corresponding exactly to what the article says -- I don't mean deliberate misrepresentation of the source, just a poorly enough worded sentence in the article that it doesn't really mean what is intended. For the reception section, I mentioned User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections, which you provided helpful comments on, but I don't think the changes made really reflect what I was hoping to see. If you have time I'd really appreciate your input there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die

    May I ask why you have removed the category History of video games from the page above? Too many? To me it seems just the kind of article where this category would fit perfectly. OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 12:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Oxygene7-13, it's not a defining trait of the book. The book is about video games, and perhaps their history, by extension, but the book itself is not the history of video games—that would be eras, events, overviews of the history. When the "books about video games" subcat expands, there will eventually be a cat for "history books about video games". (Unrelated, templates are forbidden in signatures in enwp.) czar 10:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I just had about seven categories removed from the Peter Griffin page cause of overkill, so I understand. It is just that to my opinion this category was not that farfetched... OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 19:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Side note: @Oxygene7-13: You need to make sure to WP:Subst your signature per WP:SIG#NT. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that? Is it too "server-heavy"? Can I produce a signature that still looks the same but meet the standards? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 08:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oxygene7-13: Please review the section at WP:SIG#NT; if you have questions about some specific point therein, let me know, since it does not appear that you took a look. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Oxygene7-13 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tomb Raider (2018 film)

    Hello! Please move Draft:Tomb Raider (2018 film) → Tomb Raider (2018 film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: Pac-Man

    Since posting the AfD, I realized that while it's an awful article, suggesting an outright delete was probably rather harsh. And after looking at your vote, a redirect seems like a better idea. Is it kosher for me to edit the entry and suggest a redirect at this point? Thanks. sixtynine • speak up • 22:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beemer69, yep! Since there are no other arguments for deletion, it can be withdrawn (I'll handle this for you) and boldly redirected. If anyone objects, it would go to a talk page (but not a deletion) discussion czar 23:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: The article has reappeared once again after I redirected it. Argh. Dumb question: should I take this to an RfD (which I didn't know existed till just now, unfortunately) discussion? sixtynine • speak up • 18:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beemer69: I re-redirected it. We'll see if the redirect sticks. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And it didn't stick. Czar, I don't think a redirect is going to hold short of a full week's worth of AFD, considering the user reverting has done so with 2 separate users, and there exists a third who !voted for redirection.... --Izno (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:List of Pac-Man video games#Proposed merge with Pac-Man Arrangement czar 18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ripcordz Are Go listed at Redirects for discussion

    An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ripcordz Are Go. Since you had some involvement with the Ripcordz Are Go redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    VGA Planets

    Hi Czar,

    I disagree with your redirection at VGA Planets. The topic is clearly notable, so let's rather improve the article. --Slashme (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slashme, you can start by adding reliable, secondary sources. And mind that I've already looked through the Google Books listings—there isn't more than a paragraph of solid info in there, all of which fits in the parent listing. There might be more if you do more digging, but that's on you to prove czar 11:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Converting the article into a redirect without discussion was a bit rash. Let's see how we can improve the article. --Hjaekel (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at its condition and how long it sat as a redirect: not rash by any means. Wikipedia:Be bold. As for what the article needs, it has already been explicated in multiple venues. Have at it. czar 02:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg

    Hi Czar. Thank you for your help in sorting this out. Do you think it would be a good idea for the file's uploader to state on her Commons' userpage that she is the photographer? Maybe even send in an email to OTRS? She didn't use her own name for her username so the connection might not be as clear as if she did. Even if she did use her name, however, quite often you find people claiming to be someone they aren't when it comes to Commons uploads. I'm not assuming bad faith, but what happens on Commons does not always reflect what happens or is discussed on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg was deleted per uploader request. That's a bit strange since it would've resolved the non-free issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (ffd thread) @Marchjuly, very strange... I started a follow-up thread at commons:User talk:Ankry#File:Sportatorium Interior 1982.jpg (courtesy ping @Jhw57). For the original question, yes, it's never bad to encourage the uploader to send OTRS permission from an original address if the rights might be challenged, but I wouldn't harass over that point—it's believable enough as a copyright claim. But we'll see what happened with this upload. czar 02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference, I posted something on Jhw57's user talk asking if they knew what might have happened. Also, the photo in question does appear online, but it's not released under a Commons compatible free license. So, OTRS may be required regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Amusement Park (film) and Ferdinand (film)

    Hello! Please move Draft:Amusement Park (film) → Amusement Park (film) and Draft:Ferdinand (film) → Ferdinand (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, are these in production (WP:NFF)? I know it's harder to prove for animations but still there should be some sign that animation has started, no? czar 18:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They are in-production, I'm sure of it. Animated films are usually in-production when their release dates are just a year or two years ahead. Don't worry, just move these and it's on me. :-p Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is another stone in my head, teasing actually. Draft:The Lamb (2017 film) was supposed to be moved in the articlespace but someone created it with a new title, The Star (2017 film). Would you mind merging them? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 14:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ all done czar 18:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hotel Transylvania 3

    Hello! Please move Draft:Hotel Transylvania 3 → Hotel Transylvania 3 — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 12:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talkback

    Hello, Czar. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
    Message added 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

    Shearonink (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Russian spambot

    FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=145.255.2.81 . Shearonink (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Jalebi (video game)

    Hi Czar

    Please find link to a news article about "Jalebi (video game)" in Hindi language. I will also try to search and find more. Thanks. http://www.prnewswire.co.in/news-releases/hi-590427041.html Bilingual2000 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Bilingual2000, this is a promotional press release. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalebi (video game), we're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. (?) czar 07:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

    Administrator changes

    NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
    Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
    • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
    • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

    Arbitration

    Obituaries

    • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
    Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

    13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

    Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film)

    Hello! Another thing to merge Draft:Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film) → Can You Ever Forgive Me? (film) — Thanks. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Captain Assassin!, ✓ done czar 17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Curious

    Hi Czar, hope you're doing fine... I had a quick query. Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owain Astles as a delete after commenting in it? I agree with deleting the article, but in general, might not have expected an admin to comment and then to close the same Afd. It might be construed as taking an admin action while being involved So am curious why you did this? And would you perhaps consider reversing your close and let another admin close the Afd? Thanks. Lourdes 09:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Lourdes, those comments coincided with the closure—they're extended closure rationale/thoughts but not written in summary of the discussion, hence their location at the bottom. Don't see how it could reasonably be construed as participation, nevertheless "involvement" or ethical conflict in closing that discussion czar 09:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response. In the timeline of the Afd, you first commented in one edit, then in the next edit closed it, then added further to the comment. And your comment also was not placed along with your closure statement but was made below, like other editors. At least in my opinion, you made an involved closure of this Afd. Again, I'm not disagreeing with deleting the article. I'm suggesting that your close seems involved, and it might be good form to reverse it. Thanks. Lourdes 10:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lourdes, I just said it was an extended closure rationale and not a separate comment—whether it's done in the same edit is trivial. Is this purely a procedural concern, or do you actually think I showed active bias (which is what "involved" means) in the closure? czar 10:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think you showed bias. Your statement made in the Afd before the closure tends towards delete. I am sorry if this is coming out in the wrong perspective. I'm just sharing with you what I feel. Thanks for looking at my concern. Lourdes 10:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reverse. Sorry for the trouble. See you around. Lourdes 10:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Lourdes, yes, the closing admin isn't just counting votes but weighing the arguments for consensus and sometimes that requires more than a single word. I've reverted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think this is overly litigious on your part. czar 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may suggest, with due respects to your views... In my experience at Afds, I've never seen an admin comment along with other editors and then close the same Afd; so perhaps that gave me an impression of involved. When you are closing an Afd, perhaps you should ensure that the comments, however in-depth, are placed right where your closing statement is, than with other editors. That may reduce the confusion for editors like me. I reiterate my apologies for the inconvenience but applaud and respect your gracious reply and reversing of the Afd close. Thanks. Lourdes 18:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It won't be the last time you see it. I still doubt whether this "confusion" was genuine—it's really clear that I had no prior stake in the closure, especially to an experienced editor. More likely, if this was just-to-be-sure, this discussion is more harmful than the closure: a solution in search of a problem, an insincere charge of bias, and a waste of time for all parties. czar 20:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel that way, then my due apologies for having given that impression. I leave you hoping you take on board my suggestions. Take care and ciao. Lourdes 01:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Czar&oldid=763591423"