User talk:Thibbs

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

HELLO - This is the talk page for Thibbs. Please place messages to me at the bottom of my talk page and I will reply as soon as I find the free time. All comments and criticisms are welcome. Normally I will leave my reply here on this page. Thank you.


A Barnstar for you![edit]

Civility Barnstar Hires.png The Civility Barnstar
For consistently being polite and agreeable even when you disagree. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This Tuesday marks the 1 month mark since I arrived at WT:CITE to dispute the removal of all offline sources from a video game article. As the discussion turned to the issue of mandatory reverification of offline sources, I have adopted an intermediate position between everything needs to be re-verified and nothing does when copying. An intermediate position means that I am receiving criticism from both sides. For what it's worth, one side seems like a rational discussion. The other side is little but acrimony and false indignation. I'm sure you can guess which side is which. Thank you for recognizing my efforts to maintain civility in the face of this. -Thibbs (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re:Email[edit]

Sorry I didn't get back to you when you sent that email in October. I don't check that address very often—I only just now discovered that you'd sent me something. I'll try to get the page numbers in the next few days, but I have no idea whether anything will change as a result. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries. We'll see what happens. Either way I appreciate it. -Thibbs (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting the page numbers. The IP seems to have never read a gaming magazine well-enough to realize that page numbers are entirely optional and often are every other page. It has been a month of this petty and ridiculousness. Thibbs, sorry to have sounded rough, but I knew that the situation would not improve and decided to avoid it after seeing the editor's behavior surrounding a trivial matter. Thank you, JimmyBlackwing, you helped resolve the issue of the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not convinced that he's done raising hell, though, given the section below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah thanks go to JimmyBlackwing more than to me. Luckily the IP editor didn't act on his suspicions. I can't say that the one month long discussion moved me any closer to understanding why he thought the sources were faked in the first place, but as always he is promising that if we just give him a little more time he'll come up with an excellent explanation that will satisfy us all. We'll see. -Thibbs (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is this IP editor?[edit]

WT:CITE is about citing sources; answering here.

Thibbs has asked me: "Who are you?"

According to this search site, introducing the ROJ number 865/2013 and data related to my IP, they call me Teodulfo; but that would be the wrong answer.

I am Special:Contributions/84.127.115.190. I would have defended the productive editor Lucia Black could have been, even if I was under an interaction ban, and even if that resulted in a site ban for me. She was the right editor, in the right project, at the right time. Unfortunately, she does not trust me.

The community has asked Lucia Black repeatedly: "why are you here?" Lucia Black has been giving the wrong answer, resulting in stronger bans that increased her amount of suffering. Now she is unable to edit any article. I can guide Lucia Black to edit the topics she is banned without the disruption she was causing. I convinced her to review Secrets of Rætikon, her first good article review. Has anyone in the WikiProjects asked her to follow my advice?

Maybe I have been asking the wrong question. Lucia Black has complained against consensus, unfair bans and lack of answers. She has asked for investigations. What did she do to deserve the ban by Go Phightins!? Lucia Black says that she does not have an answer. And if the community says otherwise? Thibbs states that she has the answer. Is the community wrong and Lucia Black is right? Perhaps the community is right and Lucia Black is wrong.

Has she ever considered that? @Lucia Black: have you?

I am here to build an encyclopedia and for this FA preparation. Thibbs will allow me to finish the work that has brought me to Ghost in the Shell. Now that we have the page numbers, I have one more question about the Next Generation review; then I will explain my concerns about these sources. I hope that Thibbs will help with the Edge one, given the amount of time the user has dedicated. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. I have to say, next time you write a big comment, please just... read it out loud to yourself before posting. This is almost illegible. You ramble on for a while about whether Lucia Black should have listened to you (Why? Who are you that she should follow your advice?) and about if the topic ban was justified or not (Thibbs was not the admin who tbanned her- he's not an admin at all). You then demand that you be allowed to finish your work on the GitS page (what work? As far as I can see, all you do is act as a disruptive influence about sources), then mention that you have another question. As if Thibbs doesn't know that, since you pinged him on that talk page.
Please, just... for the sake of everyone who reads your comments, decide what you're talking about before you start typing. Stop harping on about Lucia Black to uninvolved editors. And stop asking for tedious verification of details within perfectly valid citations. --PresN 05:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @84.127.115.190: Your English is very good for a non-native speaker, but you have unfortunately misunderstood my question. I did not ask who you are. I asked: "Who are you accusing of inserting falsified sources?" This is a slangy way of asking the following: Whom do you accuse of inserting falsified sources? From this edit it would appear that you are accusing Lucia Black of adding false sources. It is for this reason that I am not at all surprised that she does not trust you. I don't understand why you continue to harass her, though. Please don't use my talk page as a place to continue bothering Lucia Black. The sources have now been re-verified by JimmyBlackwing and there is no other reason for you to contact Lucia Black about them. I agree with PresN in the above post. If there is an actual reason to suspect that there is a problem with a source then you can explain it and ask for independent re-verification but it is extremely disruptive to demand reverification for all offline sources when you have zero evidence that they are problematic. And I'm afraid you will have to give up the "I will explain my concerns later, but first you must..." line of demands altogether. Evidence held secret for a later date is just as good as no evidence. Regarding the Edge source, you'll remember that I already reverified it for you in October. What more help do you need now? -Thibbs (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Our discussions reflect why I am concerned, but I believe that this is as far as we can advance.
My previous post was simply a gift for Thibbs. 84.127.115.190 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Our previous discussions reflect that you were concerned. They do not reflect why you were concerned. Your concerns that the sources were faked would seem to have been baseless. If there was a basis for your concerns then it was your responsibility to present it so that the community could consider the possible harm the sources were causing. Unless you can present any evidence for your accusations, I will agree that this is as far as you can advance. -Thibbs (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Your patience exceeds the bounds of reason at times... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I just don't like seeing offline sources removed without good reason. Offline sources are much harder to scrounge up than online ones and they are often the only way to provide period coverage of a work. The systemic bias in favor of sources from the 1990s onward is very strong and I am strongly opposed to those who reduce POV and make this recentism worse by deleting all sources that they are personally unable to reverify. The hubris of one who would destroy another's work due to a personal inability to match the other's researching capabilities disturbs me and prompts me to get involved when I see this sort of thing. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand completely, but was getting irritated by the editor because of the given situation. We already had the scans and that magazine does not paginate each page, the museum even has a copy of one. The issue comes from this attitude that the situation is not "Resolved" in the eyes of 84 and that it will be an issue for a later date. Being unable to admit error and instead raising the stakes is inexcusable. Offline sources comprise the bulk of all accessible sources for many topics and the are essential, thankfully digitization is advancing in most areas. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki class[edit]

PS - This is something I'm interested in doing as well. I recently picked up accountcreator rights specifically for that reason. Can I ask what level you're teaching (High school/college/grad) ? And is this your first time doing it? I may need to come back for advice when I get my act together and launch something of my own.

It's a high school seminar, meets three times a week during the school day. Here's my decrepit course page. I've been an ambassador on previous courses, but this is my first time teaching. Personally, I'm more interested in how K–12 can use/teach Wikipedia literacy than in coaching college instructors to make half-baked article-writing part of their syllabus (and, accordingly, making at least several hapless, unassuming WP editors into their TAs to clean up the mess). Happy to discuss further if you'd like czar  09:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Very cool, Czar. I see your point about the K-12 angle too. If we can win over the minds of the future then there is no need to justify our efforts to the current academic cohort. I have family in academia and it is very interesting for me to watch them slowly come around to the idea that Wikipedia can actually really help learning and (more importantly) develop a knowledge base for the future. I've been trying (rather unsuccessfully to tell the truth) to push the idea that institutional efforts to link Wikipedia articles to unique collections and assemblages of information (archives, museums, library special collections, etc.) can be a win-win situation with these institutions effectively advertising their collections by putting their material to practical use on a platform that is highly visible. I would be interested in discussing your efforts further at some point in the future, though I'm going through a busy spell in real life at present. -Thibbs (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy to talk whenever—just let me know czar  04:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. I'll ping you or write to your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A separate matter from the Magazine source issue[edit]

I think I need your interpretation of a certain source because another editor has become very confused and adamant in a misinterpretation of policy. He claims Kanzenshuu is an illicit website that cannot be linked to because of copyright violations. It is a Dragon Ball fansite that is the merger of two very well-known sites that were a cornerstone of a vast fanbase for over a decade. The key figure is Mike LaBrie, a content contributor and reviewer to Mania.com, Anime News Network, and numerous other websites. LaBrie has operated a Dragon Ball website since January 1998. Frankly, the site takes pains to be as non-infringing and as informative as possible to its users. The core dispute was whether this page is so egregious a violation that we cannot link to it as a source or that the site is so filled with violations that the entirety must be avoided. One of the site's featured articles is actually and explain of Kenji Yamamoto's plagiarism of music and removal from Toei Animation.[1] The key part is that despite having an article like this, it actually sends the reader to the Amazon page to listen to the snippet. The site actually defers to Toei and everything seems to be fair use with a generous heaping of caution and limited use while reviewing and being informative. This is exactly the opposite of that Velikij Drakon pdf copy from the previous case. Though I think the person is just misinformed, after all he doesn't understand copyright, fair use and thinks WP:V is against linking to the entire domain because it is "the source" and is an illegal site. Also - WP:COPYLINK's "An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." is a terrible example given that they are licensed and advertised by said studios now. Can we not get a reference to say anything better? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't linked the dispute so I'm not sure how helpful my answer will be. Basically I see room for argument over reliability (e.g. As a fansite we should avoid giving it non-citation ELs per this; to use a self-published source as a reference we must establish that the author is an expert in the relevant field; etc.). But I don't see the page you linked as an egregious example of copyright violation. I haven't looked over the audio portions, but the images all seem to be designed to meet Fair Use (small low-quality copies used in the context of commentary and that don't impact resale), and the text seems to be purely commentary and summary of the works which would almost certainly meet Fair Use. I guess the key line from WP:COPYLINK is "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". I have searched the site a little and I don't see examples of "carrying a work". This is in contrast to scanned PDF copies of full works that are hosted by a fansite, which would be prototypical copyright violation. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the lyrics example, I think that's kind of a narrow and extreme example really. Most copyrights cannot be violated in only a few lines of text, but if a website were presenting a copy of a small work like a set of song lyrics that were properly copyrighted then a link to the website would indeed be a link to site "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" so it could potentially be removed for that reason. Key in the case of lyrics is whether or not they are covered by copyright and whether licenses (CC, GNU-FDL, etc.) exist that would allow the works to be copied without explicit permission from the author. If a free license is granted to a hosting website then it would not be "carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright". -Thibbs (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication for the dispute. Sorry, I forgot it. The fansite matter is normally a good argument, save that Mike LaBrie is a reliable source and has been a contributor to several other reliable source websites. I see references and details from other authors that refer to his work in other books. Though in going with verification matters and weighing the details, this may be a fansite, but when we are not discussing pure opinions. The website provides evidence and explains tops, like cover date vs sale date issue, knowing that readers want verification. I tend to harp on the New York Times for their errors, but you know how even Rolling Stone made a pretty big error as of late despite normally being a "reliable source". Anyone who has been an editor in conflicted areas knows the importance of fact-checking and verification, but cases like the Rolling Stone matter, where they are not given, WP:RS is critical to "take their word at face value". Afterall, if you can go and verify the claims in a lesser site with some difficulty, you could just cite the original documents instead. Though that's a bit crass and disingenuous when such a well-written analysis exists by a noted author. Though the sites is at the RSN noticeboard now as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Knowing little about DBZ myself, I'll take your word for it on LaBrie's reliability. I'll look at the talk page discussion later tonight, but I'm just heading out the door now. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah thanks, and do a little digging into the matter and you'll see the site actually operates under the whims of the publishers and is quite conservative. "In house" matters aside, this page shows that yes issues can arise and they do respond to all parties interests and comply accordingly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

OK I just went through the discussion and here are my thoughts:
1 - Since I have no idea about the reliability issue, I'll have to see what develops at RSN (not that Lord Sjones23 has brought it there) to see whether the source meets the guidelines. From my own quick search, I can see some evidence that he has acted (probably as a voice-actor) for some DB anime, and he may possibly be cited by one book at Google Books (no preview available to check, though). But I didn't find anything in Google Scholar or any of the WP:VG reliable sources.
2 - The copyright issue is separate, but I lean toward the interpretation you give where it is not permissible to link to illegally hosted copies, but linking to other parts may be acceptable. Frankly I think that in practice there is plenty of use of websites that host infringing material. The primary example would be YouTube which is frequently used to host copyvio material, but which is also the official video platform for some of our RSes.
2.1 - I may have missed it but I don't see where the hosting of copyrighted works is taking place. The link offered in the first post in that thread does not seem to violate any copyrights. You suggested that there was a possible infringement of translation rights, but I don't see where this is and if we're right on point 2 above then it doesnt' really matter anyway. 3 - Twitter would be another example of a platform like YouTube that can host infringing content or can host RSes. So the original poster's suggestion of that source is fine.
I hope that helps a little. -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it. I think LaBrie was used as a voice actor for a voice cameo of sorts in two fan spoof. Nothing like a proper credit. Though he does run the site, I've found (and linked you one case) where the matter of copyright is discussed. The site is in the good graces and complies with the wishes of Toei and others, I do not see any scanlations or other problems. I do not see infringement of translation rights and they remain fan-translations of some Japanese interviews, it is not scans or even copying the original text. It is not like we can link or use them, but apparently they are proof of some malfeasance that says the entire website cannot even be linked to. And yes, official Youtube channels are legitimate, but you'd be surprised how many people do not think and simply remove official links as "copyright violations". Reminds me of people who do not know why IMDb links (purely external links, not references) remain on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Why i can't come back to editing[edit]

(Continued from User talk:Thibbs/Archive 7#Please avoid my talkpage -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC))
the reason why i continued to discuss this is because it honestly takes one more unbias person to see things for what it really is and to really turn thing around. My entire topic ban is based on a very obscure consensus in which under normal circumstances would "never" occur to deem action. For example: I've literally seen more problematic editors that actually get in the way of the consensus building process for articles have 0 action taken towards them. And this was with the majority of 80% of the community agreeing to take action. The ones who supported it are pushing it down on me as its a learning process. You have to understand the circumstances for what they really are...this isn't a "one time deal, just bite the bullet and you'll get over it" sort of situation, so i would like you to stop painting it as such, because you know better than to feed me false hope. This is something that will continue to be used by the exact same people and use it in a very superficial manner overtime. I mean look back at the previous AN and ANI, its all based on their personal opinion or feelings toward me. And all that's defended is that "they have the right to feel the ay they do" and i'm going to say this: i have just as much right and reason as they do for how i'm being treated in WP:AN and ANI. its not based on objective, concrete, actionable vandalism.

You haven't defended the editor's behavior, just their view and why they see me. REGARDLESS, i'm requesting you to look at the behavior in WP:AN on these editors, how much things have been instigated, and most importantly. "what are they trying to accomplish" by all this. Because in the latest situation, a lot of editors are having questions....and overtime, i have gained more and more supporters who feel strongly about it just as much as i do. It is literally to the point that a 50-50 vote means "support" an indefinite topic ban, but a 50-50 "appeal" is no consensus. So can you understand.

I can't come back under these circumstances because we both know there's more to this than appealing a topic ban...now unless i have the option to put my entire editing history on the line to prove that there has been strong instigation, and disputes of irrational editors throughout my entire WP:AN history, i cannot come back to a place where i know my enemies control my editing, and my supporters can only watch in the background, and none of the neutral editors can make a strong vote because of how heated the situation is.

You have never been in this situation, and i know you're empathizing halfheartedly, because you admitted i deserve this and so far refuse to recognize what other editors have done to cause this situation as well. You're also only giving "temporary" and "superficial" resolutions. I'm going to say, if my vote meant i don't wish for this type of topic ban to "ANYONE" here in Wikipedia, not even the person who i have the worst opinion on in Wikipedia. It's a indefinite ban from Wikipedia under the guise of a topic ban for those who have concentrated most of their editing in a specific topic and have worked hard to getting recognized in the topic. the ones who enforced it don't understand what it means to lose a topic you prided yourself in and having to move away because a community just wanted to make them "learn a lesson".

The only ones i probably wish such a topic ban are those who also concentrate in specific areas and don't understand what it means to lose it and yet liberally vote it. What i'm most concerned about is my reputation....and i want it to be clean appropriately....i'm not going to come back just so editors can feel they have power over me in WP:AN while i hold my tongue with my head down editing in areas i could care less about and gain favor on my enemies who could care less where i edit. You can't possibly understand how much proof i have, and not a single editor wants to even try to look into what i'm saying. Can you understand that? Lucia Black (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this comes off as callous, but I don't have time to analyze your edit history more than skimming through it. And that's true for every other uninvolved editor who commented on your behavior in the many many ANs and ANIs you participated in. Skimming your history at AN/ANI leaves uninvolved editors with the impression that you are very argumentative and that this lengthy arguing is disruptive because it stands in the way of you and others building the encyclopedia. You surely aren't the only guilty party, but from skimming your history it looks like you are far from blameless. Skimming your edits is not a decisive way to learn the full story. It just leaves an impression. That's why it is incumbent upon you to provide strong evidence to support your side of the story in an AN/ANI discussion. You have tried appealing to AN/ANI several times now and you have been unsuccessful. Maybe you didn't present as strong a case as the facts merit. Maybe the facts simply aren't there. It doesn't matter why the appeals failed. You need to move on. As I see it you have very few options:
  1. Edit collaboratively in other areas for a while and then appeal using these good collaborative edits are evidence of reformed behavior
  2. Leave for a while and then decide whether you want to stay away, or come back via option 1 or under the claim that you've been gone for so long that in the meantime you have reformed your behavior and an admin should trust you. The standard amount of time to wait is 6 months.
  3. Appeal immediately without proving yourself elsewhere under the theory that the ban was a mistake and provide evidence that you were provoked by a cabal of editors who were collaborating against you for nefarious reasons, and that your natural tendencies are to listen to other editors and to either compromise with them or to accept that you are wrong in some discussions, and that you are naturally non-argumentative but that a specific set of bad actors has tainted your image by making you look like an unreasonable editor who prefers to fight with others until she gets her way instead of either collaborating or just walking away.
  4. Go to the talk page of every editor who didn't !vote in your favor and argue and argue and argue and argue and argue until they give up and just tell you what you want to hear. Then appeal.
I have numbered these options in order of what in my view is their decreasing likelihood of success. The fact is that option 1 and 2 are quite similar. The only difference is what you do with yourself in the next 6 months. You can edit productively (option 1) or you can sulk (option 2). Option 1 gives you better evidence but if you are unable to handle it then go with option 2. The fact is that you have tried option 3 several times and it has been unsuccessful. It is my opinion that the more times you try option 3 the less likely it is to work for you. I worry that pursuing option 3 is likely to lead to a full ban. Option 4 is simply a waste of time for both you and the non-admin you are arguing with. These is just my opinions. You can carry on with any of these options if you like. I'm sorry I don't have time to devote myself to your cause. For this reason I'd urge you not to pursue option 4. Good luck sorting through the options. -Thibbs (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I've attempted Option 1 several times. if i'm responding to you now, it is only because option 1 is consistently failing for me. I wouldn't be responding to you if i found a topic that i an interest in and have been able to expand. As for option 2, I don't trust the community to ever believe in me "ever" especially if its the same involved editors who instigate and control my editing. which leads to me to, option 3. I don't like option 3 at all, but only because you believe that's what i'm doing. Its not....option 3 (if you believe is the option referring to what i'm doing) is looking at my current history...and if you can't look into my most recent editing within the community and only look in AN and ANI (which i still argue is concentrating no).
But at this point i'm realizing, i'm not going to come back. I'll tell you why: You want what the same things of a typical, non-involved editor who knows very little about the situation. You're providing very typical options with some that will prove nothing in the long-run. First of all, no matter how you try to twist it, its a ban based on punishment, its not designed for helping an editor reform, its not even helping editors focus on their editing because the issue isn't article related. If i come back, will i say "oh thank you for the ban, i truly needed it. It showed me the way"? I wont, because its not aiming for the root cause. The purpose is designed to shut me up/punish me. Its not solving what the "true" problem is. Everything that has happened is based on "their" decisions just as much as my decisions. So if things get heated and escalated, the oppurtunity to deflate was just as much in their hands as it was mine. Second, even if i do get my preferred topic back, it changes absolutely NOTHING...
No one is going to put things on pause and really look deeper into the situation. You just said you wont, yet you made your vote and felt it was "necessary" anyways. So how do i expect anyone to go and put pause again and relook into it. No one wants to say "the community got it wrong" because most people in WP:AN and ANI believe that they individually represent the community. So it makes it even harder. The longer it gets ignored, the more it builds up. The more people wont have time to look into it. But from a quick skim apparently, you saw enough that its not 100% me.
So here's my final statement: If i'm ever going to reform, i want the community to understand what the "reform" is really needed for. Am i toxic to the entire community, or is this really something only benefiting a specific group of editors? Objectively, this doesn't benefit WP:ANIME community as they voiced their opinion strongly towards it. Even some neutral editors believed so aswell. This doesn't objectively benefit the editors who supported bans as i hardly make any interaction with them outside WP:AN and ANI. If their tired of interacting with me, that's a choice they've made, no one is forcing them to cast a vote.
But i give up, no one is ever going to look into it as deeply. No one is going to see my history for what it really is....and those who do, won't make a stand for it. Its a corrupt system, i want no part of it. So at this moment, i'm seeing the articles i worked hard on slowly rot away with dead links, and to that i say "was it worth it?" To me, its not, so i'm not coming back.
You want proof of my good editing? Its been in front of you the whole time...you just had to have had interest in the first place. I proved in my last an that it actually benefited me, and my editing has been immensely productive enough for WP:ANIME to notice. That should've shown been enough this time, but unfortunately it wasn't. so i have no hope at all for the next time i have to go back. I'm cutting my losses. I'm not valued here at all. Lucia Black (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
A few responses:
  • Punishment vs Reform - I can agree to the extent that no editing restriction can have rehabilitative effects if the restricted party is so insulted that she gives up editing forever.
  • My voting record - I have interacted with you personally, Lucia, and I know first hand that you can be disruptive. Having good qualities doesn't excuse the negative ones. Nobody has time to mico-analyze your every edit. A vote against an editor is always based on a general impression of the editor. It has always been up to the accused party (i.e. the editor who is most familiar with her own edits) to present her own side of the story.
    But let's be very clear about my voting record since you brought it up. Because I interacted with you personally I considered myself "involved" and I left one "Comment/Question" at one of your ANIs and one "Comment" at another ANI. I never voted against you, but I did make comments designed to determine if you could acknowledge your disruptiveness and make commitments to stopping it. You never answered my question or responded to my comments. Are you really surprised I didn't "vote" in your favor?
  • Proof of your good editing - Again, I know you can make good edits. Anybody who looks over your edit history can see that. But it's very important to realize that making good content edits does not give you license to break the behavioral rules. Many many editors get caught up in this trap. They get a few FAs/GAs/Barnstars, a few thousand edits, and a few years under their belt, and then they begin to consider themselves immune from policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT. I don't know any of the parties personally, but there was just recently an ArbCom decision handed down regarding a very productive long-term editor who has a reputation for both remarkable content contribution and remarkable incivility. He's been topic banned just like you, Lucia.
I am sorry to hear your decision to leave forever, but I understand your perspective. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me rework your first point: No editing restriction can have any rehabilitative effects if it doesn't make sense. The rehabilitation doesn't fit the crime especially when one takes into considering where it happens most and who's involved. my editing restriction has nothing to do with rehabilitation, i can make many good edits anywhere. its purely punitive and editors within ANI have never denied it and some even admitted this in so little words. Its more than feeling insulted...its that no matter what i do, all anyone can do is bring up history, more than what the situation really is.

the second point doesn't matter. you still chose a distinct side, regardless of "labeling" the side you were in. its kind of like saying "i'm not in a political party, but i agree completely with republicans because of one first-hand experience with one democrat". And it builds the voting process. That is exactly what other editors have done. When it leans toward another editors "impression", certain editors have full control of that. And thats how flawed the system is. Aren't editors smart enough to know that

for the third point, is what hurts me the most about this. this is the very point that i feel with certain editors in AN/ANI who instigate situation, ignore me, and insult me. Everyone gets excused and i'm painted a hundred times worst than the actually "negative" are (and if anyone took the time to even give it a real look, there's a distinct pattern with other disruptive editors)...i don't feel invincible at all. For so long, i felt like an easy target. Its easy to make me look like such a bad editor. Have you seen some of the comments in my talkpage? Here's one thing to consider: specific editors are always involved.

For the most part, don't claim you understand. There's a large portion of what i'm saying you don't agree with it, or reject and have no interest in looking in further. Can you understand why i feel certain editors are always hunting for my head regardless of what the situation is? Can you understand why i get to be insulted in both ANI and my own talkpage? Can you understand why i feel that the editors i have issues with will always be the invincible ones and in control of my editing? How about this important question: if you feel i'm so disruptive, ever figured out where the root cause of it is? If you truly understood...you would actually want me to stay, and look into it. Or at the very least, find the most appropriate rehabilitation that everyone can agree with and propose it.

This current topic ban doesn't serve anything...rehabilitation? no one believes that. Lucia Black (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Rehabilitation - The restrictions are premised on the idea that you are overly argumentative and disruptive. That's a premise you reject, but it is key to understanding what the closing admins meant when they said things like "avoid approaching another administrator to overturn the topic ban until having demonstrated ability to engage in appropriate interactions with other editors" and "productive and non-tendentious content editing in another subject may ultimately demonstrate ability to return to this topic area, where her interest ostensibly lies." These comments are quite clearly aimed at rehabilitation, not punishment. You have to look through other people's eyes to see this.
  • "if anyone took the time to even give it a real look" - You bring up an interesting point in your repeated exhortations for others to dig through your edits for you to try to find the positive which is so thoroughly mixed with the negative. A few years ago I'd toyed with the idea of trying to start an advocate's group on Wikipedia. These editors, like lawyers, would take on cases and would advocate on behalf of any editor facing blocks/bans or any article facing AfD. Presumably the opposite side could also get an advocate to help them as well. This is essentially the same as the Common Law legal system. It's frankly not very far from what we currently have except that currently the individual is expected to act pro se. Anyway I untilately forgot about the whole idea because it thoroughly violates the spirit of WP:NOTLAW.
  • "you don't agree with it, or reject and have no interest in looking in further" - Realistically speaking, the only way to dispell incorrect impressions about yourself is to prove yourself. It's true that you can ask for a second look, and then a third, and a fourth and fifth, etc. But then you are leaving the matter in the hands of those who are already prejudiced against you. Take me for example. I see you as extremely argumentative and dogged (not good qualities for an editor who is expected to collaborate non-disruptively with peers). If you were to edit peaceably for 6 months to a year in other parts of Wikipedia you would prove my impression to be incorrect. If you instead make a 6-month-to-a-year-long campaign of doggedly arguing with me then my impression remains exactly the same. I do want you to stay regardless of what the root cause of your problems are, but I don't think it's possible if you're unwilling to prove that you can edit without getting into huge disruptive arguments. You made a few edits in other areas: for example your work at Secrets of Raetikon. Did your many enemies immediately jump on you there? Did they force you into yet further disruptive arguments? No. If you tried editing in areas even further removed from your favorite topics then I suspect you would see even less interaction with the editors you are unable to get along with. Forget about your enemies. If they are as bad as you think then they will have histories as bad or worse than yours and it's only a matter of time before the community throws them out. I know for a fact that one of your "enemies" has already been banned. Anyway I know you said that you can't edit in other parts of Wikipedia. Fine. You also said that you are leaving forever. Fine. I do understand and can accept these claims on a factual level even if I don't understand or agree with them on an emotional level. -Thibbs (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All i did was minor edits of sectets of raetikon. and unfortunately, it was the very little i was able to do, until all the GA for western video games got swept up at the time. all what was left was Japanese related. and even then, that was miniscule things...However, my enemies appear in AN and ANI because the majority of the time, they only mention behavior but not provide proof, not only that but they use the excuse of history not by what the ANI's were about, not what happened before. Heck, hardly half of them have any first-hand experience at all. None of them know any editing history, yet they act as if they do. Some have admitted to put in favor of the editor in question and make me out to look worst. And if any of them are like what Salvidrim! have admitted, are in the bandwagon. they jump on me there, and that's where things get exaggerated. They often change the amount of time between AN discussions to appear shorter, and bring back past issue that were resolved long ago. they also make it seem like every ANI were all different occasions when reality is a series of a single one they refused to take care of effectively until they had no excuse to fix it anymore. and when they finally did fix it, thats when my editing quadrupled, and more and more editors were able to see my good editing and that i wasn't argumentative. This is important because even if i really am at fault for any of these issues, it would be known as one on-going issue, not a problematic issue, breaking it down to where the root cause means that they have no room to constantly bring up the past.

Now here's the root of the problem at least when it comes to your reasoning. Now 6 months of good editing, doesn't exactly prove anything that i want to prove....and i can't ignore my enemies in hopes that continue their behavior to the point that they notice because i have absolutely no trust in the community, so far they've harassed me, they've ignored my questions, and make me look to be worst and NO ONE is calling them out on it, and when they do, only for a brief moment. Even when it is recognized that there are others at fault, no one wants to rectify it. Even you admitted that others were at fault (regardless if you think i'm not blameless, some people hold part of the blame). Everything i want to prove, 6 months of editing wont do me a single thing. It'll only humor certain editors such as yourself. And thats what it really does. That is EXACTLY the reflection of how the community works. Because its never about the problem at hand, but its what you're willing to do in order to get the favor of a group of editors, regardless if it was something unnecessary or not. And thats a game i'm not willing to play.

You already know i make good edits so you're not helping me at all when you make the proposal of 6 months somewhere else, and i'm sure you're smart enough to know your 1st hand experience with me does not equal an entire editing history. So i know you know better that your opinion of me could've changed just by looking at my editing history r even giving a chance. Not only that but the strong opinions last time should've been in indicator. Now regardless of you putting an "oppose" or "support" you did make a strong attempt to sway the conversation. So here's the thing, you have all the proof right now. i don't agree with it, and others don't either. But it will never be enough. SO i'm going to ask you this: regardless of your first hand experience, regardless of the impression, my current history before the indef topic ban is more than enough. and if its not, i guarantee you, 6 more months editing elsewhere will prove nothing. Lucia Black (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit history shows long protracted problems you had with at least three editors, two of whom are still editors in good standing. I have personal experience with all three, and from what I can see there's no systematic alliance between them and they aren't in league with each other. So if you are saying that a single problem is at the root of your troubles then it doesn't appear to be an external one. When strong-willed stubborn and uncompromising editors conflict with each other then things get ugly. If it happens repeatedly with the same actors then the community will act to put an end to it. You crossed the line. Within two months the same happened with one of your three major "enemies" and he received an indefinite block. I wouldn't be at all surprised if another one these "enemies" received his own (unrelated) set of restrictions within the next few days. The fact that the people you have argued with are difficult to work with certainly doesn't absolve you, though.
It takes two sides to create a huge towering argument. And if someone is seen to be prone to creating huge towering arguments (especially in normally non-controversial areas) then it's not unfair to infer that the problem comes from the personality of the editor. It doesn't matter whether they're also a good content editor. Continual conflicts are disruptive and that's not acceptable. As I said earlier, the sanctions you recieved exceed what I personally would have given if I were an admin, but I don't agree with you that they are a de facto ban. Your efforts to move on have been small and half-hearted. You argue that your enemies will pursue you wherever you go without any evidence that this is true. In essence you have banned yourself. I know you feel like a victim, but I see you as a victim of your own pride. Arguing with me until the end of time will not do anything to help yourself since I have zero power to block or unblock you. It won't even convince me that you're not normally argumentative. In fact it convinces me of the opposite. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Now i know you're forgetting about the original situation and just basing things now only on character. First off, i don't think you know who i consider my enemies nor do i think you know what "pursue" when it comes to my situation. There are those who i don't get along with and always have disputes and break rules and feel invincible (not enemies) and those who are always ready to make prejudice-based highly exaggerated opinion about me in AN/ANI regardless of the situation and will pursue a discussion every time not to remedy the situation, but to make a point (the ones i consider enemies). And to some its not even prejudice, some editors use frustration over reason. Keep in mind, AN and ANI are areas where one can bring something towards someone's attention, and if they choose to fix it, so be it. If not, the consensus can be to not make any action. If more history isn't revealed in that situation, they can opt for more changed. But one should not be blocked for a discussion that can end quickly or not only because a group of editors knowingly escalated a situation. Especially if given permission by another administrator and wasn't even pushing it but a simple request who was perfectly happy to leave it be if nothing happened. Saying there's no proof is unreasonable. The proof within the AN and ANI history. There's a clear pattern of the same reoccuring editors ignoring me in AN/ANI, even when i have legitimate questions (and i ask this 6 or 7 times). Make claims bigger than what they were (and i'm talking about in the very very early stages of AN/ANI). Insults, sometimes half-heartedly acknowledging what i'm saying only to dismiss it without reason. Its sort of what you're doing when you acknowledge that there are others at fault but quickly refute it by going back to me.
It takes two sides to create a huge towering argument. And if someone is seen to be prone to creating huge towering arguments (especially in normally non-controversial areas) then it's not unfair to infer that the problem comes from the personality of the editor. It doesn't matter whether they're also a good content editor. Continual conflicts are disruptive and that's not acceptable.
^^^As for this comment. Non-controversial areas? its been nothing but controversial. Not only that but if we're still talking about same editors, than this definitely applies to more than one person. But if it takes more than one to create an argument, than it should take two to be given action, especially if the same sides are the same. Yet who is the one always at the receiving end?
Keep in mind, i wouldn't be so argumentative if the community actually cared enough to solve the root issue. You know how happy i was with my last sanctions? it was actually fair...after so much begging to get things fixed, they gave the right sanctions that will benefit everyone. and it was proven effective, my editing was more productive, and i was able to communicate with the community well and make worthwhile changes. I actually made a difference. But i know those who find my name in AN/ANI don't care what the root of the problem is.
i'm tired of disinterestedly acknowledging that others are part of the situation and are partially at fault, but subtly dismiss it by simply stating that i'm not absolved. i'm not trying to get "absolved" or at least not completely. What i want is for my history to be seen for what it really is which is heavily interconnected with other's history. Not what these other editors (who i consider the true enemy) in WP:AN/ANI choose to make it look. Other's should've taken action to those who are partially at fault so long that the community recognizes them that they play a part, and it cannot and will not be solved by making me the only one at the receiving end. Because after all, i am looking for a final solution, not a temporary one to get my editing back only to expect another situation with the exact same people all over again.
Its easy to say i'm a victim of my own pride when i'm the one who is always at the receiving end even when other editors are also at fault. And normally they get away with it because some just happen to get . I had familiarity on my side last time. Others supported me, and it wasn't enough. Don't you dare say i tried this half-heartedly. How about this. I give you a list of articles i'm 100% interested, that are within my boundaries, lets see if you can get these articles up to GA status. If editors don't get the appropriate bans/blocks at the given time that its needed, they will feel invincible, specifically when it comes to making discussions with me. And trust me when i say the pattern is showing greatly.
if you see me argumentative and that needs to be solved? fine....the situation is still what it is. A simple AN discussion that didn't have to go anywhere near as bad as it did, and the choice to escalate was purely on the proposer. Editors at that time chose to escalate, and those who were familiar with my recent edits found no reason for the sanctions. but somehow sanctions were placed. And regardless what you think the reason was, officially the reason is considered "obscure". But if its so obscure, no action should've been the appropriate case as it has been for most AN/ANI discussions. And honestly, the way you're telling to jump through hoops to get my editing back, how you also mentioned this is a matter of "everyone gets their day in court" (lack of a better word from what you said earlier, definitely sounds like pride was the intended target. If its punitive and not preventative, and i have to jump through hoops to prove something thats already been proven but doesn't solve the root problem, then yes, this ban is designed for me to bow my head to those who enforced it.
but this is more than pride. After all, articles are in danger and no one wants to even talk about fixing the issue 100%...i want a final solution. Hypothetically (which isn't hypothetical, its highly probable), what happens when the issue arises again? if you can't solve that or even find a way to solve it, then i implore you to avoid anything to do with me in any AN and ANI until you have the courtesy to give proper weight. that includes demanding band and blocks or any form of sanctions to the party that is even remotely responsible for the situation.
You said you understood why i'm leaving, so if you understand, then you should know that at some level what i am saying is right. Lucia Black (talk) 14:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Enemies - Don't take this the wrong way, but I find the whole concept of enemies to be ridiculous. There are some people who are difficult to work with and there are some people who overly judgmental, but when you start to label them as enemies (even just in your head) then you erect hurdles against future reconciliation.
  • Escalating blocks - I can't read your mind so I'll have to accept your word that your latest efforts at AN was really just "a simple request who was perfectly happy to leave it be if nothing happened". But given your history of involvement at AN/ANI you can see why this simple request may have been regarded as more than that. For people who have considered your past and who believe that you have problems that you need to resolve before they can trust you, you're asking a lot.
  • Legitimate questions - When your legitimate question is basically "What have I done to deserve restrictions?" then there are some who would regard this as you who is ignoring the views of the community.
  • Others at fault - I'm not trying to attack you, but I do think that if you only look at the faults of others and refuse to look at your own faults then you are apt to get blind-sided when a situation where you are both at fault blows up. You're not the only person who is at the receiving end. Several people you've had problems with have also seen unrelated blocks, restrictions, or bans. If there are others who you think are guilty that have seen no restrictions then try to be comforted by what I was saying about "jerks" back in December 2-3. Rotten apples tend to get noticed in time.
  • Final solution - I honestly can't think of any final solution that involves huge arguments proving once and for all that you are right and everyone else is wrong. You'll have to live with the fact that there are others who you don't like who are sharing your work space. That's how real life works as well.
    -Thibbs (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Commment[edit]

• Greetings, thank you for your assistance. Nemexia (game) was my first wiki article and I don't know how to provide correct references. So can I edit the page now when it is under discussion and just add all the links I have in the reference footer? Cheers. Colonel.daniel (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Colonel.daniel, the first thing that you should keep in mind for article creation is that 99% of the time it must be "notable". This means that should meet the requirements at WP:GNG which can be summarized as follows:
  • The topic of the article must be covered
  • in depth
  • by multiple
  • reliable sources
  • that are independent of the topic.
Each of these elements is important.
You might have found a reliable source in the form of a press release from the company itself and that can be included in the article, but it's not independent of the topic and so it can't be used to show that the topic is notable. Since all topics are notable to their creators, only independently published third party sources can be used to demonstrate that the topic is notable to the world (and thus suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia).
You may have found a reliable third part source (like a respected news outlet) but if it only mentions the game in passing, then it can't be used to establish notability. In-depth reporting is needed to show notability and to provide the referenced substance of the Wikipedia article.
You may have found a reliable third-party source that covers the game in significant depth, but you need to find multiple sources that do so to show that it's not just a flash in the pan for one other person beside the developer. How many sources is "multiple"? There's no fixed number, so I suppose the minimum is two. But obviously the more you can provide the better the proof that the game is notable. Just having two sources is toeing the line quite close and articles with that level of coverage frequently get deleted anyway.
So finally we come to the threshold question of what is a "reliable source". In general it means a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A source can be an author or a publishing group with an editor. Each source must be evaluated on its own and there are no free passes for "everything published by X", but in the interest of helping editors to locate reliable sources for video games, a number of editors have come up with WP:VG/RS as a rule-of-thumb guide to sources that are generally considered reliable. Within this guideline you will find a set of Custom Google Search tools that can be used to even further simplify the location of likely reliable sources. This is how NinjaRobotPirate and I located the various reliable sources we mentioned at the AfD.
If we were starting from scratch the next step would be to read through the reliable sources and add details to the article that were covered by the sources. Assuming that WP:GNG is satisfied (by multiple, independent, in-depth, reliable sources) we could even use self-published sources to expand the article (with special caution as outlined at WP:SPS). But since we are starting from the point where we have an existing article that needs sources, we will have to read through the reliable sources and add citations to the article wherever the sources back up the claims in the article. If the claims cannot be backed up then they should be removed. If the claim is really rather essential and you believe it may be referenceable in the future, it should be moved to the article talk page temporarily, but otherwise all unreferenceable material should be culled.
Finally, for video game articles there is a general guideline at WP:VG/GL that determines how to present the information in the article. Specifically, there are a few elements of these articles that are considered essential. These can be found here.
This is kind of a wall-of-text, I know. And it's a summary to boot. There are a lot of rules and it can seem intimidating, but the basic mechanics of what you have to do are pretty simple so I'll write to your talk page to give you a very specific break-down of exactly what actions you have to take to properly source your article. You can refer to this longer explanation for further help as needed, and feel free to ask me (or any of the helpful editors at Wikipedia's video game project) any additional questions as they arise. Good luck, thanks for your contributions, and welcome to Wikipedia! -Thibbs (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP: VG Newsletter[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Thibbs. You have new messages at MrKIA11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shameless User Page Stalking[edit]

I just wanted to note what a big fan I am of you having contributed to both the Gamergate and GamersGate articles. That is fantastic, and it's almost enough to make me want you to contribute to Gamergate controversy. But then, I suppose I wouldn't wish that on anyone. -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 21:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks for your kind words. An effort to educate readers, a penchant for the ironic, and perhaps a touch of cowardice toward wading into controversial topics - those would be the reasons I expanded "Gamergate" and "GamersGate" without getting my hands dirty with the controversy. I've thought about editing the Gamergate controversy article (in fact I did make one or two purely grammatical edits early on), but a lack of time to get deeply into it and a vested interest in keeping totally neutral for now have kept me away. I definitely do plan to look in on the article in the future, though. -Thibbs (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well then, I will look forward to the day when your userpage can proudly display all three. XD -- ATOMSORSYSTEMS (TALK) 22:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to return to editing Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Thibbs

I want to return to edit Wikipedia. My post on audio games was just fine. How can I remove my indefinite ban here at Wikipedia?--31.53.94.153 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

RE:IP Vandal[edit]

Ok, thank you for your help. I'll have a think about your suggestions :) JayJ47 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of service. -Thibbs (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help[edit]

Hi Thibbs, thanks for your help. I used insource:, which gave me some more results. But you were still right, there weren't many instances, although I'm a bit suprised about that, since it sometimes catches a template that I thought used more often. I ended up not using Excel (because I was curious about many of the mentions, anyway, even those that were long ago), but if you do this more often and you'd like a macro for that, let me know. — Sebastian 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that but it seems to give me fewer hits on my own name than the method I had used previously (1487 vs 1762) anyway I'm glad I could help. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right about the overall number. I expressed myself badly; what I meant was that I used insource to find text like [[User:SebastianHelm|Sebastian]]. You don't have that problem, of course! — Sebastian 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:OUTING Question[edit]

Hey I saw your question and though I personally don't know the answer, I'm pinging @DoRD: because he seems to have expertise in that area ([2]). Good luck! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I appreciate the help! -Thibbs (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind evidence can always be submitted privately to the Checkuser mailing list, if posting it on-wiki is undesirable (per WP:OUTING or a need for privacy/discretion). ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thibbs, I didn't see your question at WT:SPI until I was pinged here, but I just responded to your question there. Also, Salvidrim! is correct in pointing out that there are alternative routes for submitting sensitive evidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks everyone. -Thibbs (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: You might be interested to learn...[edit]

Thanks for pointing him out to me, blocked both his accounts. --PresN 22:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I probably should have said something earlier. I've let myself mellow a bit since my early days with SPI and although I was watching the account closely I might have watched longer. But when someone is openly and notoriously announcing that they are sockpuppeting then that's far far over the line. I doubt it's the last we'll see of him given his history. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you![edit]

Choco-Nut Bake with Meringue Top cropped.jpg Thanks for your contributions at WP:DRN!! KeithbobTalk 22:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is that a meringue top I see? Thank you very much. Someone thoughtful privately suggested this as a rewarding way to help out and I'm glad to assist if I can. -Thibbs (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User "Tim Zukas"[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse: Tim Zukas which I have just been advised was created today by another editor relating to the very issue under discussion about the Overland Limited article. Centpacrr (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Centpacrr. Given the role I have taken as a neutral intermediary between the two of you I am unwilling to take sides on this matter, but I am skeptical that this was an appropriate move on the part of the editor who filed that report with LTA. I've never seen an LTA filing that didn't concern an indefinitely blocked user, and the vast majority have been the subject of at least one SPI. Things are at an early stage with the LTA report now and I will watch to see how things unfold, but in the meanwhile please don't get drawn too deeply into discussing it. At this stage I suspect that LTA is the wrong venue for complaints about Tim Zukas' behavior and that even if the filing is rejected it has the potential to inflame tensions between the parties. Our discussion at DRN will have a much greater chance of success if we can separate the content issues from the behavioral aspects. I hope you agree with me. I see you wrote a follow-up at DRN and I will read it carefully tomorrow morning. Thanks again for notifying me about this new development. -Thibbs (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not create the LTA and was not aware that it would be started until I was notified of it tonight as were a number of other editors who have had similar issues with this editor over the past several years. You will see that I have not made any mention of it on the DRN which I will continue to participate in as if the LTA had not been started. However I thought it was appropriate to advise you that I had been notified of this as it accurately reflects my experience with this editor in a number of articles that exactly mirrors this one. His behavior here fits his long standing pattern of disruptive behavior of making massive unexplained deletions of material form articles and never supporting what he does by citing any sources even when requested to do so. As you can see in my comments in point #5 this is exactly what he is doing here as well. Centpacrr (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You are quite right that it was appropriate to inform me. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Behavioral matters are outside the scope of DRN, but it is helpful to me as the intermediary to be aware of simultaneously running behavioral complaints to give me context for the matter. And thank you for your willingness to set the LTA aside in your mind while working through DRN. I appreciate that. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Thibbs, it's been a while. We first intersected on a local dispute about the list of fictional badgers, and your user talk page has been on my watchlist ever since.
I appreciate your sentiment expressed above, saying that you would like to continue working on the content of your dispute resolution rather than introducing behavioral components. I respect that motive.
I did not file the LTA case with any thought about Tim Zukas or Centpacrr, or any dispute between them, and especially not to be used as a tool against Tim Zukas at the DRN venue. Rather, I saw a pattern of disruptive IPs edit-warring at Boeing 314 Clipper, an article where I have been involved for several years, and I investigated the IP edits today, following them to a large group of articles and timings that indicated Tim Zukas was the main account behind the IPs. Before seeing Tim Zukas show up in the pattern of clues, I imagined I was going to file an anonymous LTA case called "Clipper vandal", thinking that only IP addresses were involved. It was quite a surprise to see Tim Zukas behaving this way. It's even more ironic that Tim Zukas and I are (somewhat distant) neighbors in Oakland.
To clear up some misconceptions you expressed: 1) LTA cases are not necessarily describing an indefinitely blocked or banned editor; they can simply describe a pattern of problematic edits traceable to one person. 2) Similarly, there is no requirement for a sockpuppet investigation to have been filed prior to creating an LTA case page. 3) There is no "early stage" for an LTA case page, and no later process by which it would be "rejected". The LTA case pages exist to describe a pattern of abuse, even if the abuse has not been so egregious as to involve a block. These pages help to pass down institutional memory; a voice of experience from involved editors to those who are just beginning to realize the problem.
In the case of Tim Zukas, this new LTA case page of which he has been made aware should serve as a strong warning against future violations of WP:MULTIPLE. If violations do occur, it will be used as a reference by admins seeking to reduce disruption. It has no bearing on content disputes, where published references should be the main discussion point, not behavioral patterns.
Best wishes, Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Binksternet, I appreciate that Tim Zukas is having trouble interacting with other editors and my brief interaction with him has left me with the impression that he should be engaged in more communication and discussion than he is. I haven't looked thoroughly through his edit history so I don't have all the facts and I don't know the degree to which the IP usage was intended as sockpuppetry, but given the lack of an admin-reviewed SPI case I am concerned that this might be considered premature and be seen more as a case of WP:Editing while logged out than of WP:MULTIPLE violation. The language at LTA is pretty strong: "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well-attested cases. Most users here will have been banned, some on multiple occasions." I just checked and one of the minimum requirements for filing is that "despite indefinite block or ban" the user must "continue[] vandalism and/or abuse beyond the point of any usual blocked user." That language is repeated in the banner that pops up when you file a LTA case which goes on to suggest that failure to meet that criterion may result in a rejection of the filing. I'm not sure how the rejection would be handled/processed.
Anyway I have only personally filed one LTA report in my 9 years editing here and it was for an editor who had persistently returned to cause disruption (requiring at least 64 blocks, 11 AN/ANI threads, and 4 SPIs) for nearly a decade after her 2005 indefinite block. I tend to regard those few listed at LTA as Wikipedia's all-time worst ex-editors, and I'm not sure that accurately describes Tim Zukas. So that may be what is giving me pause here. Unless they have failed in the past, SPI, AN, or AN/I might be a better option in this case. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... Looks like I've been contributing LTA cases through the back door, without ever knocking on the main submission form to gain entry. Interestingly, it appears that no proposed LTA case page has been rejected since February 2014. I will go to ANI and initiate a discussion of the Tim Zukas pattern of editing logged out, to see what the community feels about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I thought LTA was kind of becoming inactive to be honest. I remember a cull back in September 2013 to weed out long-inactive abusers and I know that there has always been a bit of tension balancing LTA with DENY for prolific problem editors like Willy on Wheels and MascotGuy who seem to be seeking some kind of childish recognition. Frankly I probably would have filed a second case by now but for the fact that party I considered filing against (someone with at least 165 blocks including 24 indef blocks in the last 7.5 years) seems to be seeking notoriety and I have no interest in giving him the pleasure. In that case I was able (with some success) to make use of an excellent resource that used to be available here, but it's really only an option for prolific and blatant vandalism without any possibility of confusion... Anyway thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I'll keep it on my radar while I work through the DRM. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

VG/RL req[edit]

Hey Thibbs—would you be able to send a scan of the Saints Row 2 review in EGM, December 2008, p. 74? czar  15:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also in PC Gamer, March 2009, p. 70? czar  15:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure I'll try to get it done by the end of the day. -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Two more for Yoshi's Island from GameFan: (1) 32 (Vol 3, Issue 8), Aug 1995, special feature, (2) 34 (Vol 3, Issue 10), Oct 1995, review. Thanks! czar  23:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • My scanner's on the fritz. I'll look into it tomorrow when I can get better light for a photo. I doubt it will, but send me a reminder if this somehow slips my mind. -Thibbs (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN Overland Limited case[edit]

That case is long, long past its autoarchiving date of March 15. If any 24-hour period passes in which there is no edit there, our archiving bot will automatically archive the listing, effectively closing it. The reason for this is that DRN was designed to only handle brief and, generally, easy cases to resolve. If this was just slightly before or beyond it's autoarchive date, I'd suggest that you simply change the autoarchive date in the case header to allow another week's discussion, but we're now already two weeks beyond that and this is now really stretching the purpose and scope of DRN. I'm just letting you know so that there aren't any surprises. Best regards and thanks for helping at DRN, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was aware of the autoarchiving issue, but thanks for alerting me all the same. I was thinking of how to wrap the thing up last night and I've come up with a solution although I fear it's kind of heavy handed. I feel at this point that the progression of the discussion is more or less identical to the progression of a talk-page discussion and that's really the only point I was trying to make to the editors involved. I think they all understand the policy and guidelines and if they could just continue to discuss matters without trading insults then they could use the article talk page to collaborate. I was hoping to reach an agreement on at least one issue before suggesting that we adjourn to the article talk page for future discussions, but I agree that the discussion has gone on too long so I'll go ahead and implement this solution for the remainder of the three active discussions. Thanks for the gentle nudge. -Thibbs (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: April fools day[edit]

Yep, it's good to go! --PresN 01:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

VG/RS CGS exclusion req[edit]

  • If you could exclude http://www.gamerevolution.com/faq/* (e.g., [3]) czar  15:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    • YesY Done. -Thibbs (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another: -site:http://justadventure.com/forums-phpbb/* (e.g., [4]) czar  21:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • YesY Done. And thanks again, Czar. This is very helpful. I wish others would contact me if they saw anything that needed exclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Least I can do—I use it all the time! Another: http://www.nintendolife.com/users/* (example) czar  11:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
And http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/* (written by community members, example) I haven't checked whether all blogs are unreliable, but it looks like it czar  17:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY Done and done. -Thibbs (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • www.shacknews.com/user/* (example) – czar 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY I think it's done. The post still shows up, but I'm guessing it takes a few hours for the changes to take effect. -Thibbs (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For handling what may have been the longest thread in the history of the dispute resolution noticeboard, and keeping the thread civil and productive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Haha, thanks. I really thought it would be over in a few weeks, but anyway things seem to be on a better track now. My hope is that at the least the parties can all recognize that (1) although they may disagree and may find each other's behavior irritating it is abundantly obvious that they all have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart and (2) discussion and not executive action is the only way to resolve the underlying content disagreements. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

BS Monopoly listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BS Monopoly. Since you had some involvement with the BS Monopoly redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Source help[edit]

Hey, Thibbs. I've been working on Red Alarm recently and I've hit a small roadblock. The online scan of the game's GameFan review contains all the information I need for a citation, except for the names of the writers. I noticed that you have the relevant issue (November 1995), so I was wondering if you could pass along the author names. It would be a huge help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it's missing the page number, too. I'm sure it's a pain to check your magazines, but I'd be very grateful for this information, in whatever amount of time it takes you to locate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@JimmyBlackwing: - On the left is Dave Halverson writing as "E. Storm". On the right is Nicholas Dean Des Barres writing as "Nick Rox". The page number is 99. Let me know if there is a need for further sources for any of the more obscure VB topics. I'm not paying a lot of attention to it right now, but I do have a number of sources including Japanese, Portuguese, and I think I even remember some Chinese ones as well (though I might not be able to help translate the Chinese ones...). -Thibbs (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Regarding further sources, I do have scans of Famitsu's review that I can't translate. I can't even read the reviewers' names to cite them. I'd already been wondering where to find someone who reads Japanese—so, if you're game, that would be an incredible help. Either way, there's no real rush: I have a lot more article to write before it's time to nominate it anywhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure. I'm not a pro, but I'll take a look at the Japanese and at the very least I'll be able to provide you a transcript. It may take me a little time, but I'll keep it on my radar. Was it just the review for Red Alarm you were interested in or all of the reviews? -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great. And just Red Alarm, at least for me. Mainspace editing really isn't my thing anymore, so I'm unlikely to revamp any VB articles after this one. Thanks a ton. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey, that's a huge help. I'll start incorporating these into the article in the next few days. Thanks again! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Good luck with it. -Thibbs (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the Total! source, but I'd already managed to grab that article from the Internet Archive's collection. It's amazing what's available online these days—very different from when I was starting out on Wikipedia! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting indeed. I didn't know it was up on Internet Archive. I've got some gaps in the coverage I had picked up a few years ago so I'll address that right away. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to make an article good or higher[edit]

Greetings. I have been hard at work on the Freddi Fish series, citing sources, looking for relevant information and adding newer platforms. However I am seeking the help of another editor to assist to make the article(s) get a good rating or better (like Broken Sword). I tried to contact members of the "Adventure Games Task Force", but no one replied. If you know anyone who would be willing to help work on the articles, please contact the user and forward my request. For a list of things to do on the articles see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freddi_Fish#List_of_objectives_for_the_articles . Any assistance is much appreciated. Deltasim (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What an interesting coincidence. I just picked up Freddi Fish 4 last weekend. I've heard they're pretty fun light-fare point&click adventures and I'm an unabashed sucker for adventure games. I think the list of objectives you've come up with looks great. I've seem some of the work you've done on video game articles and I can see you know all about the importance of RSes, but just to check do you know about the RS google custom searches available at WP:VG/RS#Locating reliable sources? That would be my first stop for reffing factual material (sales figures, international release info, etc.). I'll be busyish in the next few days but I'll try to keep this on my radar and check in to see how you're progressing. -Thibbs (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I've been adding information to the articles. The biggest addition is the "Availability" section in the main article. I await your inspections and feedback. I'm still looking for additional reliable sources to cite the release dates of the games. Deltasim (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I took a look about 2 weeks ago and things looked like they were moving along nicely. I'll look over what you've accomplished in more depth later today or tomorrow and I'll see if I can find anything reliable for the release dates. Thanks for your good work on this! -Thibbs (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I have found something new in relation to Freddi Fish. Some of the games have had British dubs, with UK English and entirely different voice acting. Some of Humongous Entertainment's other series also have British Dubs as well as the Living Books series. There is no apparent reliable sources only forum discussions, so I have not as yet added it. The question, is it really worth mentioning? It maybe trivial or otherwise not officially done by Humongous. Personally in my opinion, those dubs have terrible quality voice acting. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Deltasim (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think this would be a situation where you'd want to turn to the games themselves for citations. Although they can't be used to establish notability, these kinds of sources can be used in limited situations per WP:SPS and WP:PRIMARY (e.g. for reporting on themselves in a not-unduly-self-aggrandizing manner). Voice actor credits appearing on instruction manuals, game boxes, in-game, or elsewhere within the code of the game itself can be cited to the game itself if, as you've raised, they are worth mentioning. I'm not sure that these details would be worth mentioning to be honest. Per WP:GAMECRUFT #10, lists of voice actors are usually not a good thing to add to video game articles. The furthest I might go with that aspect is to briefly (i.e. one sentence) mention the fact that the voice actors are different in different versions. And that's only if the facts can be corroborated apart from the forum posts. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
For going the extra mile to help develop Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption. Darkwarriorblake 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah thanks! The requests for source assistance are the primary justification for me to pick up old mags like this in the first place. Ask me any time. -Thibbs (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RE: Star Ship[edit]

Hi Thibbs. You just have to do a search at the US Copyright Office's database (http://cocatalog.loc.gov/). The way their database search system is set up, each result url is based on session data and unique for that individual search. So you can't copy and paste the link or it'll be invalid shortly after anyways. Here's the relevant info. Publication Date is defined by the database as when said item was first available for public viewing. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Star Ship, Video Computer System, Game Program : 17 video games : [no.]...

Type of Work: Visual Material Registration Number / Date: VA0000015816 / 1978-10-27 Application Title: Printed carton, star ship, Video Computer System Game Program. Title: Star Ship, Video Computer System, Game Program : 17 video games : [no.] CX2603. Imprint: Sunnyvale, Calif. : Atari, Consumer Division, c1978. Description: On folding carton. Copyright Claimant: Atari, Inc. Date of Creation: 1978 Date of Publication: 1978-01-02 Other Title: Printed carton, star ship, Video Computer System Game Program Names: Atari, Inc.

  • Thanks. I ended up citing the document itself using a modified version of the Bluebook-suggested formatting for patents. I think that makes about the most sense here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe in I am Error article, Reception section[edit]

Adding the braces around the apostrophe bumps the s on to the next line. JDspeeder1 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @JDspeeder1: - OK I'll look into it. I'm pretty sure there's a way to use markup to treat the word as a whole unit. Thanks for bringing it up. I'll let you know when I've got it fixed. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
OK I remembered how to do it. It's usually possible to do something like that with the nowrap template. Unfortunately since this is a link, I think we'd have to turn the entire link (i.e. "Castlevania II: Simon's Quest‍ '​s") into a single unit for this to work out. I have two different computers with different screen resolution settings and it looks fine on both, but it could look really weird with some settings to have the entire expression treated as a unit. I'll ask at the help desk and see what they think. -Thibbs (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @JDspeeder1: - OK there were several suggestions at the help desk (see the discussion), but I think PrimeHunter found the best technical answer. I've implemented PrimeHunter's suggestion here. I also agree with Mandruss, though, regarding the best way to handle the issue going forward. Although it is possible to say "Castlevania II: Simon's Quest's translation", it's much less awkward and I would say better practice to write something like "The translation of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest". Frankly much of that paragraph should be rewritten for better flow. Anyway thanks again for bringing it up, thanks to PrimeHunter and Mandruss for their good suggestions, and thanks to Cryptic and Fuhghettaboutit for their assistance in the above-linked help desk thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SoundNovelTsukuruCover.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SoundNovelTsukuruCover.png. 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) 02:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Grumble, grumble. New project for the future I guess. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Archives for April 2015 (Video Game Article Alerts)[edit]

Hi, I noticed you made the other 3 for 2015 but April has been left out. Do you plan on making it in the future? Please leave the reply message on my talk page instead of replying here.--Anarchyte 08:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anarchyte. The archives at WP:VG/NAA have traditionally been connected to the WP:VG Newsletter which comes out quarterly. The whole thing used to be done by User:MuZemike (and earlier User:MrKIA11 and User:PresN) but when MuZemike stopped working on the Newsletter I kind of took over the job. There was never any discussion over the matter and it's certainly not my exclusive domain so if you feel like it you could create the archive for April. Or if you want I could create it too.
The only reasons I usually wait for each quarter to end are that (1) the active (non-archived) list usually goes back about that far (currently it's still displaying all of March), (2) the longer you wait the more stable the list will be (we don't archive those articles that are prodded/speedied/otherwise deleted in only a few days or weeks and those often have to be removed by hand by my very helpful fellow archivist User:Salavat), and (3) also I'm a bit lazy. But again feel free if you are interested and likewise let me know if you want me to create the archive early. I'd be happy to do so. -Thibbs (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Pie Rats for deletion[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pie_Rats

Could use a few pointers and feedback for this one. Deltasim (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The relevant guidelines here are WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. I've looked through some of the more obvious resources (Google News, Google Scholar, and Google Books) and I've come up empty-handed. As these are children's books you will probably have to look for coverage in reliable children's literature publications. A decent collection to get you started can be found here. If you have access to a university database that would probably be the easiest way to check these materials for coverage. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've !voted for userfication at the AfD, by the way. That's a good way to incubate the article from deletion until you can clean it up a bit more. -Thibbs (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible reference for GamersGate[edit]

I came across this reference earlier and I recalled that you worked on the article for GamersGate. Its in Swedish but the article is rather interesting. I will kill your fucking asses. How a Swedish gaming site ended up in the middle of all time shit storm. (translated title). GamerPro64 19:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. The thought had crossed my mind to add #GamerGate sections to both the GamersGate and Gamergate articles, but I had backed off for fear of stirring up problems when the connection is really kind of tenuous. Still it's not a bad idea (with GamersGate especially since it has arguably impacted their bottom line). I'll look into it when I get a moment. Thanks for the link. -Thibbs (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your message[edit]

Hello. I appreciate your concern about edit summaries. I know how to use them. It's just difficult to explain some edits when you're under pressure. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I usually just avoid editing altogether when I'm under too much pressure to explain my edits. I'm not saying you have to do that too, but I just wanted to drop a note at your talk page to alert you that people will understandably mistake some of your edits for vandalism if you forgo the edit summaries. If you're OK with that then that's fine too. -Thibbs (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll keep that method in mind if I'm under pressure again. The last time I was under pressure was at List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV. A user thinks the former programming list on the page is fancruft and unneeded. Same thing happened to the Me-TV list from what I've learn. I have read about fancruft and it didn't say anything about writing a former programming list. The user also thinks I'm the only one objected to the change on that page when there are a few IP users who objected to it prior to me and he/she thinks I'm those users, but I'm not and I was highly offended by that accusation. I also didn't appreciate how he/she talks. Yes, I did try explaining on the article's talk page, but it didn't work. After that Antenna TV incident, I vowed not to watch that channel anymore along with other channels dedicated to Retro Television, by that, I mean Me-TV and TV Land. My interest in Retro Television is long gone no thanks to that user. Harsh? Yes, but I don't have much of a choice. The problem is no longer a matter anymore. That user won the battle and I lost and by the I leave Wikipedia, I'll be out of his/her hair. Thank you for listening. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that. Without looking any further into the matter this sounds to me like the classic case of deletionist versus inclusionist. I sympathize because I tend to lean toward inclusionism, but I am not interested in getting sanctioned for fighting over it. It sounds like your solution (i.e. to extract yourself from the situation by taking it off your watchlist) was guided by the same idea. For me, personally, I find that the best way to think about these issues is that the most important figure is "the community". If "the community" thinks something is a good idea and I think it's a bad idea then all I can do is shake my head and give up. If you find yourself in an intractable conflict with another editor that holds a different view on content than you do, I would recommend working your way through WP:DR. Outside voices should make the view of "the community" apparent. That way it's not just you versus a single obnoxious individual. -Thibbs (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)