User talk:Philcha/Archive 2

Hi. Judging from the questions you ask on the talk page, you seem to be not very familiar with the subject and rely too heavily on Google. I recommend that you get the book "Emanuel Lasker, the life of a chess master" by Jacques Hannak. Although it is a little bit outdated and contains are some minor inaccuracies, it is still a classic. It should be not too difficult to find in libraries or used book shops. Sincerely, Stefan64 (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This. WLU (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On reflection and review of my own conduct on the talk page, I have no right in complaining about being cryptic. Please, I am ignorant of the page topic and am editing as best I can. I would welcome collaboration with a knowledgeable contributor. I left the page alone for two weeks to give you an opportunity to expand or modify the page, and sincerely did my best to review your changes and integrate them into the version that I pasted in today. It's in the draft history, you could, if you had a lot of time, review it diff-by-diff with the changes you made on the 19th/21st and they should map out roughly in order. I really, really want a good article out of this, one that wastes neither of our time or effort and produces a thorough, readable, interesting and informative page that is in keeping with the manual of style and the game itself. I have reviewed your suggestions as thoroughly as I can and done my best to change the page because I can see you are knowledgeable about the game and gaming in general. I do ask that you try retaining my changes, say for the week suggested by Scheinwerfermann, and instead I offer this page. It is a copy of the most recent version ([1]) with the changes made per your suggestion. To give us a bit of distance from the actual page and for free play with the text and mark-up, could we agree to leave the extant version alone and edit that instead? Alternatively, if you really, really feel my version is inadequate, how about this - revert to the previous version, but please edit, or suggest edits on the draft page, until we can come up with a version that is acceptable to both of us.

I've got to eat crow on this one because as I reviewed my own conduct, I realized it was far from exemplary. I edit quickly and tend to be choppy on my talk page comments, this does not help with my reception by other editors. It's the reason for my first two bullets in this section of my user page. I am sorry that I was intemperate and rude in my first interactions with you, and sorry that I followed it up with further rudeness on the page. I am not actually that bad to work with generally - I'm a good copy editor, researcher and have a decent knowledge of the policies. Plus, I've a huge desire for wikipedia to succeed, and it can only do so if knowledgeable editors contribute and collaborate. In this topic, you are my superior. I've not played MoO (not strictly true, I tried it out for five minutes, two turns, after several months of MoO II, but obviously I'm not a go-to guy on the topic). I've appreciated your comments because they have helped me improve the page. Were you to directly edit, it would greatly speed up the process. I'm happy to stay hands-off and work on the talk page, or only edit for spelling/grammar/wording, or drop suggested revisions on a talk page.

My ideal outcome is a page that is acceptable to experienced players of the game and in keeping with the MOS. I can not do this alone, and I'd probably save you time in endless references to the style guides - together we will produce a better page faster than either one of us apart and collaboration works very well to spur pages to a higher quality version. I am sincerely sorry that I was as rude as I was and continued it in subsequent interactions. I would really appreciate the opportunity to work with you instead of against you. And to top it off, this is about the only game page that you'd ever see me on - once we reach a consensus version you'd probably never see me again.

Thanks, and one last apology. I'm sorry I'm an ass. WLU (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like details, on a subject where I have little knowledge, the more details the better.

You should really read through WP:V - it's not my policy (though I do really like it), it's the only practical way to sort through issues where the topic is ill-documented and discussed, emerging, or contested. I've edited pages about people where one editor knew the subject of the article, and would justify edits with "It is how X would want it" or "X did this, I know because I was there". WP:AGF can allow reasonable amounts of this if it's not contested. In this case, the changes were hotly contested and there was counter-evidence of equally dubious merit (web fora, blogs, etc). Another page an editor was a researcher and had experience analyzing and writing peer-reviewed journals. He wanted to insert a block of text that compared the article's topic (a drug) with other drugs to treat the same condition, claiming expertise (but no sources). That broke WP:OR AND WP:V, and after the Essjay controversy, just doesn't work.

I'll try to integrate what changes I can based on your list, and when I don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll do my best to state why. Note that again I have no problem with you editing the page directly - I don't think it's necessarily healthy for me to be the one making all the edits (it gives the appearance of ownership and the impression that I am the authority on what changes and what does not - I'm not, I shouldn't be, and I have no claim to such authority). I don't want to be the only one making changes either, it's time consuming and slower than you doing so yourself as well as running a risk of me getting it wrong. If I have an issue with any edits or wording, I'll either re-edit if it's minor or comment on the talk page so we can seek a compromise or better wording. I've done this on orthomolecular psychiatry, satanic ritual abuse and other pages and it seemed to work OK. Most of my wording edits seem to be acceptable. WLU (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't noticed you were editing and ended up changing a section title. I'm still drafting a reply. WLU (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag, you're it. I'll leave it for the rest of the day, please edit mercilessly. WLU (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered archiving your talk page? It's pretty lengthy and users on slow connections will run into significant loading delays (also harder to find stuff that's new). I've been using User:Miszabot for a while now, it seems to work without bugging. If you paste {{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 1 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Philcha/Archive %(counter)d }} at the top of your talk page, it will invisibly archive all text that is a week old into a sub-page. It may have to be at the very top, if it's in a section it may archive itself :) If you do so, I would also recommend putting in {{archivebox|[[/Archive 1|Start to May, 2008]]}} or something similar so they can be accessed without editing the addressbar or having to search for it. Just a thought, you could also just delete all the old stuff.

Did I mention I'm a busybody micromanager in addition to my many other flaws? WLU (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also post long replies. Did you know the recommendation on one of the talk page guidelines pages is 100 words? What the hell can I say in 100 words? Speaking of replies, IE just crapped out on me and erased the reply I was drafting on T:MOO, the fuck. I hate explorer, it's started bugging out every time POPUPS engages.

You can archive manually, basically open two windows - one editing your current talk page, one on your archive page. Cut everything you consider 'closed' from your current page and paste it into your new archive page. Miszabot does it for you, on a regular basis, and to date I've had no problems with it once it actually gets running. From what I know, you really just have to paste the Misza code at the top of your talk page and wait a day or so, and it'll shuttle everything to the new talk page. You can see it at the very top of my talk page if you edit it, the actual template is invisible. Using Misza, you may need to manually set up the archive page at first (I could do it for you if you'd like) but once it's running it works fine.

The text in the template determines when it's archived (7d = 7 days old by time/date stamp), how big your archive can get before starting a new one (250K = 250 kilobytes of text), where it goes (archive = blah blah blah = the sub-page to put stuff in), counter is which archive to put it in, and I think it automatically updates but 250 K is a lot and I've yet to see it run into my 4th archive. WLU (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use FF on one of my computers, this one isn't mine and I'm not allowed (wah!) to install FF. So I'm stuck with this piece of shit by microsoft. Asses.

How 'bout I try to set up your archive and you see if it works? I think it kicks in on a daily basis, you might not see a change until tomorrow, at which point a large portion of your talk page might disappear.

You are not wrong about the crapiness of documentation on wiki. I've cursed Misza many a time, but it seems to work now. We'll see what happens when my archive reaches 250k though. WLU (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Look for Misza to kick in some time tomorrow. Misza seems to kick in around 8:30am my time, and goes in alphabetical order, so expect to see something around 10:30am tomorrow (again, my time). I'll try to keep my eyes open for any hiccups, but if it breaks let me know and I'll see if I can fix it. Though I make no guarantees as Misza is pretty fickle. WLU (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory is mine! Note that I probably won't have much time to look at MoO in the next couple days. I very much appreciate the comments you're making on the talk page and am aware of them in all their voluminous glory (I'm thinking of archiving the page from top down to replaced re-write, inclusive). I hope you don't mind my absence, it's on my to do list (my mental one, the one that actually gets done, not my user page one that is mostly for show) and I will get back to it. In the mean time, feel free to edit per your comments and anything else that comes up. I've quickly scanned and nothing raised any eyebrows or flags for me. WLU (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting stuff. In film studies, I remember learning about four phases: (1) the experimental period where the conventions of the genre are still being formed, (2) the classical period, where the missteps of the earlier period are avoided, and the genre flourishes within its boundaries, (3) the refinement period, where the conventions are obeyed but pushed to their maximum, (4) the baroque period, where the film becomes self-conscious of its own conventions and deliberately flips them on their head (think Unforgiven for a self-conscious reflection on violence in Westerns, or True Lies for a self-conscious reflection on Action movies). I don't think games ever become self-conscious of their gameplay, but they do sometimes poke fun at their own plots. Anyway, genre studies are very interesting, especially when you look across artforms for how genres are formed and how genres die (if they ever die). Randomran (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent along the Emrich pics. Enjoy! Randomran (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is note to myself in case I get into another argument about WP:RS for video games.

• Reflections on the Fundamental Contempt In Which the Enthusiast Press Is Held By Publishers, which cites ...
• Nick Wingfield (September 20, 2007). "High Scores Matter To Game Makers, Too". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-06-14.

Philcha (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thinking about this some more, there are some real issues with copyright that I'm not sure can be overcome, but would welcome your opinion, as I'm not an expert. Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic here, but my understanding is that fair-use images are restricted to use in namespace articles only; in other words, an image's 'fair use rationale' template would only cover its use in the main subject's article (typical example - my Sandbox). Looking at the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, it seems that the use of fair-use images is unlikely to be acceptable in other articles, including galleries. Unfortunately, that probably means that the only useful, legitimate gallery is the world champs section at Commons, which is very limited in choice. I do not want to enter any more edit wars over image copyrights as they take up too much time, so I'm now planning to revert to plan A - paste a few additional images into the Mikhail Botvinnik article and leave it to you or others re-arrange them as any changes occur. Of course any non-Commons images discarded in that process will be orphan-deleted after a few days, but it seems that this is the game we all have to play, regrettably. I guess if there was a burning desire to use a non-free image in an article such as World Chess Championship, then a secondary 'fair-use rationale' template could be added to the image file, arguing a case for its fair use in that specific additional article in the context of a direct discussion over that person's WC tenure or an important WC match in which they were a main player etc. From experience, if it's well argued, that could work, but you could also expect an occasional challenge, bot deletion or edit war. Incidentally, I have also located one or two images of Petrosian, Euwe and Capablanca (I think!), so in time I'll add those to the relevant biographies, if there is no other way forward. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GalCiv diplomacy 01.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Coelomate 01.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed:

In most television spin-offs, atleast one major character from the original show is not a major in the spin-off. They may be referenced, or guest-star.

Because, frankly, it doesn't make sense, is unclear and is covered better on the media spin-offs page. I also think that it's preferencing shows that are retooled after a character leaves, rather than, say a show based around a character that leave... but, once again, it doesn't really make sense, so I'm not sure. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it at Template:Coelom: I thought this would make it a bit easier to experiment with different templates etc; it should also reduce the number of edit conflicts. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my intention. Feel free to do otherwise if you find it easier! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those things are sorted, although you may have to realign the captions slightly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! I've been trying to keep the template as simple and intuitive to use as possible, so do bear that in mind when you make improvements. That said, it looks pretty good as it is, at the moment! Thanks for your help. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially nowhere – I think at Chitinozoan and on the extinction event timeline. Use the "What links here" link in the toolbox (below search box on left of page) for a full list; most of those are transcludes via the extinction event template. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either even use the color parameter... (-; Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the book "Kasparov, Garry (2003). Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors: Part 1. Everyman Chess. ISBN 1-85744-330-6." (Chapter: Alexander the Fourth, Invincible, page 454 - in Polish edition), please. Is Garii Kasparov a valuable source for you ?! --User:Mibelz 6:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an information on Alexander Alekhine Junior. --User:Mibelz 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind doing copyedits, even when they're based on misunderstandings. That shows that we need to clarify. For example, Krator said "doesn't Civ 4 have governors?" So I took the opportunity to clarify why the MOO3 developers believed they had developed something new, and explained the concept of imperial focus points. Krator said "mainstream reviewers" makes it sound like Emrich is fringe, so I tried to rephrase that too. I think we're going to get a lot of suggestions / concerns like this as we go for GA status, so we have to be prepared to blow with the wind. Someone will walk in and say it's too hot. Then someone else will walk in and say it's too cold. I'm optimistic that there is a phrasing that will basically please most people, including ourselves. These kinds of copyedits are effortless.

I think the most controversial part of Krator's edit / criticism has been the consolidation of the "Gameplay" paragraphs and sections. I'm a huge fan of Jakob Nielsen and I would totally prefer a "web style" that's friendly to skimmers. But we're swimming against the current at wikipedia. AndonicO told us the paragraphs and sections were too short. So did Krator. Every recent featured article has consisted of larger sections. I'd like to get this article to GA status, so we have to be prepared to accept this kind of consolidation.

That said, I don't think Krator consolidated information in the most sensible way. I tried to fix a few things, and I can live with some of these mega-sections. But the one I can't really live with is "Empire Management" being a combination of "technology" and "economic constraints". I think there's enough tech tree stuff to support its own section. As for the "constraints" paragraph, I think that's suitable for inclusion under the "complexity" section, and flows nicely after we mention that "4X games are often designed with a complex set of game rules". Alternatively, the "constraints" paragraph could become part of a new section about the economy in general. I'm thinking outloud, here.

Also, I had a few other quick questions here: Talk:4X#Finish_Up.3F. Just wrap-up kind of stuff. We can do this! Randomran (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. I see the other article, and I actually prefer the format you've come across. I'm going to try to find some middle ground between what Krator did and what we had until that point. If you need a break, I understand. But if nothing else, you can check in with a comment. I'm worried the article will get dragged away without a little pressure from the opposite end. (If that makes sense.) Randomran (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Yeah, I guess I'm saying that with all the suggestions coming in, this article could get pulled in the wrong direction. That's why it's useful to have another opinion who knows the genre well, and who knows this article inside and out. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unfortunately. Just good old fashioned consensus building. Randomran (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on the "spin-off" page. I'm creating a NASA Spinoff page, and would love suggestions, esp regarding pictures and formatting. This Wiki stuff is darn time consuming! --AM: Contact Spinoff office with questions. (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move away - you ask my permission too much! If any of your edits bother me, rest assured I'll be the first to let you know (-;

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what was the "techincal query" needing resolution for Template:Annotated image? The one in your sandbox is looking pretty good to me! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be resolved - I edited your sandbox and it looks okay, but I've not tested it thoroughly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 10:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]