User talk:KieferSkunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussions cleared[edit]

Just noting that I have cleared my discussion list from this page - please see the archives if you'd like to read prior discussions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Now you understand the level of bias that exists and how supporters of the Mega Drive name feel when we make any attempt to fix the article and it's name heh. Enjoy your wikibreakTechnotopia (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished.[edit]

This is what happens when you walk the straight and narrow path. Both extreme sides are then angry with you. Do you have Skype?--SexyKick 00:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Afraid I don't, sorry. Feel free to send me an email via my contact link here, tho. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

So, it's over...[edit]

I just got back off my work rotation, and read the discussions and my talk page note. I was rather surprised, but I'll respect your wish not to talk about it. If I may suggest one thing, though: It's a great idea to go on a Wikibreak every now and then, and clear your head, but please, don't do something stupid and leave Wikipedia because you lose the will to contribute to something important to you. I was retired for six years because I made that mistake, and gave up altogether instead of just trying to do something I enjoyed. Trust me, it wasn't fun after a while, wanting to come back but just not having the heart to do so after walking away feeling disgraced. On the plus side, Wikipedia does have 4.2 million articles; there are plenty more to write. Perhaps this is a chance to do that 1993 hearings on video game violence article we had discussed, or something else that generates your interest. Come back from wikibreak soon; there's still plenty to be had here and I'm sure I wouldn't mind renominating you for adminship once you're ready to have the mop back again. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with Red on this. When things get too tense in one article, I move to another (all this Genesis stuff popped up while I was busy IRL, hence very little input during it from me). I love doing this too much, and it's not something I want to throw away because of a tiff in one particular place. Your skills are too valuable to lose to the project. Take some time away, but not too long. There are many other articles that could use your touch to get them to GA- or even FA-status. --McDoobAU93 05:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the encouragement, guys, I really do. But the Genesis article is far from the only place where I've put up with more than enough arguments, bickering and pain. So my decision to just throw up my hands and say "fuck it" was long in coming. As you've seen, it's driving me bonkers, and I really just can't handle it anymore.
To be perfectly honest, I do have a lot of other things to do, most of which are arguably much more important. I need to go focus on those things now, and stop letting Wikipedia dominate my time and energy. I'm not necessarily going to leave Wikipedia entirely, but I am going to make a point to avoid any further contentious arguments of any sort, at least for the time being. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"For the time being" works ... take some "you" time, of course. See you soon! --McDoobAU93 14:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I hope it is "for the time being", it'll be great to see you back fully refreshed when you're ready. I do want to say thank you, and have acknowledged you on my recognitions page. Thanks, Kiefer. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I share these sentiments as well. Skunks rule!--SexyKick 03:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey KieferSkunk. I know you wish not to be involved with Sega Genesis anymore, but I thought I'd let you know it's now at featured article candidates and I've added a statement of recognition in the nomination for your contributions to the article. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with the FAC - you're doing good. :) I decided to check in on things briefly today, and I'm glad to see that at least some of the controversy is dying down, finally, but it looks like even at the FAC, there are issues with the awkwardness that the article's title imposes on the rest of the article. Hopefully everyone can come to an agreement on that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


I reverted edits that were not constructive. I would restore them if I realized I made a mistake. And how did you come across my account anyway? You said you looked at my edit history according to a message you posted on Giatch's talk page. That sounds like you were stalking me, and is why I am leaving. It has nothing to do with disagreements. I am used to dealing with this all the time. It is when someone appears to be stalking me (that is what has been demonstrated from your actions) that I either block them or just leave. Unfortunately I cannot block on this website so I am leaving. I may still look at articles on here but if I find an error I won't be fixing it, in case someone like you finds it and decides to message me again and challenge me as to why I edited. Ziva 84 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I happened to notice that you had reverted an edit I'd made (I got a notification for that) on ISketch. When I looked at the page's history, which clearly shows the user account (or IP address) that made each edit, I noticed that you then restored that edit, and later you did the same thing to another editor's changes as well. Your edits didn't have any text on them explaining what you were doing, so that prompted me to do two things, both of which involve tools that are publicly accessible here on Wikipedia:
  1. First, I visited your talk page to leave you a note asking you about your edits to ISketch, and to politely remind you of Wikipedia's guidelines for cooperative editing. Among other things, the Bold/Revert/Discuss policy asks that if you have an issue with non-vandalism edits, you should explain why you're performing a revert (usually a note in the edit summary is sufficient), and be willing to discuss the change should your revert be challenged. (That policy also falls on me to start discussion on the contested edit if I believe my change was good.)
  2. Second, to find out if your account was being used for vandalism, or to see if you were being unnecessarily uncivil toward other people (I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and users who behave in this manner statistically tend to be disruptive), I looked at your contribution history. When you're on a User Page or Talk Page, you can see a link for "User Contributions" on the left side. It's open to all editors - all user contributions are public knowledge, and looking at it does not constitute wiki-stalking. In the process, I noticed your edit summary in which you said that User:Giatch was being rude - this by itself is a common pattern in civility issues and often means that someone, whether you in this case or the person you're talking to, is failing to assume good faith. I generally try to help users resolve such disputes when I can, in an effort to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone.
You need to realize that, just as you take issue with others claiming they own pages on Wikipedia, you also do not own them. Your edits have equal standing with those of others, and users like myself have just as much right to challenge you on your edits as you have to challenge theirs. Only by working TOGETHER, COOPERATIVELY, will we get things done. My assessment is that you're being more combative than you need to be, and you're assuming that other editors are working in bad faith, when I see little evidence that they are. All I'm asking is that you consider coming back to the table and working constructively. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, just to clarify, I visited Giatch's talk page from your contribution history and specifically looked at your edit, then read the whole discussion and realized that there was a separate issue that needed to be brought to Giatch's attention (his potential COI). I mentioned the route I'd taken to get to his page as a courtesy to both you and him, mainly to prevent YOU from being accused of recruiting other people to gang up on him. (For all he knows, you and I could know each other personally, and you could have emailed me or something to ask me to "go have a chat with him". Obviously that's not true, but he doesn't necessarily know that.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Quixotic plea[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I just want to apologise for being a little bitey in this comment. I disagree with you, but I can see that your view is a reasonable one and that you're defending it in a reasonable way- I shouldn't have been so aggressive. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem - no offense taken. I understand your POV as well - as I mentioned, I do think we have slightly different views on what constitutes a "canned" rationale, and I can see how you would see my response as self-contradictory. Hence why I went into more depth on it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)