User talk:SnorlaxMonster

Welcome...

Hello, Snorlax Monster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Twinsday

Again, welcome! serioushat 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same snowlax monster who interacted with me on Bulbapedia?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 20:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't do much around here though. --SnorlaxMonster 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me, Christian from Bulbapedia. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have closed the requested move discussion and the page "List of Virtual Console games (Japan)" has been moved to "List of Virtual Console games for Wii (Japan)". Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SM. I've noticed you've made a couple of large edits to my Bulbapedia workpage a while back. While, I appreciate the support you've given, I had to scale them back a bit. Of note:

• You've placed way too many citations on the introductory sentence. Seriously, there were a whopping fourteen citations placed at the end of that first sentence. While citations do help give weight of notability to article, I think that you became overzealous added any sort of source that made only a mere passing mention of Bulbapedia. (e.g. "According to Bulbapedia, blah blah blah...") Those are not acceptable enough for inclusion and I had to bring it down to a mere lone citation that I also think should not be included anyway.
• The SOVA info that you added was not relevant to the workpage's subject. That event means nothing to Wikipedia on this workpage, especially since this was a Bulbagarden-related cause; Bulbapedia had no real involvement save for an article that documented the fan protest. This workpage is all about Bulbapedia, not its parent site. If this was a workpage for all of Bulbagarden, this information may have been more acceptable, but it simply isn't the case here.

If you need to ask any further questions about how to improve this article, please go the workpage's talk page. WPA 05:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that putting that many citations at the start of the article was overboard. However, I was following the style of articles such as Vsauce and Crash Course (YouTube) which overload sources at the end of the first paragraph or sentence to establish notability. Many of them were short mentions, but most at least mentioned that Bulbapedia was a useful source for Pokémon information. In regards to the ones you removed, three of them mention Bulbapedia noting that you would need to walk 1000 miles to unlock all the routes on the Pokéwalker ([1] [2] [3]), which I would think would count as significant coverage and deserve a mention on the article. I agree with your point about SOVA as well; there was a reliable source mentioning it, and I figured it could work in the article, but being about Bulbapedia not Bulbagarden would make it not relevant. --SnorlaxMonster 12:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snorlax Monster. You recently edited Backronym, removing a paragraph from its lead section. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section should provide a concise overview of the topic and summarize the article's content. I did not think the shortened lead section did that, so I reverted your edits. (Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, "It is very common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article," but it is not obvious whether this article's lead section needs one.) If you feel that it would be better to include no examples in the lead section, you may wish to rewrite the lead by summarizing the phenomenon and the kinds of examples included in the body. It seems to me that including an example in the lead is an easier an more informative way to do this, but of course opinions do vary. Thanks, and happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pokémon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 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:

• a new generation begins. The franchise began the fifth generation on September 18, 2010, in Japan.[[File:Bulbasaur pokemon red.png|thumb|right|A battle between a level 5 [[Bulbasaur]] and a level 5 [[
• has Wi-Fi connectivity as well.<ref>{{cite web|last=Riley|first=Adam|title=Cubed3 Nintendo News < Features|url=http://www.cubed3.com/news/5349|publisher=Cubed3|accessdate=7 June 2006|date=7 June

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the order error I made on the Pokemon article. Sorry I didn't catch it myself. Jjcooper0811 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop. There is no way that you are going to be able to romanize メェークル. Stop using the formatting you get when you paste that name into Google Translate. Me~e is not correct. Neither is Mexe. Both are just ways that you can type the combination. All there is here is a long E sound stretched across too many katakana. It is to be romanized as mē and not me~ē or mexē. These are the rules set out at WP:MOS-JA.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I carefully read through WP:MOS-JA, and you are incorrect; it makes no statement that could be applied to how to romanize メェ. As for how it should be romanized, you are correct that Google Translate romanizes メェ as me~e, but as you have yet to provide any counter-example where メェ is romanized as me or mē, メェ must be romanized as one of the only two ways I can find used online: me~e or mexe (and I believe you are aware of my preference of those two). --SnorlaxMonster 08:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't romanization schemes. Those are methods of typing those characters on a computer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

me~e is a romanization scheme, just as having the ' in kin'yōbi as the romanization still makes it a valid romanization of きんようび. mexeru is just that, as x(vowel) is used to represent small letters; however, this is not the case with ~. Regardless, both Nihon-shiki and Kunrei-shiki use romanizations that are optimized for typing rather than pronunciation, and they are both clearly romanization schemes; of course, Wikipedia uses Hepburn, but your implication that romanization schemes ignore computer inputs was incorrect. --SnorlaxMonster 09:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you called Bulbapedia an unreliable source, and reverted my edit. Technically, they are quite reliable, and the people there have taken apart the Pokemon games, and looked at them byte by byte. I would like for you to prove that it is unreliable, or I will have to re-add Yellow. Thanks, Scientific Alan 2^{(Click here to talk)(What have I done?)} 14:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbapedia is a wiki, and as such, is not a reliable source. It is generally accurate, but that does not make it reliable. I've done a lot of editing over at Bulbapedia and am aware that most of the information on MissingNo. is correct, but it is not appropriate to use Bulbapedia as a source on Wikipedia (in the same way it would not be appropriate to use Wikipedia as a source on Bulbapedia). I actually know of a case where someone tried to spread false information by adding it to Bulbapedia, adding it to Wikipedia citing that, then defending its presence on Bulbapedia with the Wikipedia page (which was an invalid argument... and this is irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway). --SnorlaxMonster 16:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--CGPGrey (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnorlaxMonster, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snorlax monster, did you review my disscussions with Soupforone on the 'Black People' page prior to reverting my edit to that page? I disagree, extensively, with both your and Soupforone's position that you can discuss 'black people' in North American context without an assumption of race/biology as context. Black People, in that context, is a term descended from Negro, an abbreviation of Negroid, a posited biological race. I beseech you to reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mseguin (talk • contribs) 22:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had not. Since you didn't mention anything about a talk page discussion in the edit summary, I didn't think to check there.

I still think that such a not is unnecessary on the page. You are coming from a position that people would assume race is a discrete biological distinction, but there is a page linked there which defines the term and explains why it is not. Like I don't think it is necessary to note on every page relating to astrology that the whole concept of astrology is not scientifically supported, I don't think each individual page about a specific race needs a note that races themselves aren't a biological distinction. There may be situations in the article where the problems with the definition of race are relevant and should be discussed (such as where the lead already discusses how in North America the term is socially-based), but there isn't a need for a general disclaimer about a related but different topic. Putting such a disclaimer in the lead is particularly problematic, since not every culture uses the term as a racial one. --SnorlaxMonster 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to James M. Masters, Sr. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• Coast of the United States]], where Masters was detached from the unit for reassignment to the [[4th Ma

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2014 (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.

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

added a link pointing to Spring

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D

added a link pointing to Spring

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Donkey vote, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. 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) 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Game & Watch ports and remakes page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of DSiWare games and applications, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MSL. 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) 09:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, it's me, I've been trying to have a consensus with an i.p on Bowser's Talk page, so far I can't handle it on my own. Do you think you can participate and/or get others more common in this to join if it's alright with you? --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should point out WP:MEAT. Regardless, I took a look, but it appears Sergecross73 handled it. --SnorlaxMonster 02:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 3D Classics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sonic the Hedgehog. 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) 09:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yu-Gi-Oh!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Week. 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) 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you fix the size of the image on the Mirabilandia (Italy) article, please? It's too big. 24.180.56.157 (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There Snorlax Monster,

I will be editing the page for Naive Cynicism. I am a Ph.D student in Psychology at UCLA and we have been assigned a project to improve a Wikipedia page.

Just wanted to give you a heads up!

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andj00 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm assuming you notified me since mine was the most recent edit to the page. I'm not sure what the guidelines of your course are, but I don't feel I made a significant contribution to the page (I just fixed some formatting and added a few links). While nobody owns a Wikipedia article, I imagine the page's creator Taak would be more interested. Best of luck in your project! --SnorlaxMonster 09:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SnorlaxMonster, i did know that it wount reverted. i do not hate anyone. See, i like wikipedia. Octofan (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Link no Bouken. Since you had some involvement with the Link no Bouken redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josh Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that can actually be used for the article as a free-use image, when it's clearly a cropped screenshot.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cropped image, but it's cropped so that the image only contains non-copyrightable content. The fact that it is cropped from a screenshot of a game is irrelevant. --SnorlaxMonster 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should be given that commons to my knowledge can't use images from a copyrighted source whatsoever, cropped or otherwise. It's the same reason we can't use "sprite" images in articles instead on commons.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sprites are still copyrighted works. But an image of a pure glitch sprite is not a copyrightable work, as it was not created as the result of creative work. If you believe that reasoning is incorrect, I recommend you nominate the image on the Commons for deletion and argue your case there. --SnorlaxMonster 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well until this is clarified let's not nuke the existing image then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make the case that the image is not actually replaceable, you can place your argument on the file page for File:Missingno.png using {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}. However, I think this is a pretty clear case where the only part of the image that is actually relevant is non-copyrightable, so there's no need to use a Fair Use image. --SnorlaxMonster 15:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of edits that may be seen as disruptive: one of your edits not only removed two sources from the article when a simple tweak would have sufficed, but you also introduced a low-quality source (The Game Crater) into a featured article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my edit summaries, the sources that were removed were not substantiating the statement they purportedly supported. Citations are present in articles only to support claims made within it, not as pieces of information themselves. If you think they do still belong elsewhere within the article, you're welcome to add them there. But there's no point keeping an incorrect or unverified statement (in a featured article, as you pointed out) just to preserve the citations themselves.

As for The Game Crater: There is currently no consensus as to whether it is a reliable source or not on WP:RS/VG. You're welcome to propose a discussion to evaluate it there if you believe it should be considered unreliable. However, it appears to be of similar quality to many of the other gaming news websites already cited within the article. --SnorlaxMonster 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them are published papers examining MissingNo. in the context of other glitches and how they affected how players perceived the game, and refer to themselves as studies of such. Again if you think the wording is the issue that can be tweaked, but the outright removal is a bit much and honestly disruptive after it's been disputed.

Secondly, with featured articles it's generally a good idea to avoid using sources that aren't confirmed as reliable: looking up a source's "About Us" page and seeing it basically started as a blog with no editorial staff or process mentioned? Such should generally be avoided for use until they can be confirmed, as they're more likely to be harsher scrutinized in a Featured Article overall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two sources, only one of them is a paper. The book Miscommunications: Errors, Mistakes, Media describes itself as a collection of "essays", not papers. But regardless, even if the Miscommunications essay was a paper, I would find the claim that "several" papers have been published on the topic to be dubious when there are only 2 such papers. While it's true that "several" could theoretically refer to only two items, doing so is misleading. I also find the description of these works as "examining MissingNo. alongside other famous video game glitches" to be overstating the amount that they actually discuss MissingNo. at all. For example, the Janik paper mentions "MissingNo." a single time in the body (in passing), without even analyzing it (beyond noting that it was considered desirable to encounter). The Miscommunications essay does seem to actually attempt to discuss MissingNo. in the way suggested by the article, although describing it as a "paper" (implying "scientific paper") rather than an essay implies a level of peer review that I'm not confident the essays in the book actually received.

Additionally, I do not appreciate your repeated disruptive editing (e.g. reverting an edit that cited 3 sources because in your personal opinion one of them was unreliable, or removing my addition of a {{verification failed}} tag so that other users could participate in a discussion on the topic on Talk:MissingNo.), while simultaneously claiming that my edits somehow constitute disruptive editing. Especially now that you have claimed that me (correctly) pointing out that a fair use image was replaceable in 2020 somehow constituted disruptive editing. From your comments so far, it concerns me that you may believe any edit that you disagree is "disruptive". --SnorlaxMonster 14:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think the wording is the issue, then why not just modify that? It feels like you're splitting hairs, but others would be far more receptive to that, not to metnion it's also a lead in to the paragraph as a whole. As for the Janik paper it states:

This kind of glitch hunting is a fine example that glitches do not have to be perceived as an obstacle while playing video games. They are even sometimes considered to be a part of game mythology or folklore46, like “MISSINGNO”. from Pokémon Red and Blue (Game Freak, 1996) or “Minus World” in Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo, 1985)47.

Now while that isn't exactly "in depth" that's why it's being cited as an example among the other glitches, and it is in context with what's being claimed (Examinations of the glitch and how they affected player perception). Would "published works" be more appropriate wording for you?

As for the template matter, when you're the one with an issue and the editor disagreeing is trying to talk with you, trying to brute force through is disruptive. I opened this line of communication well before your other edits. You should also try to assume some good faith: it's not me removing whole bits out of a featured article without proper discussion. Hastily tagging and using weak sources that may be seen as unreliable can cause an article to get FAR'd rather easily, which is why I was urging caution. Now granted I did revert a bit too much there (you're correct on the other sources saying by 128), that was a mistake on my part. But I don't believe that source is reliable, and if you feel it could be considered you should suggest it on WT:VG/S for examination.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, my objection is that the statement misrepresents the literature that exists. I don't think the problem is that the statement is worded poorly, it's that it's trying to convey an idea that is untrue, by using sources that don't directly support its claim. However, I do think it's reasonable to discuss those works alongside the others that are already mentioned (I'll edit it to do so shortly).

As for the template matter, when you're the one with an issue and the editor disagreeing is trying to talk with you, trying to brute force through is disruptive. I opened this line of communication well before your other edits. You started a discussion on my talk page not disputing any of my claims, but rather accusing me of disruptive editing; however, I am glad that we seem to be having a constructive discussion now. Anyway, I disagree that at any point I tried to "brute force" through an edit. As you acknowledged, one of my reverts was fixing your mistake, while the other was because you seemed to be contending that the inaccurate statement should be preserved because it was important to preserve sources for their own sake. However, I do acknowledge that after your first revert that tweaked the wording to be somewhat better, I probably should have tried to find a way to make the text accurate without entirely removing it.

it's not me removing whole bits out of a featured article without proper discussion I removed one sentence that I maintain is inaccurate, which the claim "removing whole bits out of a featured article" seems to be slightly overstating. I respect that you want to preserve it in some form. However, I believe it is more important to ensure the incorrect information is removed than to find some way to salvage the sources attached to it (especially, as you keep noting, on a Featured article).

I think it is important to have a tag on the article when there is a fact in dispute, because it makes it clear to other editors (and readers) that the dispute exists, so that it can be discussed on the talk page. I am not concerned with the article maintaining its Featured status, only the accuracy of the information on the page. If the tag is not resolved and does end up being long-lived, then revoking the article's Featured status would be entirely merited. --SnorlaxMonster 15:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute wasn't that the wording was absolutely correct, but in removing the sources: even if you feel the implementation was off they still have some place in the article. And if you'd slowed down and talked when a line of communication was opened, we could come to a mutual understanding a lot easier. Just saying, waking up and finding a drastic change done like that can be a bit concerning on anyone's watchlist no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree on both points: 1) Sources should be removed if they no longer substantiate claims the article makes and 2) The change was not drastic.

Sources exist on an article solely to support claims made by the article. If a source is used once, to support a specific claim, but that claim is removed from the article for some reason, the source should be too. There is no reason to preserve sources for their own sake. If the source can be used to substantiate other claims in the article, it can be added next to those specific claims. But given the article currently does not have any {{citation needed}} tags, it's not currently in need of any new sources for existing information.

As for it being a drastic change, it was the removal of a single sentence. I realize that the diff ends up being a large number of bytes because it also removed two citations that were no longer necessary, but it's still a very minor change (not literally a "minor edit", but only one step above that). SnorlaxMonster 15:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh articles can always be expanded upon and should. Both of those sources I do feel offer more context as to why the glitch matters and how people have examined reactions to it, especially the second one. If you want to take a swing at what you feel is more accurate wording on their part go for it, but I don't think they should be omitted from the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the boxes and weird replacement characters and stuff for myself on Usenet in the 1990s. At that time there was actually no official standards-compliant way to indicate that a Usenet message was in the Windows-1252 character set,[4] so large numbers of programs could create problems for large numbers of other perograms... AnonMoos (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt this is the case, I just think the Windows-1252 page needs to be more specific about what caused these issues and when that was, and cite sources for those claims. --SnorlaxMonster 02:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you removing various table merges at List of Virtual Console games for Wii U (North America), but is redirecting to Donkey Kong (NES game) any good? Games on the list like Donkey Kong 3 did not have these kind of redirects despite having NES direct ports with no substantial differences. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That distinction is probably more important on the 3DS Virtual Console pages, since on the 3DS, both the NES version and the arcade version (as "Original Edition") were released on the Virtual Console.

Additionally, I had originally switched the links on the Virtual Console lists to go via Donkey Kong (NES game) (or Donkey Kong (Famicom game) for the Japanese lists) because I thought it was misleading to link to Donkey Kong (arcade game) when it is specifically not the arcade game; that is less of a concern now that the article is titled Donkey Kong (1981 video game). Technically it could be an issue if you consider the Famicom/NES version a different game (since that port was released in 1983 on Famicom and 1986 on NES), but since it really is just a port, I don't think it's a huge concern. --SnorlaxMonster 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]