User talk:Thibbs/Archive 6

I'd like to here more about what you consider cruft. I have had experiences with anti-cruft editors before, but none of them approached it with your to rational discussion and calm conversation. I oppose much of the Wikipedia:LISTCRUFT essay mainly because of WP:NOTPAPER, and because any list passing content guidelines (mainly N, V and DUE) should be OK.

Are you interested in having this debate in more general terms than what can be discussed in the list AfD? I'd be thrilled to learn about the cruft worldview from you. Diego (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with a lot of "list of fictional x" articles in the past and my view on them has evolved from an outright call for their deletion to a more nuanced view with the thrust of my argument being to clean them up dramatically. The essential root of my concern over them is that they are by and large unencyclopedic and this is an encyclopedia we are crafting even if it's not a paper one. I think that in their present condition they often greatly harm the credibility of wikipedia as a serious work and make it look like an autistic child's playground. These are hard terms and I don't have the time just right now to go into all of my thoughts on the issue (I'm pretty busy irl and relating to work on newsletter stuff), but I will try to respond more fully as soon as possible. -Thibbs (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is going to be a little tl;dr so I'll put it in a box below.

Why individual list-member notability is important for avoiding listcruft

The three common selection criteria listed at WP:CSC impose varying levels of verifiability requirements to correspond with varying sizes of articles. CSC Type 2 lists (very short lists where "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria") seem to lack explicit verifiability requirements although presumably WP:V still applies if anyone challenges an entry. CSC Type 3 lists ("Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group") explicitly mandate bare verifiability as an inclusion criterion, and CSC Type 1 lists (large lists in danger of becoming indiscriminate collections of information or in danger of becoming "too large to be useful to readers") require notability as an inclusion criterion for every member of the list. Notability, of course, is nothing more than verifiability with the additional requirement that the RSes cover the topic "significantly." So essentially the longer a list the greater the degree to which WP:V must be met. But why are these limits suggested as the "common selection criteria"? What benefit does Wikipedia gain from limiting the scope of what content is acceptable for a list article? This question is the crux of the matter for me. As I see it Wikipedia gains credibility as an encyclopedia by treating its content as encyclopedic content. As I see it this is a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia's Pillar #1 - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". According to this first pillar, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Furthermore, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed". I understand these as clear suggestions that enormous lists of everything that is verifiably a member of the parent group are neither encyclopedic nor are they wanted at Wikipedia. As the world becomes increasingly well-documented, thanks to the internet, the line between verifiable information and stuff that was just made up one day becomes thinner and thinner. Bare verifiability does not make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the bundling of merely verifiable material into huge potentially unbounded lists undermines the purpose of having lists in the first place. There are three basic purposes for having lists: Information, navigation, and development. As I see it, none of these three purposes are well-served by very large lists not held to the elevated notability standard. Considering that we're talking about the introduction of material that is not notable into lists like this, we can forget about development from the get-go. Traditional articles will never be written on non-notable topics so that "list purpose" is clearly a non-starter here. Information and navigation aspects are intimately tied together and basically I see their undermining in the inevitable need for article splitting. Throughout WP:LIMIT, the suggestion is made that The likelihood of a need to divide/split "goes up with size" and that a split list "should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope". This is echoed in WP:NOTPAPER's claim that "keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility, especially for dial-up and mobile browser readers, since it directly affects page download time." As I see it the splitting of articles harms their consistency and the filling of large lists like this with non-notable material means that readers will spend large amounts of time wading through information that may be only one step away from something that was "just made up one day". This has the effect of obscuring information that readers are in fact likely to be searching for (assuming that notable topics tend to be of greater relevance to readers interests - a basic assumption of Wikipedia's operations). I have seen frequent arguments at the various "list of fictional X" articles I've dealt with in the past, that sources in general are not required for list members. And I strongly reject this idea. I have to admit that I am really happy to see someone arguing for the basic verifiability criterion rather than arguing for doing away with sources altogether, but for lists that grow beyond a certain point or that risk growth beyond a certain size, I think only a notability criterion will be of any use in meeting Wikipedia's goals and in serving the readership usefully.

In the way of a summary, I think that failure to use notability as an inclusion criterion for large-topic lists leads to the inclusion of indiscriminate collections of information, directory-style catalogs, and (even in a best-case scenario) to the reduction of navigability resulting from the inevitable split(s) such an article will require under WP:LIMIT. -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having just read through Torchiest's comment at the AfD I agree with his thought that notability can be foregone as the extra limit on top of bare verifiability provided that other limits are imposed like limiting the list by game series, year, etc. As a general rule I prefer to suggest the use of notability as a single and simple standard, but it's ultimately a case-by-case matter. -Thibbs (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Sniff! That was beautiful! :'-) Diego (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you. I was pretty shocked by some of the frankly history-ignorant claims coming out of the AfD regarding notable aspects of interactive fiction, but on the positive side it's led to more RSes for a genre-shaping game and to the establishment of notability for one of the genre's highest awards. So thank you for your efforts as well! -Thibbs (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest talkedits 14:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks and the same wishes to you! I hope your holiday season is filled with restfulness, good cheer, and all the other seasonal trappings. I'm still working (slowly) on a newsletter feature, by the way, and I think I'm still on track to put it out for the Jan 2 deadline. -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Let me know if you'd like another copy edit this go round. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, OK. Thanks for the offer. -Thibbs (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thibbs, just wanted to say: "Happy 2013!". o/ --Hydao (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Same to you! -Thibbs (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thibbs! Happy New Year. Hopefully a better one. RaidenRules! (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've got a busy Day 1 of 2013 since I'm working on an article, but it's shaping up and hopefully I'll get it done before evening. I hope you have a great 2013. -Thibbs (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your last comment in the discussion, there's not a "a lot of resistance" to tightening the inclusion criteria, it's against using notability in particular as the way to tighten it. Your argument would make sense in theory and is used to keep in check topics much bigger than this (buildings of the world, movie awards). But the field of video game study is not as developed as to expect that applying a generic manual of style will provide a balanced coverage with more than one source for each important (to reliable sources, not to us) character. Diego (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've just got different perspectives on it.

• My past experiences have been in trying to get very messy and unmanaged lists into some sort of decent shape. And these experiences have been with large articles on fictional animals like "list of fictional dogs." Prior to some basic cleanup these articles were full of entries like "unnamed collie who appears in 101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure" and "The Puppy Formerly Known as Prince, from The Simpsons." These were characters from notable fictional works but they were totally and utterly trivial and there was a potentially infinite number of them. In trying to argue for reasonable limits on the inclusion criteria of articles like these my efforts were met with stiff resistance from editors who just really really liked the way the list currently looked regardless of whether it looked encyclopedic or regardless of whether it was difficult to navigate. Although the limitation of "list of female characters in video games" narrows the topic more than "fictional dogs (in all fictional media)," the term "female character" is just as broad if not broader than "dog" and that makes me have visions of a bad future for the article without some semi-strict limits.
• From what you said at the AfD, it sounds like your past experiences have been with editors who under a CSC#1 regime sought (improperly) to remove notable characters from lists simply because no Wikipedia article had been written about them. And I can see that this misapplication of the rules must have been frustrating to you especially if there were several editors who took this incorrect approach leaving you little recourse. And so I can understand why you would be mistrustful of notability as a useful inclusion criterion.

At core, though, I think we are basically interested in the same thing - usable and high quality articles. Where we differ is just in where exactly to draw the line. -Thibbs (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten, just having trouble with Google's OCR image to text since they changed it. Will have to get the camera out and send you photos of the pages. - X201 (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check Wikipedia email. - X201 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Thibbs, just created the article, if you have the reception thing, please add it when possible. o/ --Hydao (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a cross review for this game, sadly. -Thibbs (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you added for this one, I thought that... o/--Hydao (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I almost had it since I have issue #309 which covers November 11-18 of 1994, but I'm guessing it must have been reviewed in the next week's issue which I am missing... -Thibbs (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeps, what a pity. :( Btw, I forgot to tell you: I created a tumblr account few weeks ago and posted your ads. http://hydao.tumblr.com/ ... Maybe tumblr is a good "tool" to share these things once in a while. If you have a tumblr account or plan to create one in the future let me know so I can follow you. o/ --Hydao (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point. I'll let you know if I get a tumblr account. And thanks for giving me credit. :) -Thibbs (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you. (Remember: always actually check the sources.) --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responsed again and, seriously, I meant it with always actually check the sources. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the insults, Niemti. I do check sources. Actually. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be merged into an article covering the entire subject of women and video games controversies. Things like that: [1] (it was about this:[2]) and all the others. But I also know AS fanatics will oppose even a discussion about that. Are you with me on this? --Niemti (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article on notable controversy-events involving women and video games would be interesting but it seems like it might be redundant to Women and video games and perhaps parts of Gender representation in video games. One possibility if you want to work on such an article is to treat it as a split from "Women and video games" and then it's possible that after you've finished it will turn out that the Anita Sarkeesian article is redundant to it and they could be merged. But you have to be careful about how you go about this since several editors seem to have lost good faith in your editing. If I were you I would create a draft of the new article on notable incidents in a userspace sandbox. Then when it's finished or close to completion I'd post it and ask for outside views regarding whether it's appropriate to merge the AS article into it. Asking for a merge before the "merge to" article is written is really just another way of saying that you want to expand the current article and change its focus. And I don't think other editors watching your edits would think much of that.

Incidentally, I think your strongest argument regarding adding criticism of the media outrage over the Anita Sarkeesian attacks is WP:NPOV. And you'd have to find a few solid RSes to back up your additions. I think the argument that video game sources can't be reliable for sociological events isn't a very strong one and if you could come up with a few sources considered RSes by WP:VG/RS then you'd have a lot more footing in an argument to expand the article to cover this criticism. And I know you know this already but you have to learn to control your choice of words because insults are a terrible strategy for convincing people that your ideas are valuable and helpful ones. And if you've failed to make any headway with your argument then it may be best to just walk away from the article. I've had to do this from time to time. It's not pleasant because it makes me feel as though there are rotten parts of Wikipedia, but that's life. My time (and yours) is better spent helping to expand the encyclopedia in areas with less drama. -Thibbs (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After all the times I look at your page, i see almost all your duiscussions are based on video games. Are there any video game articles currently that require assisstance from a real expert at gaming? I haven't done an article in so long. I need an article i know how to work on. is there any? RaidenRules! (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Video games are definitely an interest of mine and I do spend a lot of time editing in that area. I have a few pet projects in mind for the future, but those are particular interests of mine and I'm saving those for me. :) I find that writing articles teaches me a lot more about the subject than I went into the article with and I enjoy that part of it almost as much as publishing the final article.

But there are loads of video game articles that still have yet to be written and the best place to get an idea for what still needs to be done is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests. This page shows all of the video game articles that don't exist now but that have been requested by other editors. You could look through those and find one that seems interesting if you want. Another thing that is always helpful is to expand and source existing articles. One of the ways I spend my time here is going through gaming magazines and finding information covering topics that have Wikipedia articles but that lack sources. Adding sources to these articles is extremely important to avoid them getting deleted for lack of notability. I hope these suggestions were helpful. :) -Thibbs (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate, Alone in the Dark, F-19 Stealth Fighter/Silent Service/Gunship, Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors/Night Warriors: Darkstalkers' Revenge are all important classic game with some rather sorry articles. I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream and Soul Edge/Soulcalibur need to be better referenced and it's all good; Civilization needs more reception, Spec Ops: The Line a general cleanup, Max Payne 3 and maybe Resident Evil really need just some better lead. Lemmings needs someone to finish a GA review. Darkwatch is waiting for a review since September. --Niemti (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all those suggestions that Niemti gave as well if you're interested in article expansion. There are really a lot of places where important work can be done to improve the video game articles. -Thibbs (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also all numbered of Wing Commander games (and Strike Commander too). --Niemti (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll look at them later this week. RaidenRules!^{Talk to me!} 16:19 28, January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the potential "conflict of interest" - I didn't know how else to do this. The Alien Garden entry in Wikipedia correctly describes me as the designer, and Jaron Lanier as the programmer. I was attempting to reflect that in the page on art games. My role at Automated Simulations was that of Senior Game Designer. In that capacity I designed several games under the brand "Mind Games." I was a conceptual designer, working with programmers, including Robert Leyland and Jaron.

Here's one corroborating reference I found http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27133/The_Art_History_Of_Games_Games_As_Art_May_Be_A_Lost_Cause.php#.UQ0pqlpU7ZI - it was on the Alien Garden entry— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 February 2013‎

Hi Bernie, I responded at your talk page. But this is the wrong place to be messaging me. Please try at this link. Post your new messages at the bottom. Sorry for the confusion. -Thibbs (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (NOTE: Since shifted to "User talk:Thibbs" from "Category:Alien Garden")[reply]

Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 February 2013

Hi Thibbs, As far as I've seen, the WikiProject:Geocaching, listed under WikiProject:Games, has been completely inactive for some time. While Geocaching may be "play" like playing with mudpies or playing in a sandbox, in my opinion, it does not meet most definitions of "games." So, yes, I'd say labeling it as such is an error. --PTMY (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I would probably disagree based on the fact that hiding and seeking seem like the basic rule set of a search game, but I'm definitely not an expert in the activity and I don't know the geocaching culture at all so I'll just leave it as is. You might want to remove the WikiProject:Games tag from Talk:Geocaching, though. It's kind of confusing otherwise. -Thibbs (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Game Masters (exhibition) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Journey, Will Wright, Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Rovio

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Darn you, DLP bot, I thought I'd caught them all. Anyway, fixed. -Thibbs (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Art game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Bruce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y OK. -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thibbs. Appreciate your consistently helpful responses at the Helpdesk, but this was a little insensitive - one can safely assume that if the guy needs to turn to Wikipedia to learn about his dad's military history, said dad is probably no longer around to answer the question himself. Remember that there's a real person behind every IP edit; flippancy isn't often the most welcoming approach to new users. Other than that, though, you've been a big help with newbie questions there today, so thank you for that. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question was unanswerable. I wasn't assuming anything about the death of his family members because there was really nothing at all to suggest this in his question. There was nothing to suggest this from the edit history either. I think it's fair to say that the question arrived at the desk devoid of any context whatsoever. It's true that if his father (and I suppose you'd have to assume the rest of his family as well) is dead then it would have been a nice gesture to comfort the editor or something like that but to me this seems like rather a dramatic presumption to make from such little information. Is it accurate to say that when askers pose questions at the Wikipedia Help Desk then there must truly be no other recourse for them? It's possible of course. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was safely assumable though.

I took this questions at face value without trying to ascribe any hypothetical back-stories to the asker's motivations, but that doesn't mean that I limited my response to a crassly flippant reply as you've suggested. I think I touched all the bases. I suggested if no family was available to ask then the editor should contact his local Veterans Affairs group and I suggested the Wikipedia Reference Desk if this was indeed a Wikipedia-specific question. Most importantly I drew the editor's attention to the fact that his question in its present form didn't provide enough context to answer it. I recognize that having already made the "safe" assumption that his family is dead, my first sentence must have struck you as a harsh one, but please be clear that this wasn't my intention. I have no interest in belittling the deaths of an editor's loved ones or in diminishing their heroism with cheap jokes. If the editor who asked the question was upset by my direct response, or indeed if you were upset by my words, then I'm sorry for it. It was certainly not my intention to be unwelcoming or cruel. -Thibbs (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your concerns, I've now redacted my previous comment. Specifically I removed the suggestion that the editor should ask his family because even though I had initially offered alternatives, the suggestion that he could talk to them might bring up painful memories if as you suggested they are actually deceased. I'm not interested in hurting this editor. -Thibbs (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I'm sorry if my own message above came across as a little blunt (I actually thought for several minutes about whether it was worth raising the issue at all; perhaps I should have left well alone). I should have added that (with the exception of the first sentence!) your answer was pretty much textbook; I'd have said virtually the same thing myself. (I also never thought for a second that you were being intentionally cruel, and I apologise wholeheartedly if I gave that impression.) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done in the end hopefully. It's a bit of a balancing act deciding how much personal attention a question asker needs and how much it's just a businesslike response that's required, but you were probably right that in this case the elevated potential for personal distress in the asker suggested that a more personal touch was warranted. Anyway you were right to say something if you felt it needed saying and refactoring my answer to be more welcoming can't hurt. -Thibbs (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been removing Category:Internet culture from pages where it is too broad a category (i.e., things that are better categorized as memes, or things that are about Internet culture), and where it's been used indiscriminately for something that happens to be on the Internet, but really isn't a major part of Internet culture (random websites, vaguely self-promotional articles). Trivialist (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Do you think that it might be a good idea to craft a prose description of the category to avoid indiscriminate overpopulation in the future? The term is so broad that I can see how people would mistakenly believe that it applied to things like memes or things that are merely about internet culture. If there was a good description indicating how things like that should be subcategorized then it might be easier to explain to someone who objected for whatever reason. -Thibbs (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, you must be one of the most patient editors on Wikipedia. I've been following your comments in the Village Pump discussion over the past week and am very impressed with your knowledge and professionalism, particularly considering the fact that an overwhelming majority of editors have provided essentially the same feedback to the OP from the outset. Seeing a discussion like that makes me wonder when it's finally time to say, "Enough, we have consensus!" Haha. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I think you're a very good editor. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. I do try to be patient here. Mostly because I've lost my cool in the past and usually regretted it. I think patience comes with time and the mellowing effects of the community. If I cause a scene today there are editors who I respect who would take notice. They might not say anything because they'd realize I was just venting, but I think I'd sink a bit in their estimation. Interestingly I find that my greatest growth as a Wikipedian has come from large arguments that I've been involved in where I ended up with the short end of the stick. There are at least 2 such events that I can think of and they both forced me to really re-evaluate how Wikipedia works. By turning the problem over in my head dispassionately I've been able to accept the conclusion and to build on it even if I disagree with it. I assume this experience is common to most long-time editors. Regarding the current Village Pump discussion, I think it's winding down now. I'll leave it open as long as it takes, but after a week without comment, the discussion is automatically closed as it goes to the archive. I have no ill-will toward any of the participants, all of whom I earnestly believe to have good intentions, but I'll be glad to move on from it. -Thibbs (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I believe there are times, like this, when an editor finally needs to be told "Enough!" (politely, of course), I'm sure your style of editing and communicating with others has earned you a great reputation, which is well-deserved. With this particular issue, I think admin Jayron32 summed it up best when he said, "I can't support any argument which claims that Wikipedia articles are better when we specifically refuse to add available, reliable references to them".[3] Haha. It's like... why bitterly fight over an easily-resolved issue just to make a point? If someone adds a CN tag in good faith and you know the cite exists, just add the damn thing and move on! :P 76.189.111.199 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I wouldn't say I have a great reputation, but I'm anxious not to create a negative reputation. Frankly I'm happiest as an anonymous drone editor. But yes, I do agree with Jayron32's position. More RSes have never hurt and I can't imagine how they ever would. Sources aren't the entire point of Wikipedia, but in my view they're a very large part of legitimizing it for the rest of the world. -Thibbs (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just dashing this message off to say that I'm not ignoring you or being sneaky or anything like that, I had a deadline for a translation, have to skype with my daughter in South America, then I'm away for the evening (to present the translation to the person). I absolutely promise to address your concerns at the TP of the article tomorrow morning. Thanks for your patience. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to wait until tomorrow morning anyway, but thanks for your note. It's one of my worst pet peeves when I feel like I'm being flat-out ignored, and it happens with surprising frequency here... But yeah, I'll certainly wait a bit longer if you're busy. -Thibbs (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's why i left the note, too many drive-by reverters/deletionists/spammers etc., just checking that a BLP I had cleaned up hasn't been reverted back to tabloid trivia, get back to you in the morning, btw, what you wrote on the TP is coherent, will reply there. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Whenever you're free is fine. -Thibbs (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, proofreading took up the whole morning, just to say I'm around now and heading over to the TP to make some suggestions, maybe you're still on-wiki? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Proofreading is an important activity. Evidence: [4] and [5] (clearly I'm in need of a short vacation). I am on-wiki kind of, but I'm occupied and won't be free to give it my full attention until this afternoon/evening. It's fine if we just have a normal back-and-forth conversation, though. It's obviously not an emergency situation like a BLP vio or anything. -Thibbs (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking over, I needed a short wiki-break too, text looks fine, the minor tweaks you made are all good. Glad to know the "consensual" approach does work, from time to time, here on Wikipedia. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks to you too. I'm glad we could work it out nicely. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for cheering me up, i wonder if its possible to insert the indiegames.com review along with the screwattack review? in the meantime i'll see if theres any other indiegame articles that need some help so i need someone to take my "shift" on the white noise article for a while so i can make sure that other indiegames are not forsaken. --Indienews (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I remember my early days here and it's a major disappointment when an article on which you worked hard gets nominated for deletion. Basically the key to keeping articles on Wikipedia is sourcing. The minimum threshold for an article is that it be verifiably notable. Notability is a term of art whose definition boils down to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Verifiability also requires the use of reliable sources. So there are three basic requirements:

1. significant coverage - This requirement is the most open to interpretation, but basically the wikipedia-article topic must be covered as the main topic of the source article or as a substantial subsection. A single sentence or brief mention isn't enough.
2. in multiple - More than 1.
3. reliable sources - Another term of art referring to authoritative and accurate sources. I'll explain this in more detail below.

I'm a big believer in this being the actual minimum threshold, however some feel that this threshold should be interpreted loosely and that if an article just barely meets the threshold then it is still not acceptable. So if at all possible you should aim to have many reliable sources all covering the topic in great detail. The more reliable sources you have the more impossible it is to have your article deleted.

Now to explain what is meant by a "Reliable Source," for the purpose of video game articles, I think the easiest is to direct your attention to WP:VG/RS and specifically to the "Reliable Sources for Video Games" Custom Google Search. This is the tool I used to find the indiegames.com article for instance. Although you still have to be a little careful to avoid results that are credited to user blogs, user forums, or user wikis, etc., this Custom Google Search makes it very easy to filter out good results. Other places to search for high quality sources include Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar. After these areas have been searched, another possible source for material comes from the "Situational Sources for Video Games" Custom Google Search (also linked here). These sources can't be used in every instance, but the specific limitations are explained here. ScrewAttack is listed as a situational source, but sadly it doesn't seem to have any explanation about why, so we'd have to look at the linked discussions of the source as found in the Checklist. From a quick review it looks like ScrewAttack is generally to be avoided, however it can be used for interviews and for material that also appears on GameTrailers.com.

For the White Noise article, there is kind of a bare minimum argument that can be made if the ScrewAttack source meets the above conditions. The indiegames.com source can and should be added to the article, but it would really help the article if we had at least one other clearly reliable source. I'd recommend using the Custom Google Search tools linked above and for the future I'd make sure I had the required sources before posting an article. It's just a shame to work hard on something that others come by and delete due to the lack of sources.

Anyway sorry about all the policies. Please feel free to contact me if you need help determining if something is a good candidate for an article. -Thibbs (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do it. I didn't notice it was already in the other article. Diego (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Thanks very much, you've taught me something new! — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Of Seven Billion (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad to help. Happy editing. -Thibbs (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fucking cunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.154 (talk)

You are a piece of shit know-nothing! Go fuck yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.80 (talk)

"C1 NES TV" has no basis in reality because it's a completely made up name when we already have valid names to use. Such made up names should not be used when trying to properly name the thing (something the title and lead of a Wikipedia article are supposed to do). Whether or not this is the English Wikipedia is irrelevant; facts are above any regional borders. Even putting original names aside, when talking about a chiefly Japanese or Japanese-only subject, you don't need to cram as many English analogues as you can; the opposite is true as well.

I'm not "changing the name to match the Japanese name", I'm changing the name to the most correct one. If the "C1" was as well-known a name as the "Wii", what I'm saying would make a lot more sense, I'm sure. Note that I don't entirely object to something like "Sharp Nintendo Television" for the C1, but I felt that the case was something like those PC Engines found in Europe; the various articles seem to treat the C1 as more of a market test than anything else. Never mind the article was already at "C1 NES TV" in the first place, heh.

Also note that the Japanese article claims that some kind of description is an important part of the title. From what I understand of the packaging of both the C1 and the SF1, they're just called that, and the Japanese article for the SF1 at least claims that much. Compare with the Sharp X1, maybe. I'm afraid to touch that C1 article, though.

There is nothing arbitrary about "C1" and "SF1", these appear to be the correct names set forth by the developers of the TVs themselves. On the other hand, there is certainly something arbitrary about made-up names from internet sources; something like "SF1 SNES TV" is some kind of serious mixup, period. When a source is outright wrong and this can easily be proven, there is zero reason to follow that source; hey, you've just found a more accurate one, and it happens to be the subject of discussion itself. Believe it or not, each source that says the same thing adds more reason to be skeptical, not less. We don't need to be skeptical though; the truth is right there on the box.

my god i have no idea how to be concise anymore, i feel like i've said the same thing five different times :( Despatche (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your use of the term "completely made up" in this context. All terms are made up at some point of course, but as I pointed out to you on your talk page, the term "C1 NES TV" is one that is used by Reliable Sources. Are there any reliable sources that use the term "C1" alone? I appreciate the fact that packaging can often provide interesting clues as to the official name of a product, but in this case I'd be more inclined to use the term that the reliable sources use rather than relying on speculation regarding the official status of packaging material artwork. It's basically a question of whether we should trust Kotaku's Luke Plunkett more or whether we should instead rely on the detective work of Wikipedia's User:Despatche. Wikipedia policy favors the terms used by established journalists. -Thibbs (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the speculation is anywhere, it is not in the official packaging (how do you argue with clearly written text on a box), but in these so-called "reliable sources"; they are making up names that are far removed from the subject's actual name, because Someone didn't care what the thing is actually called, and Everyone Else followed. How can these "reliable sources" be trusted when it can be easily proven that they're outright wrong with an obviously more reliable source? It's not me versus this Luke Plunkett, it's random unrelated sources versus the companies that are actually making these products. That company or that product is a far more reliable source than these unrelated sources, at least as far as naming a thing goes, because they're the ones naming the thing in the first place.

Dariusburst is a fantastic example. Despite reporting on the trademarked "DARIUSBURST" numerous times (and writing it as such), many sources continued to write "Darius Burst" for a long while (such as in these trademark reports, right alongside mentioning the actual trademarked "DARIUSBURST". It got so bad that there was at least one tweet from a Taito-based account that actually used "DARIUS BURST". There was a serious error there, and I'm glad I bothered to "fight" for Wikipedia's representation of it, even if Taito did all the real work (because the company does all the real work when it comes to naming something). Despatche (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that subjective interpretation comes into it that undermines the reliability of your taking packaging art as the definitive source for the name of a product, though. What you understand from the packaging to be the official name may be very different from what other original researchers understand to be the official name and these may be yet different from what the parent company intends to be the official name. Your example of Dariusburst seems to indicate that you believe the trademarked term to represent the true name of the product even while there is evidence that the publisher uses a different name. Is "C1" the trademarked term for the C1 NES TV? Can you provide any evidence that it is? Beyond this, Wikipolicy is clear that we are to use common names for article titles and that switching to other terms must be based on the use of reliable sources, not user interpretation of box art. Keeping in mind the fact that your own personal interpretation of the title base on packing materials is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards, do you have any actual reliable sources to back up your claim that the official name of the product is "C1" or "SF1"? I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a list of generally acceptable reliable sources for video game related matters that can be found here. You may wish to search through those for any support for your theory regarding the officialness of "C1" and "SF1" as the sole term for these products. -Thibbs (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is original research, and I'm appalled that you're treating it as such. There is nothing vague or subjective about what's on a box or in a manual except for the designer's tastes; the official material itself is the source used to figure out the name. My example of Dariusburst indicates nothing but the power of internet sources to make up things as they please and have large and/or important groups see them as official. Taito themselves use "DARIUSBURST", not just as a trademark, but as the title of the thing, with "Dariusburst" being treated as an acceptable alternative; I don't know where you get the idea that I'm trying to say otherwise. There is no personal interpretation of a very clear "C" and "1" any different than the creator's own personal interpretation, which is where Wikipedia draws names from; other sources are looked up after, not before. Unrelated sources do not get to make up names if the creator has decided on one. "C1" and "SF1" are the best possible choices because they are presented as the names that consumers are to use. "C1 NES TV" is already in error from that (you will not find "C1 NES TV" on any C1 box or material), and from the simple fact that a Japan-oriented product must stay that way (i.e. "NES" is in error, a more accurate choice would be "FC").

I'm not sure I can continue to assume good faith. The only thing you have told me so far is that you are going to ignore a more reliable source for a lesser one, for the sake of keeping the status quo, even though the status quo is against you here. It is likely that you're making up your own. If you would like to help me with this situation, find a way to get more official material on the subject. Despatche (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Nothing I have said or done in this conversation warrants your faltering assumption of good faith. I am trying to explain to you that the box art for a product is not always (or indeed usually) the most reliable source for the "official" name of a product and that even if it were, it would still be contrary to Wikipedia policy to use a term that is not used by reliable sources and by the common person on the internet and elsewhere. Again I direct your attention to WP:UCN. Here you will find that "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (emphasis added). A quick Google-test illustrates which term is used most frequently:

• "C1 NES TV" -wikipedia - 109k hits
• "Sharp Nintendo Television" -wikipedia - 39,900 hits
• "C1 TV" -wikipedia - 46,900 hits (Mostly about a Mongolian TV channel)
• "C1 Television" -wikipedia - 41,700 hits (Mostly about a Mongolian TV channel)
• "Sharp C1" -wikipedia - 2,210 hits
• "C1 Famicom TV" -wikipedia - 3 hits
• "My Computer C1 TV" -wikipedia - Zero hits

The results for just "C1" are a hopeless mess of completely unrelated topics. Unless I'm inadvertently missing a really good phrase the evidence clearly shows "C1 NES TV" to be the common name of the product. The fact that several reliable sources also use this term further bolsters its credibility. I've asked you to provide sources for your theory regarding the official name of the product but as yet all you've offered is a vague reference to the typography on some box art you've apparently located. The ja.wikipedia article claims that the official name of the product is "マイコンピュータテレビC1" or "My Computer TV C1". I've located reliable sources that suggest the English equivalent to be "C1 NES TV" (Note this product was released in North America as well so the FC designation would be meaningless). I'm not trying to insult your sleuthing skills in hunting out the real and true name of the product. Perhaps you're right. But you have to provide sources that demonstrate that you are right. And you have to be ready to accept that the policy that controls here is WP:UCN. -Thibbs (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I hate to sound a bit paranoid, but you seem like the type to randomly pull the same thing on me if I hadn't mentioned it just then; I've actually had this happen before. The Japanese article is simply pointing out the descriptor attached to the name, nothing more. "C1 NES TV" is not an English equivalent at all; you're looking for "Sharp Nintendo Television", and I'm afraid it's too submissive to use. There was no "hunting" done, except for connecting the way Sharp does things with its descriptors.

My source, once again, is the product itself, which will always trump any other possible source when it comes to naming a thing, sometimes even the product's own website. I don't understand where all this "vague typography" nonsense is coming from; there is nothing vague about the letter "C" and the number "1" written in print. Terribly curious as to what got this kind of idea in your head... Despatche (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the product itself uses a different term that the one you've decided is the "official" term. And you seem to be unable to come up with a single scrap of evidence that the "official" term is what you've determined it to be. All you've done is looked at an image of the TV and its box and decided that the "official" name is obvious. Well it may be obvious to you, but without reliable sources it's obvious to nobody else. That's the way things work around here. You need to provide sources that back up your claims. Just like I have with the Kotaku, Gamesradar, and Technologytell sources. All 3 listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS. And aside from this you're still completely ignoring WP:UCN. You suggest at the C1 article's talk that the Google hits are less than helpful, but if you can come up with a better way to determine the common name then I'd be interested to hear it. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the product does not. Did you miss the whole thing about "descriptors", and how Sharp uses them? Its official name is indeed obvious, because it's right there in plain sight. It was even obvious before the connections came to light, because that was how just about all tech products were advertised in the '70s and '80s.

Wait, UCN? Did you miss the part where I pointed out a very key point of the guideline? I'm saying the "common name" is useless, because it is. You can't use made up names for products when there are already valid official ones, it's lying!

So where's the good faith? I'm sorry, but it really does seem like you're outright ignoring things (not even dismissals) at this point, while I have at least responded to everything you've pointed out so far. Despatche (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making anything up at all. I presented you with multiple reliable sources that bolster the former title. You've provided zero sources to back up your claims. I'm citing policy and you're getting hysterical and trying to quickly change all mention of the former title and other potentially conflict-causing titles of other articles. If anyone should be losing goodfaith it should be me. As for the use or non-use of the term "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" on the TV set itself please slowly and carefully re-read what I wrote here at 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC). I've provided clear evidence of the fact that "スーパーファミコン内蔵テレビ SF1" is the term that appears on the TV set. You've provided nothing at all in the way of evidence. -Thibbs (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I'd really prefer that you keep your content-based arguments restricted to the article talk pages where the community can consider them and not to my talk page where only I might notice them. If you have something you want to say to me personally - like that you think I'm violating the rules by "outright ignoring things (not even dismissals) at this point" then that's fine but leave the discussion of descriptors and how the "common name" is useless on the article talk pages for others to see. In discussions like this it's usually preferable to centralize discussions at one location rather than spread them across several talk pages. -Thibbs (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided me with multiple reliable sources that are all reporting the same story and are all being overruled by official material, the best reliable source of all about naming. You truly, honestly believe that I have some kind of agenda to push and that I'm getting "hysterical" over it (it was a link to a disambig, we fix those); you are way to eager for a useless fight. If anything is even agitating me right now, it's that I've got a guy swearing by policy and outright ignoring key things, then accusing me of doing the same.

I'm sorry, but 1. it started here, and you keep responding to it here 2. i'm just retreading the same stuff across the board anyway. I get the feeling you're actually being tripped up by this though, and I apologize. I'm not suggesting that you're "breaking any rules", I'm suggesting that you've thrown reason out the window. Despatche (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all it started on your talk page actually, but secondly this is my talk page so of course I'm going to respond to people here. You are free to post here if you want to, but I think it would be helpful to others if you'd restrict your content-based arguments to the article talk pages. I'm paying attention to them so I'm not likely to miss anything. Regarding your use of official material, could you please 1. post evidence that it even exists? Where is this box art you keep mentioning? And 2. provide RS evidence that the former terms are ambiguous or inaccurate? When providing this evidence please do so on the article talk pages. -Thibbs (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thibbs at WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Despatche (talk • contribs)

OK well thank you for the heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Big Angry Destroyer Mastodon!

This is what I'm talking about. Stop accusing me of stuff I haven't done, please! I've never said your sources were "ill-researched know-nothing hack-jobs" or anything close to that. What I have said is it would be a mistake to accept their incorrect term (as determined by higher-tier reliable sources) as the official name; as outside sources, they cannot make up names. If they really are so incompetent, I don't know of it. I'm not a Kotaku or IGN hater like so many people.

I say that you seek to destroy articles because you are treating these sources with higher importance than the very subject of the article itself (the most reliable source of all when it comes to the name of the thing, and certainly not an SPS through any common usage of that term), and because you seem to keep ignoring key points of every single discussion edit I've made so far. And no, I would never seek to label you under WP:OWN, that's just silly.

You seem to understand what it means for something to be obviously false. Why don't you see that this entire issue is the same way? Despatche (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been going on and on about how the "so-called 'reliable sources'" are unusable in determining the article title because "there's no basic factchecking done for a simple title", that "internet sources ... make up things as they please", and similar claims. But I'm trying to get you to tone down your rhetoric (i.e. "monster"/"destroyer"/etc.) for your own sake. You're making yourself look really unreasonable at the AN/I thread. I'm hoping that if you realize that like you, I too have the best interests of the articles at heart then you'll be more open to my opinions. Rather than thinking of me as the enemy (a monster, or a destroyer, or however you think of me) try treating me as a peer and a collaborator. I'm not dead-set on the old titles, but I do think they are miles better than the new ones which I feel are quite arbitrary even despite your insistence that you know for 100% fact that they are official. I'm still hoping we can come to some kind of an agreement if you would just calm down and agree to let the community weigh in. I've asked you several times now: Would you be OK with the two of us bringing the question before WP:VG? They are a fairly large-sized group of editors who deal with video game related issues and they would probably help us come to a community decision here. At the AN/I Sergecross73 suggested setting up an RfC and then crossposting to WT:VG. That sounds reasonable to me as it would centralize the discussion. How about it? -Thibbs (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, semantics, is it? I'm sorry, but getting a simple title wrong doesn't make them hack-jobs, it just means they don't care: they called it the "C1 NES TV" because mentioning the Famicom to an American or European, no matter how appropriate it would be, is some kind of social sin, even though most of the people who read Kotaku or whatever know what the Famicom is, or would want to (I'll bet there are articles that mention the Famicom anyway). Similar goes for any unofficial translation of what should be a title in another language; sometimes they go with the original, sometimes they don't, and it's still a mystery as to why there's a choice at all. Obviously, this is all very wrong, but I can't do a whole lot about that except handle the aftermath at places like Wikipedia here (when a reliable source proves a bunch of other reliable sources wrong, you don't just keep siding with that latter group).

None of this is rhetoric. You truly are a problem, and while words like "monster" might be unnecessary, I feel you are dangerously close to those levels. I have tried treating you as a peer and as a collaborator, and you have gone out of your way to deny me. "C1 NES TV" is arbitrary, not anything you can find on the box; you truly do not understand what a reliable source is, and you still have no idea what I'm talking about. You are still deliberately ignoring facts that do not fit with your "self". Despatche (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me how you're so busy complaining that I'm ignoring you and professing how you respond to everything I say that you don't even notice how repetitious I'm forced to become in asking you basic questions like whether you'll agree to third-party community input on the title issue. I've asked you now at both articles' talk pages, your talk page, and mine, and yet you continue to ignore the question. I have no idea what I've done that has upset you so badly but from my perspective it looks like your problem with me really springs from nothing more complicated than the fact that I've dared to disagree with your infallible opinions. I've tried hard to reason with you and to get you to reflect on your own conduct in this discussion as I feel you are really damaging your own case badly by carrying on in such a reactionary and anti-collaborative manner, but I feel that my time is being thoroughly wasted in this effort. So I'm going to start the community input process on my own whether you want to participate or not. I can abide by the community's decision even if it runs contrary to my views. I hope you can too. -Thibbs (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bucsu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saint Anthony and Széll (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, DPL bot. Talk to User:DexDor about it. He's the one that made the article a dab page. When I edited Bucsu I restored the article as a surname article just as we see with Vajda and Szabó. I'm still in the dark about why Széll must be treated differently than the majority of other surname articles. -Thibbs (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Music history of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• such as the ''[[Notebook of László Szalkai]]'', [[Jacobus de Liège]]'s ''[[Speculum musicae]]'' (c. 1330-1340, which mentions the use of [[solmization]],<ref name="szabolcsi-middleages"/> the ''[[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed. -Thibbs (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the cookie, glad my clearing was appreciated! Samwalton9 (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're welcome. You deserve it. -Thibbs (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to NESticle may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• College]]. Pp.10-13, 25. 2 May 2005.</ref> via an integrated graphics editor.<ref>Ragan, Jess. "[http://www.1up.com/do/minisite?pager.offset=0&cId=3148820 Singing the Brews: The History &

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, OK thanks BracketBot. I was just in the middle of correcting that error but I was combining it with an expansion of the article to save edits. Please give me a little more time to correct it on my own the next time you automatically detect something like that. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Thibbs I am having problems with my account at Wikipedia. When I try to log in it won't let me. It says that my username and password is incorrect. Wikipedia is acting strange with my account and I need an administrator to sort it out.--82.152.43.77 (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] There's nothing strange about barring a vandal from Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samlaptop85213 to refresh your memory about why Wikipedia might be interested in preventing you from editing. And please do not write to me any more. I've wasted too much time with you and I'm not interested in anything you have to say. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the note. -Thibbs (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Thibbs Why do you like to add socktags to my user talk pages?--80.47.181.51 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Thibbs.

I'm not amused by you insulting me in the discussion on the talk page of Women_and_video_games just because I am from a non-English speaking country (Poland). I have been learning English for 10 years, speaking it for more than 20 years, possess a Certificate in Advanced English from Cambridge and worked for 4 years in an American-owned company. My understanding of English is better than most of the English speakers. Your suggestion for me to go to simple.Wikipedia was rude, xenophobic, condescending and extremely dismissive. I was plainly shocked that someone so eloquent as you can exhibit such qualities as mentioned. I think an author of so many articles can be expected to possess a certain level of civility and politeness which you frankly proved to lack. Disagreement over an issue is not a reason to personally insult someone else as you did. I won't lower myself to your level, so I will not dispense any kind of uncivilities much as I would like to.

Good day Ms.

-Vorpal Saber (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've spectacularly missed the point. The reason I brought up simple.wikipedia was because that is a place where English-language proficiency of the reader is a matter of concern. Simple.wikipedia strives for simplicity and the perceived ambiguity of a sentence by a goodfaith reader is prima facie evidence that the sentence is not in fact "simple". I was not making a personal commentary on your grasp of English which I readily acknowledge to be advanced. I'm sorry that you interpreted my response that way, but the condescension and xenophobia you've read into my words are nothing more than the product of your own overactive imagination. And frankly they are quite insulting. I have nothing against Polish nationals (as you've implied at the talk page) and in the past I have worked hard to strengthen ties between en.wikipedia and pl.wikipedia specifically. Your accusations are baseless and demeaning. I've repeated some of the above and responded to some of your impassioned arguments at the "Women and video games" talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously this single plain meaning requires proficiency in the English language but that's something that is already expected of readers at en.wikipedia. There is a sister site available at simple.wikipedia for English-language readers who are having difficulties with reading comprehension." - I read it as a specific attack on myself, suggesting I should go to simple.wikipedia instead of "wasting" my time here. It looked exactly like a personal commentary. I don't know anything about simple.wikipedia, I just heard about it now. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If the line was vague enough to be interpreted so differently, I'd argue that it had no place there." - I read this as a concern for the general readership, suggesting that the sentence should be excised in order to avoid presenting an ambiguously-worded claim. The first part of my response (which you have cut off) was that there is no ambiguity or vagueness in the sentence you've identified as problematic due to its use of the word "feminist" and I was pointing out that we needn't be overly concerned with catering to the needs of those who are unable to ascertain the single meaning that the sentence has according to the rules of English construction. I'm sorry you took this personally and so much to heart, but the intended offense was imaginary. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after reading what you wrote I have to apologize. I was in the wrong, I have obviously misinterpreted what you said. I think I was too sour from discussions on other wikis where people dismissed my point entirely based on their "academical knowledge". But this is no excuse. I have written stupid things here that have no grounds in reality and are a result of my foolish misinterpretation. I am sorry for my behaviour and a bit ashamed. I have made a fool of myself. I am again very sorry for all the commotion I caused. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I realize you're here to help rather than to cause problems. I've made my share of mistakes in the past myself so I understand your actions. Don't worry about it. -Thibbs (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 86.152.64.210's contributions may be of interest to you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm familiar with this guy. It's been going on since at least 2009. He's playing a game of chicken with his suggestions that we re-open his ABUSE file. Obviously if we did that we'd be contacting his mother again and possibly his grandparents and college. They seem to be the only people who can control him and it worked well last time. His mother in particular was very helpful. There were no edits from him for perhaps a 6-month period. The poor guy is mentally handicapped so he doesn't realize how his endless vandalism makes editors who care feel like just giving up and leaving Wikipedia. I think it's best to just ignore him if possible. Tag his accounts and let the admins handle the rest. Hopefully he'll get tired of these games when he gets a little older and more mature. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Thibbs. I'll try my hardest not to vandalize pages again. I had an e-mail from the unblock team last week and they said that if I stop vandalizing Wikipedia for 6 months and I explain to them clearly what I can do to stop my ongoing vandalism then they'll be interested in unblocking my account. What do you think?--86.152.64.210 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I think I'll believe it when I see it and I think you should stop sockpuppeting even if it's just to alert me. I am not interested in your affairs and I won't be responding to you except to tag your accounts for sockpuppetry if I feel like it would help. I'm pretty sure the unblock team would not unblock you if they knew you'd been sockpuppeting at any time during the rehabilitation period. Anyway please don't write to me any more. I'm not interested in anything you have to say. -Thibbs (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Well I just vandalized a few more pages so I think I'll never get my account unblocked!--86.152.64.210 (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] I think it's time you should re open my Abuse file as I enjoy vandalising Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.93.154.111 (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thibbs! You're a professor of video game sources, and I have a question for you. There is a Japanese website provides some really useful information about one game's development, they said the information was picked up from 1987's Famicom Tsūshin etc. (「ファミコン通信」1987年4月17日号・7月10日号 ...) But that website-self is a user-generated. So, could I cite this web page directly, or references the "Famicom Tsūshin Issue April 17, 1987 & July 10..." thought I never really read these journals, and can't provide page numbers. Thank you!--123.50.54.166 (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your complimentary words. In general the answer is that the website shouldn't be cited because it is user generated, but Famicom Tsūshin is definitely considered reliable here at Wikipedia so if you cited that there should be no problem. Generally you should verify that the information presented is the same as that in Famitsu. If you wanted to provide a URL alongside the magazine reference you could probably link to the user-generated website, although it might later be deleted by someone who interprets the rules differently. If you wanted to do that I'd list it something like this:

• <ref>「ほげぴよ ほげほげら」. ''ファミコン通信''. 1987年4月17日号・7月10日号. (Transcription available [http://kakutei.cside.com/game/DQ2.htm here]).</ref>

Of course instead of 「ほげぴよ ほげほげら」 you'd use the article's real title. Anyway I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--123.50.54.166 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad to help. -Thibbs (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

188.28.72.163 (talk) added a notice that you were blocked, despite you never actually being blocked. I've removed it for you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several other IPs have as well, resulting in your talk page being semi-protected again. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've got one too. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'm really sorry it seems to have brought problems to you too. -Thibbs (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if I remember correctly I think our "disagreement in the past" was about whether or not Pokemon species were relevant to be listed on the lists like List of fictional birds, as Pokemon are their own species, and are only said to resemble "birds", even if they may refereed to as birds as well. This largely has no effect on anything you would write in the article.

Secondly, lists come in all different scopes, sizes, and quality. Some are simply a collection of links, some give basic information about each subject, and some, like most video game character articles, are simply a cleaned up version of what an article would look like if you threw full articles about each character all in one list. It is hard to throw lists all under one umbrella, and make guidelines that address them as a whole. As for the character article lists that I mentioned, I would prefer they not be classified as lists, as they are more a collection of small articles. Naming them as a list hinders its growth. Some articles, like Characters of Kingdom Hearts does what I propose, while many still say "List of x characters". Simply a list of characters would not be any good as an article, so I don't see why it is named as such. In my experience, usually if an article does simply say "List of x characters" it is like I said, a hodgepodge of character sections with a poor lead, and no sections other then the characters. But then you see an article like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which has development and reception and the like of characters as a whole. That is what most character lists should strive for. If they were to be truly notable as a collection of characters, there must be development and reception of them as a whole, not simply individuals.

Thirdly, I have 'not' been an editor since 2001. Haha. I got a name change to Blake, which kept some of the old "Blake"'s edits. Feel free to use anything I said in the second paragraph, rephrase it, or whatever for your essay! :) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, OK thanks. Yeah I was amazed by that 2001 date! Thanks for clarifying and thanks for your thoughts. I'll work it into the article in the next few days. -Thibbs (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you could add accessdates to the refs you put in Barbie (1991 video game) when expanding it, cause I want to get this up to GA or FA status. Thanks. 和DITOREtails 01:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Sure, done. I've been working on improving that article for quite a while now. It would be great if you could get it to GA or FA status, though I think it will be difficult to uncover many more refs... Good luck all the same! -Thibbs (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majorfun (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate all your efforts to help make the Bernie DeKoven page comply with Wikipedia standards.

re. the NASAGA award, I found this - http://xp123.com/articles/nasaga-06-trip-report/ - it mentions that I received the award

re. TASP - all I could find was mention of my kenyote in 2001 - http://tasplay.org/about-us/conference/past/

you'll find some references to all these events on a page I authored - http://deepfun.com/bernie - including my TASP membership, my association with the New Games Foundation - not sure this is really helpful for citations.

if we are at a state so you can remove the "major contributor" conflict notice, I'd like that. if not, tell me what else I can do to make that happen.

thanks so much for the scrutiny. makes me like wikipedia all the more

bernie dekoven

I've added these sources, but I'd have to research the topic more closely to be comfortable removing the "major contributor" tag. Any neutral editor can research the topic and remove the notice, of course, so if it's taking me too long then I'd suggest visiting WP:TEAHOUSE which is a place designed to help new wikipedia editors find their feet. The editors there are friendly, welcoming, and competent. If you explained the situation and asked them to review the page they could probably provide some good help. Otherwise I'll try to take a better look when I get some free time. -Thibbs (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majorfun (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a photo, if you think it should be included - it's of the Games Preserve barn around 1976 -

Here's the citation for Junkyard Games - http://www.hrdqstore.com/junkyard-games-problem-solving-activities.html

and for my authorship of Light-Waves - http://archive.org/stream/enter-magazine-15/Enter_Issue_15_1985_Mar_djvu.txt - with an image here - http://mocagh.org/miscgame/cbs-catalog-alt.pdf - and http://s905.photobucket.com/user/quasi_modem/library/Light-waves?sort=3&page=1

I added the new refs and removed the refimprove flag at the top. It just needs to be reviewed for neutrality now and we can clear the top flag. -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the quick response. very, very much appreciated. mea apparently culpa. it was a good lesson and you are a kind teacher. here are a couple more references to ricochet - http://www.pcmuseum.ca/details.asp?id=39096&type=software, http://www.deepfun.com/fun/2012/10/alien-garden/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've added the refs to the article. I'll try to review it when I get time though I'm rather busy offline currently. Again if it's taking too long then you can also try asking for a neutrality check at WP:TEAHOUSE. -Thibbs (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard De Koven 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks again for all the support. I have two more questions. I added an image of the Games Preserve to be used in the Careers section - it's here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Games_preserve.jpg - but I don't know how to add it and am afraid to let I incur the wrath of the wikigods

I tried the teahouse to see if someone could help with removing the "close connection" flag. left a note. proceeded to forget who I left the note for. so once again, I'm hoping you can help with that.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly I'm rather busy at the moment, but I'll dig into this sufficiently to remove the tag before I go to sleep tonight. I understand your concern considering the article is on the topic of you yourself, and I can see from a quick search-about that there is sufficient material online for me to get a good grasp of the reliable coverage you've received. Sorry about the bad timing of my increased workload. And thanks for your patience so far. Again I should have results by tomorrow morning at the latest. One question: is that you in the bottom center of the Games Preserve photo? If so that would be good to mention in the image's caption. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed everything and cleaned up the COI tag now. I also added the image. If that is a picture of you I'd like to add that detail to the image's caption. Please let me know if that's you. Also I'm curious about your last name. Is it properly spelled with a space or without? Is it "DeKoven" or "De Koven"? -Thibbs (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard De Koven 02:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of this. It cleaned up good. Yup, that's me all right. Our name was originally spelled with the space "De Koven" - it got changed by necessity in the earlier days of computer concatanetions. The space is used on my book The Well-Played Game, and since it's just been reprinted, I thought it'd be good to get spacey with it once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorfun (talk • contribs) 02:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is to verify that the article wasn't omitting negative press coverage or making unverifiable claims. There seem to be a fair number of good sources on your life and work, though, and the article could surely be improved. I'd consider it a work in progress. Thanks for your assistance in locating sources. I've got the article on my "watch list" for now so I should be able to make any improvements if you find a good source and can identify any information that needs to be added. I'll add a note to the article that you're depicted in the image right now. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comment below Masem's at the newsletter draft. I would appreciate if you could check it for grammar and readability. Diego (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Thank you very much. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done with the first answers. Lemme know. (Please reply on my talk page so I get notified). :) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looks great! I've given Torchiest word that you're finished now so he's going to go over it to copy edit. Thanks again for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note that I can't do it right now but will copy edit both this and the feature in the morning. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 04:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I left a note at your talk page regarding some specifics of the feature. -Thibbs (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the copyedit. Sometimes I realize I can't write for shit... guess that's why I usually stay away from prose. And I am addicted to ellipses! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: Haha, sure. I tried not to really change anything you said, hope it's okay. :)

@Thibbs: I'm done with the copy editing for the feature. It was really in pretty good shape, just needed a few minor punctuation fixes really. Let me know if you're still waiting on the other quote or if I should go ahead with assembling the newsletter. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've shifted it from my sandbox to the draft. It's ready to be posted whenever you get a chance, Torchiest. -Thibbs (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I User:Jgbuford authored most of the content on Encyclopedia Dramatica article, therefore this is not plagarism. This is my proven work. If this article falls out of Wikipedia standards, then this article should be deleted entirely from Wikipedia. 68.11.129.178 to the IP account is not my ip, thus you have fasley acused me of another user who too finds you wrong and out of line for your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgbuford (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thibbs. I'm bringing this here simply to keep extraneous stuff from clouding the AN/I thread. While your points regarding the shortcomings in the COI guideline may have merit, a "mini-consensus" regarding its interpretation is reflected in the subject thread. A full RfC at WP:COI may be necessary, but I'm thinking the the result would be the same. Regards Tiderolls 17:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. I think the "mini-consensus" is broadly applied by we the normal editors. I've interacted with several conflicted editors in the past (always positively) and I also championed the same view represented by the "mini-consensus". My comments at ANI come from reviewing WP:COI from the perspective of this AKonanykhin. If you are a PR group and you're trying to follow the letter of the rules then I can see that WP:COI wouldn't impose that much of a bar on edits of the sort he has been making. I really do think WP:COI should be tightened up. If it takes an RfC then so be it. If the community is A-OK with conflicted editors editing without declaring their COI then I'm fine abiding by the consensus as well. -Thibbs (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with tightening up the guideline is that it may discourage COI editing or worse, drive the paid and/or too closely associated to resort to deceptive practices. Altogether I think we are expressing the same tenet; attaining the best content for our readers. Thanks for your input and be sure to let me know if you think that my input would be helpful in any future discussion on this subject. Tiderolls 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are legitimate concerns. I'm especially sensitive to the idea of driving malfeasors underground. From the sound of the Signpost article, though, groups like Wiki-PR have already well established themselves as underground actors. In my view the only thing a policy would do would be to demarcate the boundaries of the underground. Whether the underground exists due to actual violations of a future policy that advocate-agents must declare COI or whether it exists through a lack of declaration and our own inability to monitor all edits, the result is about the same in my view... Sadly I don't think our recommendations and suggestions at COI mean very much to anyone who finds them inconvenient. Anyway yeah it's hard to say what's best. -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my only post here... Stay off my talk page. - thewolfchild 21:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I'd be interested in contacting you further? I already told you that I'm not interested in keeping our discussion going and we don't edit the same sort of articles so it's unlikely our paths would cross naturally. The only reason I contacted you in the first place was to respond to your false assumptions that I disliked you instead of your editing behavior which has been exceptionally confrontational so far. Anyway I won't meet your rancor with an equal share. Instead I invite you to share your views on my talk page whenever you wish. I'm always interested to hear from those who disagree with me rather than trying to stifle them. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Olowe2011 (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the curious: This helpful template comes in response to a disagreement here. Readers can judge for themselves if Olowe2011 is in fact the target of any harassment. -Thibbs (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how deeply you are involved with people who love badgers, but here is an odd intersection: a woman named Tinuviel Sampson, often going by just Tinuviel, has been described as an ace badger spotter. Tinuviel co-founded the record label Kill Rock Stars, and she writes for some American periodicals, mostly about punk music.[6] If you happen to know more than I do about Tinuviel Sampson, perhaps you could start the biography on her. I don't see enough material to do so myself. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I've never heard of her before but she sounds like an interesting character. I'll see if I can find anything on her from the databases I have access to when I have some free time. Thanks for letting me know. -Thibbs (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if there is a review or preview dedicated to the game, you may provide it incase there's something there that isn't covered.Lucia Black (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I just uploaded it. Thanks for letting me help. I'm not really sure where you guys stand on sources. It sounded at first like you were struggling to find them but then later it sounded more like you guys were concerned that there might be too many. I have a few more reviews of the game from non-English sources that I could provide if you were interested in them but I'm not watching the GAN anymore so let me know here if you want them. -Thibbs (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply but would you like to share the two international scans related to the video game? I'm currently making all the fixes i possibly can.Lucia Black (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to relocate them when I get a moment but I'm quite busy for the next several days. With material like this I usually try to provide a translation as well and that can take some time. Is there a deadline for the GAN? -Thibbs (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that i'm aware, the one who began the GAR seems to be semi retired so it might take a while. But i believe it seems to be already at GA level, but i'm attempting to do some fixes for FA status.Lucia Black (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep you up to date, Lucia, I haven't forgotten about this. I'm in the process of translating the sources but I have some real-world work that is keeping me very busy and I won't really get a free moment until after the 11th. Bad timing basically. If you can wait till after the 11th I'll post the reviews as soon as I can, but if time is of the essence I could just send the raw review scores to you too. Let me know if you need things really quickly or I'll put it off for a few more days. -Thibbs (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! Glad to know I'm not the only one puzzled by these random minor edits. Trivialist (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, no problem. The more who are aware the better. It's bizarre stuff. -Thibbs (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thibbs, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

• Hey thanks! And the same to you! -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have GameFan #30 and 32? Would you be able to scan the EarthBound portions when you have a moment? Happy holidays  czar ♔ 17:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take a look. Also are you only interested in material from GameFan, or should I cast a wider net? With a game like Earthbound you are probably afforded the luxury of being more selective with sources, but if you need more I know I have some Famitsu coverage of the game, and I think I could find some international sources as well if it would help. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate anything you can dig up. I want to give the article a push but I'm struggling with the print sources. I'm weak in international sources, so help there would be wonderful. czar ♔ 22:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry I've been going slow. I have GameFan #30 and 32 ready to upload but I'm just heading out the door right now so I'll have them uploaded by tonight. Then I'll get on the foreign coverage to see what I can get. The Famitsu material will take me a few weeks as I'm currently physically away from these magazines, but I know I have a Russian article (which I can translate if you'd like) and I'll check my other non-English materials tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That'd be awesome. Take your time, though. I have a lot of other stuff to sort through first, so no rush czar ♔ 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]