User talk:Thibbs/Archive 3

The mediation request has stalled because some of the lesser-involved parties did not answer to the note they received on their talk page. I have notified users jgp and Ost316 again, who both are the most likely to be interested in participating, though mediation cannot commence until all parties agree.

If you have no objections to going into mediation even without the users that have not signed up so far, please leave a short indication of your agreement in this section at the request page. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement #2 registered with mediation. -Thibbs (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request for mediation concerning Video games developed in Japan, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

FYI, I just noticed User:Thibbsi making a change to a page I watch. 28bytes (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged and tagged, he was stalking your edits and undoing them. Take it as sign that you did something right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I have a pretty good idea who that would be. Thanks to you both (and all others that helped) for taking care of it. -Thibbs (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought counsel at the content noticeboard. You might want to share your perspective. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Indeed I would very much like to share my views in this matter. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. After a brief mix-up with User:SubSeven, I've discovered that you listed the September 1997 issue of PC Gamer US here. If you're still in possession of that issue, and if you have the time, it would be great if you could scan/photograph/etc. the preview of The Dark Project it contains. I'm preparing to make a large push on Thief: The Dark Project, and I need all the material I can find. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JimmyBlackwing. The reason I didn't sign the "Contact" column at the requests page is that I didn't wish to be contacted about this sort of thing. I don't blame you for asking since I have also occasionally had difficulties in tracking down reliable information concerning rare topics I have edited, however the reason I don't wish to be contacted is that I have very little access to scanners. Anyway I'll see what I can do to get this article to you, but it may take a few days and I may have to resort to typing up the words of the article by hand if worst comes to worst. Would that still work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I hope it isn't too much trouble. Even if you have to type it up, though, the article would still be extremely useful. As long as I have the author name, article title and page number(s)—to fill out the reference form—it should cause no problems. Again, I really hope it's not too big of a pain, because it would help me out quite a bit to have this; I plan to take the article through FAC in the next few months, and material from this period of the game's development is scarce. Either way, thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad to help if I can. It's just that usually I can't help with scans and such. I'll write to your talk page when I have the material for you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks. This will definitely help me flesh out its 1997 development; before, basically all the coverage I had was the Mitaphane Next Generation Magazine article that you mentioned. I'm still building up sources to expand the article, but once I've got enough, this will be an important piece of the puzzle. Again, many thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're very welcome. I look forward to seeing the upgraded article. -Thibbs (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BSSuperMario.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Thanks for the heads up, but it's still in use at St.GIGA#Satellite Data broadcasting. -Thibbs (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thibbs. I opened a SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s. Your comments or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does look a little suspicious. I've added my comments at the SPI page. -Thibbs (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I would appreciate if you could keep paying attention to the SPI. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. That SPI is on my watchlist actually. -Thibbs (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute about romanizations for katakana words of non-Japanese origin has now entered mediation and is currently being talked about in this discussion page section. If you still wish to participate, please join the discussion. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the notifications, Prime Blue. -Thibbs (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{"pokemon are not ducks. they are a fictional species. please add them to List of Pokémon"} - Although they are their own fictional species, they are still ducks. Pokemon are usually listed on these "List of fictional x" and I don't see why they shouldn't. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very much like original research. Do you know what a duck is? How could a fictional species belong to a family of factual species? Shall we ask WP:BIRDS if Psyduck needs a taxobox? Your argument that other lists follow this approach is weakened by the fact that these lists have not been cleaned up and most of them have been nominated for deletion due to the fact that they are almost all listcruft of the shoddiest variety. -Thibbs (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:POKE#Pokémon on "List of fictional x". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. -Thibbs (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Thibbs I'm getting annoyed of you. The article was not up-to-date, so I decided to update the Software Version because there was a new Bop It app for the iOS. I would be glad if you stop adding socktags on my IP edits. I do want to be unblocked here so that I can show Wikipedia that I can behave on a Wiki. Look at Windows7newsinfo, I haven't got banned yet. If I can be unblocked here, I would be happy to proove to the adminss that I can behave on a wiki too.--78.147.5.220 (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Your decision to update the page was also a decision to violate Wikipedia's policy that BANNED EDITORS CAN NOT EDIT WIKIPEDIA. EVER. You keep saying that you want to be unbanned. So STOP VIOLATING THE RULES. What administrator in his right mind would unblock you is you keep breaking the rules over and over and over and over and over again? You say that if you were unbanned you would follow the rules. Well then you should demonstrate this by following the rules right now. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ok. I will stop. But I can't make an unblock request because my talkpage is protected and I would like someone to unprotect my talkpage so that in the future I can make an unblock request.--78.147.5.220 (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Didn't you say that your email is still working at en.wikipedia? If I were you I would avoid breaking any rules for a long time and then email an administrator to ask him to unlock your talk page. When I say that you should stop breaking rules for a "long time," I would recommend at least 1 year to you. Since your last violation of the rules was today (Feb. 12, 2011), I recommend that you completely stop editing at Wikipedia between now and Feb. 12, 2012, and then only email an administrator to ask for your talk page to be unlocked. From that point you can edit your talk page to request an unbanning. If you cannot avoid breaking the rules for 1 year at least, then I strongly doubt that you will ever be unbanned. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well, according to the Wikipedia:OFFER it says that you should not sock or violate the rules for 6 months and then you can e-mail an administrator to unblock your account. So therefore, I'll have to wait till July 12 2011 to request unprotection of my talkpage, request for unblock and then show that I can make constructive edits. If Fr33kman unblocks me at Simple, i'll show the admin here that I can may constructive edits on the Simple Wikipedia.--78.147.5.220 (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] WP:OFFER is an "essay" so it doesn't mean that administrators have to follow it. I was saying 1 year because of WP:UNBAN. WP:UNBAN is a "policy" which means that administrators have to follow it. On the other hand, this policy only says 1 year for editors banned by the Arbitration Committee so it's not really strictly related to you either. And anyway it's 1 year before you can even appeal so that means there's no guarantee that you'd be unbanned. You can take your chances after 6 months, but I think you'd have a better chance of being unblocked after 1 year. It's hard to say what the administrators will do. I've never seen a case where someone who has broken the rules as much as you was still interested in helping to improve the encyclopedia so maybe you have a chance, but I'm certain that your chance depends on your ability to stop breaking the rules. -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2011 (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 Admins over at Simple have reblocked me and also will reject my e-mails from the admin list. Fr33kman said he would give a final chance and I never had a chance to show to them. What am I going to do now?--92.5.198.172 (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I think you approached them too soon. I am not sure when you were last banned on Simple Wikipedia, but I'm sure it was less than a year ago. I repeat that a 1-year period without breaking the rules is a good place to start. It still might not work, but it's a good starting place. The amount of time you wait before making an appeal is important because it places some distance between you and your former self. The part about "not breaking the rules" is also important because it shows that you respect the rules. I can see that you were sockpuppeting at Simple as recently as Jan 29, 2011 - 4 days before you were unbanned. I assume Fr33kman didn't know that, but if he did then I'm certain he would not have unbanned you. If you can't stop sockpuppeting then you will never be allowed to edit freely here again. When you are banned that is Wikipedia's way of saying "Go away Sam. We don't want you." If you ignore Wikipedia's rules and just keep right on editing then that makes Wikipedia angry because you are just ignoring what they want and only doing what you want. You have to respect their decision to ban you. If you can't respect these rules then I doubt you can respect any of the rules. So if you want to be unblocked you have to do 2 things: 1 - Stop breaking the rules - This shows that you respect rules 2 - Wait for a long time (1 year might be good) - This allows a possibility that you have changed your behavior in time. If after 1 year they still do not unblock you then you could try appealing the decision to User:Jimbo Wales. He's the founder of Wikipedia and he sometimes makes recommendations for individuals that some administrators take into strong consideration. But I will warn you that he's the ultimate last chance and I wouldn't bother him unless you really had no other options. -Thibbs (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --92.5.198.172 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] You see, Sam, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes administrators take one look at you and then decide that they should never trust you again. I'm sorry that you've decided to be so foolish. -Thibbs (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After this IP has been blocked, I'll wait for 6 months and then e-mail my original blocker and ask for unblock. What about those sockpuppet tags on my userpage? Will they be removed if I ever be unblocked?--92.5.198.178 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I can no longer assume good faith in you, dude. I don't trust you at all. It's apparent that you lied when you said you'd stop breaking Wikipedia's rules just 3 days ago. You obviously don't care about Wikipedia at all. I've just recommended that Wikipedia contact your school about your problem behavior. -Thibbs (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hi Thibbs, it's not a good idea to contact school about my behavior. I wish it was removed from the abuse report please. I'm only there for a few months and I'm leaving in June so it's best to remove this information. I will not vandalize Wikipedia and in six months time i'll have a valid reason on why I should contribute. I never vandalize at school and they have a completely different IP address and I never do that sort of thing at school. It's only at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.207.133 (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] First of all you already proved that you're a liar because last Saturday you said you would stop vandalizing but then on Monday you vandalized again. And then you vandalized again yesterday. So when you say that you never edit from school I have no reason to think that you aren't just lying like you did on Saturday. In fact I think you probably are lying. But even if you are telling the truth then the good thing about contacting the school is that they can pass the message on to your parents who will hopefully explain to you why vandalizing encyclopedias is not funny. If your parents are responsible kinds of people then perhaps they will put a password that will bar access to the internet and/or begin to monitor your internet usage. Secondly, there was never a valid reason to vandalize the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a group of people who are trying to work together to teach other people about interesting topics. When you delete a page it's like burning a book. Not only do you destroy the work of the person who made the article, you also prevent everyone else in the world from reading it and learning. If you get your laughs from making it difficult for other people to learn then you are a terrible person. -Thibbs (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I already know that vandalising Wikipedia is like burning a book and I'm going to stop it now. Please seriously remove the school stuff on the abuse response. The reason is because like I said before, I never vadnalise at school (and that is the truth) and I'm leaving in June and my Mum knows that I vandalise Wikipedia and I'm blocked from it. I also worry a lot and I don't want to be worried about this so removing the information about school would make me feel a lot more relaxed, happy and chilled.--92.5.207.133 (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I've already removed the name of the school (which you originally posted about) per your request. I am still encouraging wikipedia to contact them, though. It seems like the best way to stop your behavior. If the people around you aren't aware that you are being bad then they can't help you to stop misbehaving. If they are already aware then they need to be made more aware. You keep saying that you will stop and it's all nothing but lies. Every time you said that you would stop it has been a lie. I'm certain that this time you are lying again. You've been ruining this website since 2007. I honestly don't care whether you feel happy and chilled out while you vandalize Wikipedia. I've changed my mind about you based on your own behavior. You are a menace. Please go away. -Thibbs (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Ok Thibbs. I'm not a missbehaving person in real life. Back in 2007, I didn't know about they could block people and make abuse responses and all of that. Now I do, I am now going to stay away from Wikipedia for 6 months from now. After that, I'll come back and e-mail the unblocker and give him a good solid reason on why I want to edit Wikipedia. Everything I say is true about schools and such and everyone in school never edits Wikipedia and school uses a different ISP and IP. So that's my plan for Wikipedia, a 6 month rest and then I'll come back and make constructive edits after e-mailing an admin with my solid reason.--92.5.207.133 (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I hope you can prove what you are saying but I don't think that you can. You are not supposed to be editing Wikipedia and that includes commenting on my talk page. Please leave. -Thibbs (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Talkback [edit] Hello, Thibbs. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page. Message added 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply] Great! Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it's a good idea if you placed a banned tag on my userpage as I'm a banned user.--92.5.207.133 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Yes. I'll continue to do so. -Thibbs (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my sloppy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. Pardon me for being strict on articles like that. They used to be in really poor shape and after spending a long time fixing them I've been rather zealous in my stewardship of them. Thanks for not taking personal offense as many editors do. -Thibbs (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would never take offence. I was editing like a 12-year-old, in content and manner. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acather96 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. You might be interested in this edit. -Thibbs (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 2003 Webby Awards, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of Webby Award winners. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CorenSearchBot, but that's not the article I was copying. It was actually 2005 Webby Awards that I used as a template. What should have tipped you off is the fact that my edit summary is nearly identical to that of the creator of the 2005 article. I wouldn't look too deeply into it, though. I think that there's an informal consensus between editors of this group of articles that whole-scale format copying should be used in the interest of consistency between and among this set of articles. Thanks for your vigilance all the same. I'll remove your tag directly. -Thibbs (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. Thanks! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just happened to have read that article a few days ago so it seemed like fate when I saw your message. Glad I could help out. -Thibbs (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, this is a great source. Thanks again. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd also be nice. :) Thank you for your assistance! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Since I'm skimming through these magazines anyway I may as well put my searching to more use. If you'd like I can keep sending articles on this topic your way until you tell me you've had enough. -Thibbs (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help Thibbs. I'd love to help and improve the article but unfortunately I don't speak Russian. I almost gave up on the article despite my best efforts but I'm sure it can be improved. (i've seen articles relying on a single source) I'd really appreaciate the help. Pretty strange how we're trying to defend an article thats's about a pirate game however it is something unique and interesting. Please continue to help with the article. -Radix Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radix Z (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I can see that you (and others) have worked hard on the article which is part of what motivated me to argue to keep it. I'm all for cutting truly worthless articles out of wikipedia (blatant advertisements, micro-details of games, infinite lists, etc.) but when it's obvious that editors have done their best to provide sources according to Wikipedia's standards for something that is well-known but little-covered in the media, then my gut instinct is to help improve the article with better sources, not to delete it.
Anyway I'll get in contact with someone I know who speaks Russian to translate this source for us. The article appears to cover much of the plot and provides a review of sorts so we can add a reception area. Unfortunately, although I am very familiar with Mario games, I don't know Sonic games very well at all. So after I make additions to the page, I'll post at your page asking you to review what I put in to make sure I'm not just misunderstanding things. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Thibbs. The article is now a lot longer. I just need to add a few additions. But otherwise you did an amazing job. (certainly more accurate than my attempt.) -Radix Z Just one more thing, I don't know anything about adding pictures. Do you think a few pictures could remove the need for some citations such as sonic 3D blast 6's title screen or maybe some comparrison pictures? -Radix Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radix Z (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images can't take the place of sources, but you can use the game itself as a source in certain cases. So for instance you could use the game as a source for the fact that "Dodongo dislikes smoke" (from the first Zelda game). But you can't use the game as a source for anything that requires too much extrapolation (i.e. you can't cite the game for things that the game doesn't actually say). So you can't cite the game for the fact that Dodongo's appearance has changed throughout time because the game doesn't actually say that. I cited Somari for the fact that it says "©1994 SOMERI TEAM" on the label, but I couldn't cite Someri for the fact that the game looks just like Sonic because the game doesn't actually say that. For the "variations" section of the article there may be a way to cite the versions of the game themselves for material that is quoted. For example on the Sonic 3D Blast 6 entry, you could use the game itself to source the fact that "the first act is now Marble Zone" if this version includes the words "Marble Zone" in it's title page for the first act. But this source wouldn't cover the fact that Sonic 3D Blast 6 is "identical to Sonic 3D Blast 5" since the game never says this. That may be a bit confusing but hopefully you get the idea. The template for sourcing games is located here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Video games developed in Japan#Breakpoint 16. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but both sides came to a consensus on this about a month ago. I don't think that re-opening the issues would be a productive move. Could you perhaps close the mediation instead? -Thibbs (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you mentioned most of the important stuff, so I'll stay out for now for COI. You can also add that the site was also singled out by wired magazine as an Atari resource. It was also cited in the book Apple Confidential, as well as Design and Use of Serious Games and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. Feel free to also add I write for Retro Gamer magazine, and was site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com for 7 years. Nobody involved with atarihq btw has ever added links to the site here, in case someone is worried about COI in that area. Always been other editors. If you feel that it's still important for me to participate there at some point, just let me know. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. I appreciate the extra info. I'll mention it at the discussion page. -Thibbs (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I looked at the original discussion that had sparked this that you mention - while no editorial policy is mentioned on the site, the site is run with an editorial policy - same process I used at CG.Com in fact. Would it help if I put something up there in relation to it, or do you think it doesn't matter at this point with all the citations of the site? Also, TSR (the actual link being talked about) is a hosted site at AtariHQ, not part of AtariHQ proper. But it itself has also been used as a reference in several books - Gaming Hacks, Retro Gaming Hacks, Thoughtful Interaction Design, and Big Book of Windows Hacks. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion moves to the issue of editorial policy, then I'd bring it up but right now I think maybe it would be best to rest on the strength of the citations. At this point nobody's brought up any negatives about the website on the appropriate discussion page, but if this policy does come into question then I'll give you a shout. -Thibbs (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the issue on a wrong date - I should add that having an instance of an incorrect date does not preclude a site from being reliable. IGN is full of incorrect release dates such as this one for the 2600 version of Pac-Man, yet still has editorial over site and is considered a reliable source. Also again, I believe the issue with the wrong date occurred on TSR's site, which as mentioned is only a site we host. Since it's an archive site (i.e. no longer updated) I'd be happy to go in and correct any errors when notified of them. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realize that. I would imagine that most people would recognize that this is a trivial complaint. Typos and minor issues like that can be found even in the most prestigious RSes. I'm just trying to cover every possible angle. I think that the evidence in support of the site's usability as an RS far outweighs the negatives. The date issue is really scraping the bottom of the barrel searching for problems. -Thibbs (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just double checked regarding the Firefox thing you mentioned in the discussion. I stand by the 1984 release date on AtariHQ.Com, it was supposed to be released in time for Oct. '83 but delays pushed it in to '84 and it's eventual Chicago debut. Per Atari's own internal VAX email system and the email by Kim Dowend dated Feb 1st, 1984 "Firefox was supposed to start production 1/23/84; millions in parts are all staged ready for production, but it has not started (1/31/84) because the software is not ready." The service manual shipped with the unit, is of course also dated 1984. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK sounds good. To be clear: I wasn't endorsing that editor's views. I was just trying to find any discussion I could about the reliability of the website. Most of it on Wikipedia is just editors nixing it for no reason except that it's not been proven to be an RS yet. This incorrect date thing is one of the only substantive criticisms (true or false) that I could locate. Anyway I see that you've updated the Firefox article so everything looks good. The single editor who was commenting at WP:RSN seems to have come to the conclusion that the site is an RS. I would really be happier about it to see more editors involved in the discussion, but I think I've done my best to generate interest in it. If there are no objections to it before it's archived then I'll link to the discussion from WP:VG/RS and then restore it to the article I was using it for. Thanks for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. When that happens, I would probably also add a green box by it at WP:VG/RS with a reference link to the archived discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if nobody has anything negative to say about the source then I'll do that. -Thibbs (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Way to fix those broken links. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you. It wasn't any trouble really. I definitely appreciate it, though. -Thibbs (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were active on some of these pages if I remember right, though you might want to be involved in the discussion. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I've never edited any of the Atari pages as far as I remember. I'm also not a member of WP:VG. If I had to vote one way or the other I'd say that a merger would be counterproductive considering how much non-redundant info all of the pages contain (and how long the resulting merged article would be if a full-content merge were used) and considering that a brief version of such a merge seems to already exists here. But I'm not well-versed on Atari issues so I'd really only feel comfortable participating if there are very few or no participants to the discussion and a broader consensus was desired. Let me know if my voice is needed. -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like I'm enlisting your vote (i.e. canvasing). But feel free to take a look at the convo there and add your voice if you feel it right. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give my brief opinion, but I'm not sure how useful it will be since I have no specific familiarity with Atari and can only speak generally. I'm also generally wary of getting too involved in WP:VG matters. -Thibbs (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a disease.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Thoughts? Please help stop the insanity. -Object404 (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Thibbs, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Thibbs/Sandbox7. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- Thibbs (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuttuki Bako, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tuttuki Bako players insert their finger 60 mm (2.4 in) into an electronic device to render images of that finger on an LCD screen? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

EncycloPetey (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Thanks for the heads up. And thanks to User:OCNative for nominating it! It's definitely nice to get positive feedback like this. -Thibbs (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just out of curiosity, why do we need a source for Nigel and Johnathan? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All members of these lists must meet the basic inclusion criteria. Namely the character must be fictional (per the article's description), they must be the kind of animal described by the article, and they must be notable. This can be demonstrated with a reliable source and then the "verification needed" tag may be removed. I've been enforcing this pretty strictly but I think this is necessary to avoid turning the article into an indiscriminate collection of information. Previously some of these articles included numerous entries such as "Unnamed blue squirrel from Disney's Bambi". Without enforcing the notability criterion, these lists degenerate woefully quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I added refs. It seems odd now that they're the only referenced items as well as being the only redlinked items. I hope that's okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my methodology a bit further, I've been using the existence of an article or subsection on the character as a rough proxy for whether or not they are notable. This isn't really an ideal method since there are doubtless articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the basic encyclopaedic notability requirement and that will be improperly merged (resulting in a misleading bluelink) rather than deleted, but I think it's a step in the right direction. The reason that the two previously-tagged entries are redlinked is because no article or subsection exists with them as its topic. One problem that tends to plague these articles is the inclusion of characters whose parent work is notable but who themselves are not notable. Whereas Waiting for Godot may be a notable work, Godot himself may not meet WP:N. I don't know if I explained that very clearly, but does that make sense? I'm mainly just trying to prevent the articles from slipping into chaos again. I hope that clears things up a little. -Thibbs (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed, and many thanks for the explanation. I approve, and appreciate you keeping the articles in good shape. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. Thanks for adding the refs. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I am new you can maybe edit this message to make it a suitable format, or you can just delete the message after having read it. Anyways, thank you for your informational post earlier today. I'm sorry about the mistakes, and I actually thought about the repeat link thing shortly after having done the second edit (but then I had shut down my computer). We have an assignment regarding wikipedia in one of my classes on the master of science program this fall, so you will probably see more of me throughout the year, and I will do my best to follow the rules :) Btw, how do I delete contributions from my contribution history? Like the ones showing the edits that you undid?

Unfortunately you can't remove contributions from the contribution history unless it's something very important - for example if you write your credit-card number or something like that then it would be good to have it removed. To get something very important removed from Wikipedia you should see WP:OVERSIGHT which will explain how to make a request for deletion. If it was just a minor thing, though, then the oversighters will probably reject the request. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krueger's One Move, known in Nigeria as "dunag," is the end all to characters in MK9. cy@ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.255.42 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK well thanks for that spontaneous and random tidbit. I'm not sure I understand it in the least but to be perfectly frank I've never played MK9. If you were just experimenting with how to write on talk pages then I invite you to make future experiments at WT:SANDBOX. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on creating the Dando Shaft article, which is much overdue. When I get time I will check my books and see if I can add anything.--SabreBD (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm glad to help. Yeah, if you get a chance it might be nice to verify who the lineup was for their '77 reunion album, Kingdom. The Italian source I examined suggests that this reunion included all former members except Polly Bolton. The Colin Larkin source, on the other hand, suggests that the '77 reunion included all former members except Roger Bullen. I don't own this album so I can't verify that way. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (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 It would be great if you could stop adding Socktags on my user talkpages. I really like editing Wikipedia and I whish my main account was unblocked so then I can edit from there and not get into any trouble. Also, I am now a residental student at Farleigh College and they'll teach me how to live independantly and I'll be studying ICT at Wiltshire College and I'm certianly not going to vandalise Wikipedia at those places. You can also file a 2nd case of the abuse report.--92.5.198.12 (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] If you really like editing Wikipedia then I suggest you request from an administrator to get your main account unblocked because as things stand right now you are constantly engaging in sockpuppetry - something that is forbidden at Wikipedia. But you know all this Sam. I've told you Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetry many many times. I'm very sick of your games Sam. They waste everyone's time. Until you get your main account back and stop evading your block, I have nothing more to say to you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] I will not sock anymore, but at least I'm not vandalising.--92.5.200.205 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (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 hope Acather96 doesn't contact my school. Mum says that School doesn't have nothing to do with vandalising Wikipedia.--109.144.248.80 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey dude Don't file another abuse report. Acathe96 has commented his talk page.--217.39.6.184 (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern at my tagging of these articles, but we have a firm policy at Wikipedia that the subjects of all articles must demonstrate importance and assert notability. Unsourced articles are very susceptible to being deleted, anything you can do to save them would be most appreciated. The tags however, must remain until the issues have been addressed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Far from removing tags, I actually added tags to those pages. I invite you to re-examine the exact nature of the edits I made. I did change one of your tags (i.e. the unreferenced tag on Deflex) to a refimprove tag, but the reason for this was that there were in fact references included in the article. The unreferenced tag should only be used in cases where no references exist, not where insufficient references exist. Maybe you are confusing me for the original author of the article. Either way, both of us have been editing here at Wikipedia since 2006 so explaining basic Wikipolicy might be construed as uncivil. I'd use a different strategy when contacting User:Hyphz if I were you. -Thibbs (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that you had removed the tags - I was perfectly aware of the part you played and the message above was to let you know that your efforts had been noticed, appreciated, and encouraged. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to work on your delivery. Suggesting that I was "concerned" by your tags and then reminding me that tags are not to be removed until the issues have been addressed would not be considered encouragement by most Wikipedians. Likewise explanations of Wikipedia's notability policy to someone who has been editing for 5 years is easily misconstrued as patronizing. I'll take you at your word that you were trying to encourage me, though. Thank you for your clarification. I appreciate your support and I wish the same encouragement to you in return. I hope that we may both keep Wikipedia's Notability guideline in mind and that we may continue to leave tags in place until all issues have been addressed for many years to come. -Thibbs (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you point about delivery - actually for reasons of economy, I had pasted the same messagae that I sent to Hyphz - who rather over reacted I'm afraid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's fine. I hope Hyphz contacts me for help if he needs it. I saw that he was over-reacting a bit on your talk page. That's never a good way to handle matters. Anyway I apologize for bristling at your earlier comment. I'm probably due for a Wikibreak. -Thibbs (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. You may find this informative. Note the name. --Calton | Talk 01:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad I could help. I'm not sure that's the right guy, though. In glancing at your talk page history this morning I noticed that the ip making an edit on 17 September 2010 used nearly an identical edit summary (i.e. r/v due to vandalism from Calton.) as the guy I reverted at List of fictional ducks on 24 September 2011 (i.e. r/v due to vandalism by Calton). You'd identified the former ip editor as Greg Kohs (AKA Thekohser). NoCal100's involvement with list of fictional ducks in April 2008 may have just been a coincidence but it's a very strange one. Any possibility that NoCal100 and Thekohser are the same person? -Thibbs (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In response to your report at WP:RFPP, I've semi-protected Overblood for two weeks. I reviewed the article's history and saw a pattern of repeated, almost identical vandalism, from numerous different IP addresses, going back to last January. I note that this article was semi-protected for two weeks back in July, but the vandal resurfaced and continued his work shortly after the protection expired. So I'm not convinced that what I did will have a lasting effect. Please let me know if you see this problem occur again. Richwales (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. The people doing this vandalism all seem to be fans of GameInformer's Super Replay program where the hosts provide "hilarious" audio commentary in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or any of the other hundreds of derivative juvenile commentators that call themselves video game reporters. Here is a topical example of the kicks these morons get out of attacking Wikipedia's video game coverage for sport. Why destroy coverage of the medium you claim to love? It's senseless. I'll certainly let you know if I see more of this inanity. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you call us morons? We simply wanted to bring attention to a game that virtually no one cared about for over 10 years! Comedy can be the best way to introduce people to something and yet you belittle us like we are children? You are no better for saying such things about Game Informer and it's fans. valtane (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When comedy takes the form of vandalism then I invite you to direct your attentions elsewhere. Comedic vandalism is childlike and the comparison to your vandalistic edits to this article is apt. I have no qualms with Game Informer or its general fans. I think that the ones who find pleasure in corrupting the information presented about the game in an encyclopedia are doing a disservice to the community they are seeking to entertain and I admit that I find Super Replay's coverage to be less than serious. One thing you might look into if you are still interested in bringing Overblood greater attention through comedy is to start a comedic blog about the game. Although potty humour isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia, you might find quite an audience if you were to poke fun at the game in this way on your own webspace. Good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was needless. I didn't say it was "dubious", I said there was no source. And there wasn't. WP:GACR states GAs must have sources for all information and if it was so trivial to source it, you should have done so in the first instance. Thanks, bridies (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to take offense. I meant to say "challenged claim". You're probably the only person who even noticed that. The challenged statement is well-sourced now and meets the requirements set out in WP:GACR so as far as I'm concerned it's water under the bridge. I hope you feel the same. -Thibbs (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also would like to point out that GACR doesn't in fact require sources for all information but only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons." The claim I inserted was none of the above. It was a simple non-controversial fact that I honestly couldn't imagine would be challenged because I assumed that most editors to the article would recognize the term. After it was challenged (i.e. deleted) I restored and bolstered it with a source or two. I don't apologize for failing to include sources from the get-go because I don't believe Wikipedia or GACR required any until it was in fact challenged. No harm done though as it was indeed trivial to find solid sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the last comment. As I see it the claim is in the realms of subjectivity (and as far as I can make out, to do with Japanese language) as is pretty much everything in an art-criticism article and so requires a direct citation. But otherwise, all-righty then :) bridies (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep flogging this horse, but I forgot to add that WP:GACR also states that GAs must provide "all sources of information" in the references section. So the article must indeed provide sources for everything, it's just that uncontroversial statements don't necessarily require an actual inline-citation. bridies (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right, but I interpret it rather differently. The full text of requirement 2a is that the article "provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout". To me this sounds very much like a layout requirement for refs to be provided according to one of the MOS-approved methods (reflist, footnotes, inline, etc.) and in the MOS-approved position (e.g. below "see also", above "external links"). If this was a general requirement for the reffing of all info, then why specify in the next enumerated requirement (Rule 2b) that "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion... etc." must also be referenced? Surely the ref requirement for quotations, statistics, and opinion would already be covered by the previous line (Rule 2a), no?

As I see it, non-quotes, non-statistics, non-opinion, ..., non-controversial statements, etc. needn't be sourced even in GAs unless challenged. This interpretation is in line with WP:V (stating in its lede that "in practice you do not need to attribute everything") and WP:RS which summarizes the matter thus: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." When I added the claim to the article I was adding what I considered to be a non-controversial tidbit of common-knowledge information (akin to the unreffed claim that "Shoot 'em ups are a sub-genre of shooter game"). I was clearly mistaken about how well-known the fact was, but at the time I added it I had no specific source apart from having become familiar with the term as most people have - through my own experiences. After my original edit, references to all specific sources of information were still provided in the appropriate section (i.e. I didn't maltreat the already-up-to-code reflist) so I wouldn't have even considered the possibility that I'd inadvertently violated GACR's rule 2a. In fact I still have strong and lingering doubts that I did. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that if there is no "source of information" then the information is implicitly original research or otherwise unverifiable, but maaaaaaaaybe you're right. OK, the issue is/was whether the claim was common knowledge or not, I'll leave it that. bridies (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's probably a correct assumption most of the time, sadly, so I suppose I understand your approach. Anyway no worries. Like I said, water under the bridge. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you are watching, but to make sure I thought I would let you know I have replied at User talk:JamesBWatson#Our annoying Moomin problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not vandalism to give the exact capacity of Tallaght Stadium. 2. Judging by this page you need to get out more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.90.187 (talk) 08:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Presumably it would have been vandalism to have listed the capacity as 58,600 seats, though, right? What's the difference between 8,600 and 8,513 and 58,600? Only one of them is supported by the source provided. The figure that I reverted to.

2. Judging by the attendant re-addition of the terms "alcoholic" and "homeless" to the coach's name and 2009 player of the year's name respectively, your edits seem to be favored either by those that are actively trying to vandalize Wikipedia as I initially guessed or by editors that are so unfamiliar with the rules at Wikipedia that they don't know what vandalism is. I hope it's the latter. -Thibbs (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you like picking figures out of the sky? When all the seats are added up the total is 8513. Simple really.

2. I am a Rovers fan. I help pages not vandalise them. (Note the correct spelling of vandalise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.133.5 (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.The source does not support your view. Find a source that does support it or start your own blog to explain your views. Even simpler.

2.You noticed my typo. What a clever lad. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Tip from the top son. Not everything on wikipedia needs to be sourced.

2. Try again.

3. Spend some time away from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.250.71 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. One of the things that must be sourced, however, is the statement that you've claimed in that article. If it is not sourced then it will be reverted. Simple as can be.

2. Vandalize

3. But if I leave Wikipedia then I'll end up missing out on intelligent conversations with editors like you! -Thibbs (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. And it will be corrected again and again until you pedants understand.

2. See english version.

3. Wiki is slowly being ruined by self important pedants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.90.187 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you strangely obsessive person. I showed up at the article on the Shamrock Rovers a few days ago by following the edit history of a vandal that had added the terms "alcoholic" and "homeless" to the article. Looking at the article's history I noticed that the article had recently been the target of several instances of vandalism and so I reviewed the last several edits. Of these, many were indeed vandalistic and among them was your edit where you had altered the figure 8,600 as claimed in the source provided to 8,513.

Because the figure you altered did not match the figure that was reported by the reputable press, I assumed that it was also vandalism. You now claim that it was not vandalism but instead that it is the truth. Unfortunately I am not willing to travel to the stadium to count the seats myself so I am left with two options. 1)Trust the reputable press, or 2)Trust an anonymous person on the internet. Given the history of edits by anonymous internet persons at the Shamrock Rovers article I am rather leery of trusting your word blindly as you are asking me to. The rules at Wikipedia are the same as with any academic work - i.e. the information in the source documents must match the information presented in the article's body. I tell you that you need a source to back up your claim or else your claim will be removed.

Your threats to fight against pedantry in Wikipedia by revert warring to restore your favorite un-sourced tidbit do not impress me in the least. I understand that if it is true that you added this information in good faith then it must be irritating to have it reverted under the blanket term of "vandalism", but the onus is on you to furnish proof of your claims. If indeed you are correct, and if indeed you are the fan that you claim to be then surely it would be very easy for you to furnish some sort of proof that would meet wikipedia's verifiability requirement. Instead of spending every day coming up with a new and witty insult to bore me with, why don't you devote this time to searching for a source that backs up your claim instead? Then we can both move on with our lives. Does that sound reasonable? -Thibbs (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow what a diatribe. I do not vandalise Rovers pages. End of. In fact I used to add player pages until I got tired of pedantic editors deleting my pages. Hence my previous comments on wiki being destroyed. Unlike you this is not my life and I'm not here to impress you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.138.211 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantry is useful when it safeguards the integrity of the collective work. If there is any integrity to your claim then I invite you to follow the rules that all other editors follow and back it up with a source. If you cannot (or will not) do this despite my efforts to instruct you on good editorship, then I'm afraid your claims of improvement to Wikipedia are nothing more than empty claims. I'm not interested in debating this point with you any further. If you don't back up your claim it will be reverted. Please don't waste my time any further with your tired insults. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tired insults? Look at the content of this page. Your "help" here is the essence of emptiness. Get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.196.167 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously disenchanted by Wikipedia because the policy here is that we must back up our claims. I have tried to help you by explaining that if you care about the fate of your contributions you will have the courtesy to back them up. If you are hoping that I or some other editor will back up your claims for you then you are going about it quite poorly. Rather than telling me that I am pedantic, that I need to stop editing Wikipedia, that I need to get a life, etc., you should ask for help finding adequate sources. You don't have to ask me for help. Most editors would be glad to help you if you ask them in less of an insulting manner. Or you could just back up your claims on your own from the start.

If you are trying to correct the record at Wikipedia then I welcome your corrections, but if your edits are challenged please don't fly into a childish temper. Instead you should provide sources according to the rules and demonstrate the challenge to be without merit. I know this can be a pain in the neck for you but you must recognize that these rules apply to all editors and that you aren't a privileged editor to whom the normal rules do not apply. Had you properly sourced the articles you created on the individual players then they would almost certainly still exist today. You can reconstruct these articles at any time, by the way, and then with a few good sources you can all but ensure that they will never be deleted.

Your insults to me here are completely unreasonable. You've been bothering me daily for nearly a week now for no better reason than that I dared to question your anonymous authority and that I possibly mis-identified your edit as vandalism (we have yet to see you demonstrate that it isn't vandalism by providing a source). What's the point of all this? If you really want to help then why are you spending all of your time bothering me? According to the rules here you are clearly and demonstrably in the wrong. I'm not asking for you to apologize. All I want is for you to provide a source for your claim and to stop insulting me. At that point you'll have "won" the argument for what it's worth. If you cannot do these things then we cannot work together.

If you have a legitimate question then I will do my best to answer. If you simply dislike me then please make an effort to hold your tongue. If you'll permit an argument by economy: It's not just my time that you're wasting with your petty responses, but your own as well. -Thibbs (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only one who is disenchanted but to stretch that to "childish temper" is laughable. Just to add the players pages I created were all properly sourced.

And hey you set yourself up here so that people could bother you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.90.187 (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't imagine why they would have been deleted if they were properly sourced. By this I mean that reliable sources really are the ultimate proof of an article's worth. Sources are used to demonstrate that the topic is verifiably notable, and that's the threshold for article inclusion on Wikipedia. Is it possible that the articles were merged into another instead? Or that the sources didn't demonstrate notability or that they weren't reliable? Apart from these options I can't imagine what the problem was. Properly sourced articles are nearly always subjected to an "Articles for Discussion/Deletion" (AfD) process for comment and review by third parties prior to deletion. And an administrator overlooks the process and performs the deletion should it come to that.

If you need help re-creating them, and provided that they are verifiably notable players, then there are many editors who would gladly give you aid. I'd start with WikiProject Football as they may have more specific requirements than general Wikipedia, but they should be interested in assisting you since football is their passion and they are interested in increasing Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Monsters vs. Aliens character The Missing Link from the list of fictional apes list last year? He's an ape, even though he has fish characteristics. He's also my favorite character from the film. ~~<font="Verdana">LDEJRuff~~ 16:21 12 October, 2011 (UTC)

In both your original description as well as the description from the "Monsters vs. Aliens" article, this character is listed as a "fish-ape hybrid". It is clear from the article's name as well as its lede paragraphe that the list of fictional apes is intended to cover only notable fictional ape characters, not notable fictional ape and ape hybrid characters. You can see that in the lede paragraphe the word "ape" is linked so readers could see what an ape is. Obviously a 20,000 year old ape-fish hybrid wouldn't be the sort of thing that would be described biologically as an ape. The Missing Link is a fictional animal, but not a fictional ape. Hence my edits summary: "rm. ... non-apes". Compounding matters is the problem that there is no article on The Missing Link. Absent sources demonstrating that the character is a fictional ape and that it is notable, I can't see a good reason to include it in the list of fictional apes. -Thibbs (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thibbs,

My name is Rick. I'm a member of the Overblood/GameInformer community that vandalized your precious Wiki stub. Before I get into it, I would like to make a few things clear. I, personally, was not one of the people who vandalized the page itself nor did I know it was happening. I also understand very little about Wikipedia and how editing works. I was looking through the "Talks" section in the Overblood page when I came across your contribution. You insult the fan community by calling them "sophomoric" and "simpletons". I'm OK with that. Hating a community for vandalizing a wiki page therefore giving you more work to do is perfectly reasonable. What is not OK is what I found on your discussions page.

"Thank you very much. The people doing this vandalism all seem to be fans of GameInformer's Super Replay program where the hosts provide "hilarious" audio commentary in the style of the Angry Video Game Nerd or any of the other hundreds of derivative juvenile commentators that call themselves video game reporters. Here is a topical example of the kicks these morons get out of attacking Wikipedia's video game coverage for sport. Why destroy coverage of the medium you claim to love? It's senseless. I'll certainly let you know if I see more of this inanity. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)"

These claims you make toward GameInformer are entirely groundless and are fueled by nothing but childish anger towards a fan-base. I understand your anger, but please don't vent it in the wrong direction. Or at all, for that matter. I hope you understand what it is I'm saying and that you take it in stride instead of a rebuttal. Have a nice day. -Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yizzy (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've told me that it's "not OK" to criticize GameInformer's Super Replay program on my own talk page by comparing it to Angry Video Game Nerd and other commentators of that ilk. You then go on to tell me not to "vent my anger" at vandals and finally you express your desire that I should not be allowed a rebuttal to your aspersions. You are new to Wikipedia and so I suppose some of the norms of editorship here probably elude you. In the strongest possible manner I aver that I acted correctly in this matter and I am saddened by your wish to silence my opinions on my own talk page. Apart from this basic statement, I will bow to your wishes and refrain from supporting my claims. I hope this doesn't count as a rebuttal in your view. -Thibbs (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any unfairness that you may have perceived with my last contributions. As I said, I have almost no idea as to how to work Wikipedia. But your attempt at subtle condescension irks me. Please understand that I'm simply angry that you compared GameInformer, a Legitimate news source, to "juvenile commentators". This comparison, as I said before, was founded only by anger towards their fan-base. I'm sorry that I criticized you for expressing an opinion on your own talk page. -Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.251.18 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect in your assumption that I have compared GameInformer to "juvenile commentators". I described the "Super Replay" commentary to that of "juvenile commentators". The reasons had little if anything to do with my anger at the general fan-base. I am only angered by "a certain sophomoric set" of them (in my words) - to wit, those that get off on vandalizing Wikipedia's coverage of the games discussed in the episodes of Super Replay. My actual reason for describing the "Super Replay" commentary as juvenile was based on my own review of it. Legitimate news or no, the manner of news coverage presented in Super Replay is decidedly immature. Can you imagine CNN, BBC, or any of the other news networks using the term "Wienerless Steve" amidst the guffaws of the analysts in the background?

Anyway I suppose that you are worried about what you view as a bias I might have in this area but please rest assured that I make every effort to keep my personal opinion out of the articles I edit and that I hold myself to the same rigid sourcing rules as I do for all other editors. I would never add any of my personal criticism of GameInformer or any other news source without proper attribution to reliable third party sources. I can understand your concern regarding my low opinion of Super Replay given that you are a member of the GameInformer community but have a little faith. Nobody worth his salt here at Wikipedia is interested in pushing their Point of View within the articles. If you notice any such thing then you can contact me for help or contact an administrator or any other editor. Wikipedia's goal is neutrality and the more vigilance in this regard the better. -Thibbs (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to avoid dragging this out by not going into semantics. From what I can tell, I was misunderstood about your claims and took improper action. The most I could possibly do at this point is change your view on a Podcast. However, it seems arbitrary and you've made it clear that you hold firm opinions. Again, I would like to apologize for criticizing you. The only reason I did so in the first place was that the Overblood talk page was linked to the Overblood Facebook group, causing the one-thousand and thirteen member community to go into an uproar. Keep in mind this is the same group of people you called "Simpletons","Morons", and "Sophomoric". I hope you hold no loath for me, as I was only defending the group's opinion.

-Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yizzy (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I am not angry at you at all. You have not vandalized as far as I can see and you are discussing things calmly. I'm sorry if I caused the community any anguish by criticizing Super Replay or by putting a stop to the vandalism of the Overblood article. Just as you are somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I am somewhat unfamiliar with the Overblood/GameInformer community. My only interest is in preserving the accuracy of the information presented at Wikipedia and part of that unfortunately requires me to work against vandalism. To be clear, the only people I have referred to as "Simpletons", "Morons", and "Sophomoric" are those fans that have vandalized Wikipedia hundreds of times within the last year. I'm confident, though, that there are other positive ways that the Overblood/GameInformer community can find to contribute to Wikipedia's coverage of this obscure game. Again, thanks for your calm and reasonable demeanor and I'm sorry that I must take a hard line on this. -Thibbs (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. For the past several months I've been working on the Mega Man series articles. I noticed you have respectable collection of GameFan issues. I was wondering if I could trouble you for a few reviews and/or their corresponding page numbers. That is, if you have the time.

• Mega Man X2 (issue 25)
• Mega Man 7 (issue 30)
• Mega Man for Game Gear (issue 37)
• Mega Man X3 (issues 38 and 43)
• Mega Man 8 (issue 50)
• Mega Man X4 (issue 58)

I would greatly appreciate it if you could allote me transciptions of some or all of these reviews. Thank you. ~ Hibana (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I'll send you a note in a day or two when I get some scans up. -Thibbs (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the reviews. Just out of curiosity, do the magazines actually list percentage scores somewhere in the issues? I'm missing scores for 7, Game Gear, both versions of X3, and X4. ~ Hibana (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the reviews only started to contain actual numerical scores some time after 1997. I have a copy from 2000 that does have numerical scores, but none of the reviews listed above do... They do have a regular Famitsu-style "Cross Review"-like feature in every magazine called "Viewpoint" where three of the magazine's regulars score different games that have been reviewed. I'll look through those portions to see if I can find anything on the Mega Man games you want, but I don't know how those would translate to a single score. Perhaps you could average them? -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've found these kinds of scores for all of the games except MM7 and Game Gear. I'll upload them and let you know when I get a chance. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it, give me a couple of days to sort it. If you haven't heard back in a week, give me another prod. - X201 (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to go one, it was only a small section. I've typed it out below. Page no. is 81. February 2003 - X201 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story of how Nintendo snubbed Sony and its 'PlayStation' add-on for the Super Nintendo, instead allying itself with Phillips, is a well known tale. Even though Nintendo's initial enthusiasm for a CD-based add-on would soon cool, Phillips obtained the rights to develop a set number of games based on the Mario and Zelda properties for its ill-fated CDi format - but, astonishingly, failed to appreciate the opportunity. Even the finest adventure could not have saved the underpowered and overpriced platform, but the first two Legend of Zelda games - Wand of Gamelon and Faces of Evil, released simultaneously - were atrocious. In the eyes of devout hardcore gamers, these releases (and a third in 1995, Zelda's Adventures) are tantamount to blasphemy.

Thank you! I'll set to work incorporating it into the mock-up I've been working on. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a reply on my page Deltasim (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I've replied there too. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you weren't informed, I should warn that that we are apparently sockpuppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thibbs. Яehevkor ✉ 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose this is some sort of revenge. I had filed a sock page against this guy earlier today without informing him. I suppose I could have warned him too, but I think it's pretty clearly the same guy and I've filed so many SPIs against his socks in the past that I tend to only accuse when I'm pretty certain anyway. Thanks for the heads-up though. -Thibbs (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No typo, read meaning 2..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah. I never knew that. Sorry to have butted in. -Thibbs (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]