Nifboy

Hi there User:Nifboy:Nifboy, I noticed you added information about the puppet stuff to the Homestar Runner article. You may or may not be aware of the Homestar Runner wiki (http://hrwiki.org) which has a lot of detailed information and transcripts (such as its own resources on the Hrwiki:Puppet Stuff). Because there are so many links and pages about homestar runner there, I've been trying to figure out exactly what the relevant things to put on Wikipedia are. It's tough because Wikipedia won't allow advertising for non-wikimedia partners, so a lot of fans will notice how much could be put into the articles. Maybe you have an opinion to contribute to the Talk:Homestar Runner? Anyway, just soliciting some opinions from people who have edited the article lately... Metaeducation 15:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as advertizing if the site is a valuable and relatively reliable source of information. I mean, National Geographic isn't a Wikimedia partner, but nobody would quibble over whether or not that would be a good link to include (if there were one from National Geographic, I mean). Runa27 01:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can you give a valid reason why you and your friends from Comixpedia continue to edit out an example of a 3d webcomic? That comic happens to be a 3d comic and I noticed there were no examples in the article. I added it as an example of a 3d webcomic. I would hate to think you are all claiming ownership over an article in Wikipedia which is open to edits and improvements. I might feel the need to consider reporting your over edits as abuse of wikipedia.org User:141.155.205.74 05:41, November 7, 2005

Because it reads like an advertisement (or vanity), the comic in question has no article, just a link directly to the comic, and the webcomic article doesn't have examples of clip art, pixel art, or photographed webcomics, despite there being more notable examples that already have articles. And, really, you ought to be posting this on the article's talk page. Nifboy 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for helping revert it. I am still new to Wiki and I did not expect to start off an edit war. I hope you realize that I do not mean any offense with any edits although sometimes people taking edits or changes personally can occur... --Kainee 05:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your webcomics VfD thought. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:50, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

Shouldn't Nintendo Research & Development 1 be merged with Intelligent Systems? They are the same group, right? And were they still known as R&D1 when they created Metroid: Zero Mission? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

No, they are not the same thing, and have not been the same thing for two decades. Intelligent Systems was a team that split off from R&D1 in 1986. R&D1 was still a dev team for Nintendo up until this year, when it was merged with EAD. Nifboy 02:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. The info on IGN confirms this. The Intelligent Systems article needs to be corrected, then, because it states that IS is simply a different name for R&D1. I'll try to fix it and expand the IS article a bit. I'll look for any other Nintendo games that are misattributed to Intelligent Systems. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 07:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This URL below hold many of the Legend of Zelda comics and manga-novelizations of the games, which were translated.

http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=manga

I have built a script to speed up voting on AFDs and am looking for feedback. Please have a go! jnothman ^talk 03:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, I thought you should know that there's a bit of discussion about one of your reverts over on my talk page: User_talk:Dragonfiend#Repeated_editing_of_Webcomics (Also: I appreciate all the work I've seen you doing on various webcomics articles!) Dragonfiend 02:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

never mind, I see you got one, too. Dragonfiend 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Appreciate the thought, though. Nifboy 06:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This gave me a much-needed laugh, things have gotten all to serious of late. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• God, This whole thing has had "INTARWEB DRAMA" pasted all over it since then. I usually keep my snarky comments to myself but I hit post on that one before I could reconsider. Nifboy 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hey mate,
You were a little brutal with the archiving. In particular, you took out several people's opinions on syndication. If you'll look over last time I did it, I provided some summarised blurbs on what had gone before. If you don't feel like doing this (because it's a pain in the arse, I know) let me know and I'll do it again. Otherwise we end up saying a lot of the same things over again.
brenneman^(t)(c) 09:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

My experience has been that we say a lot of the same things over again anyway. Although I do confess the archiving wasn't "brutal" so much as it was "lazy trimming," i.e. simply cutting out all but the most recent discussions. I'll see what I can do. Nifboy 13:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I had no idea, either. I kept following lists and categories and they just poured out of the woodwork. A lot of them were marginal, sure, but there were several significant comics as well. I think we've got most of them, now, but who knows how many are out there that have no cats, aren't stubbed, aren't linked to, aren't on any lists, and aren't wikified at all. In a million articles, they might as well have slipped into a black hole. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 04:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes I think of Wikipedia as a black hole of information. Nine times out of ten you see only what you want to, the other 10% is Random Page. Nifboy 05:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Referring to the fact that 400 articles at Comixpedia are marked as Wikipedia imports, I know what that means. That 400 people decided not to bother with keeping the article here, and decided to put it on Comixpedia's Wiki instead. That's four hundred lost articles (and probably writers), right there! If Wikipedia were a company, that would equal 400 (now 401) lost customers. Seeing as there are only about six thousand webcomics out there, that's about a 7% loss. Take away the less active comics out of that 6,000, and it's more like a 30% loss- something most companies can't afford. I'm not just saying this out of the imminent loss of my comic's article at Wikipedia (which is ALSO a Comixpedia article that is an import), but for the dozens that have been deleted over the past several weeks and months.--Videowizard2006 02:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edit: It has come to my attention that close to 500 articles at Comixpedia are marked, and not all of the comics listed there were deleted from here. But I'm still sure a lot of them are. Enough to still be a loss that most companies can't afford. I want to propose a new Webcomic Standard to end all this fighting and deletionist activity. As WCs are often difficult to verify, I've reduced somewhat the importance of verification. If the info comes from a webcomic site (even those hosted by free companies) that has been along long enough (six months), and can be verified by viewing the site, then that should qualify. If it comes from a forum, it must contain at least 20 posts from users other than the author. That's all for verification! --Videowizard2006 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Back in my box now. Eventually, at some far distant point in the future when robots rule the earth people realise that David Letterman isn't funny anymore, I'll have fully gotten my temper in check. Thank you.
brenneman^{T}{L} 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I know that sometimes we're blind to our own weaknesses, and I trust your judgment. I therefor give you carte blanche to strike through or remove outright any comments of mine that you think are out of line on the Project page. I suggest this because if you see something and kill it before it gets responded to, it might help to avoid any further cycle of nastyness. I'll still do my best to be nice, of course.
brenneman^{T}{L} 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Zero wanted a consensus on that. Your input would be appreciated.--Dangerous-Boy 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! As one of those work works on deadend pages and knows about computer/video games I wonder if you could look at these two articles? The first is currently a deadend on PROD and second is a proposed Merge. Some expert cleanup would be appreciated! Thanks Cje 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, yeah..umm, what exactly did you mean by "Fixing cat" on your last edit of this article? Where did I go wrong? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just wanted to know your opinion on my last page I submitted on the Sega Exodus...whether you felt it was okay, or needed imporvement, or whatever. PS - Do you think it would be okay to add in links to ROM images to certain games for Sega, etc.? Is it allowed? — Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just a note about the webcomic I added to the list before your edit - I was just on my way writing an article about it, maybe I should have done that first before adding it to the list. Still, it's good to know that someone is looking out for the page, editing it mere seconds after I uploaded it (no, I'm not "offended", I'm actually glad).

You seem to be supporting the medium here on wikipedia, which I think is really important - I'm new here but I hope to do something similar with other "elements of popular culture" that people seem to avoid mentioning because of their supposed lack of artistic merit... I just edited the video games article for example to include the recent BAFTA official announcement that made the whole British gaming community proud...

Still, it's great to see that there's others here that do the same. That's the point of wikis after all, they're beyond "cultural snobbery" and reflect the views of the actual users who care enough about the articles.

Kudos from me at least.

Just an FYI: Illiad does, with rare and obvious exceptions, draw each and every strip. Since I know him personally, I know that he's an honourable guy and doesn't pull the crap that you inaccurately accuse him of. In fact, I've heard him deride other artists who do this.

So, perhaps before making these false accusations, you should know of what you speak. --Kickstart70·Talk 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

My complete apologies...I, of course, retract what I said. The anonymous user is the idiot. Sorry...blame it on me being tired and not paying attention. --Kickstart70·Talk 05:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't saying no references at all should be ok, I was referring to the fact that many articles have inline external links which are actually acceptable according to the link you gave me. Since there is no standard for references and footnotes even in FA land my question was designed to figure out whether good articles should be specifying the references format more specifically. As it is specified at the minute external references would be acceptable. They do allow a reader to perform independent fact checking even if the format is not perfect. The GA criteria should spell out clearly what is acceptable and what is not. Cheers SeanMack 06:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I take your point, and agree with yourself and the editor who removed the 2 articles before I added the References sections. I've actually put the template {{unreferenced}} into pages before rather than nominate them. My overall point though is that I think we could be a bit more explicit and helpful to editors in what exactly is expected for this criterion. The CITE page isn't the easiest chunk of information to digest. The most important outcome is that the facts of an article can be easily verified, and if there is a simple task list for people, my hope is that these things can be taken care of quickly, so that reviewers can spend more time checking the quality of articles rather than having to get the boilerplate correct. Cheers SeanMack 09:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Out of curiosity, do you think this article, Suikinkutsu should be marked as good, given the state of it's citing references? I have a feeling we may need to weed out some of the good articles already in the list... Cheers SeanMack 11:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've nominated the workshop for the WP:GCOTW. Hopefully we can get some input from the Wikiproject and finally get this thing going. JACOPLANE 14:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy. Since you're a Wikipedian and also a member of Bisqwit's site, I'd like to direct your attention to the tool-assisted speedrun article, which I would like to do an improvement drive for this weekend. I'll personally be editing it heavily to try to bring it up to the status of good article, but I'll need the help of good editors who know a lot about the phenomenon. It would be great if you could help out! The talk page contains some information that you could get started with. In case you're up for some editing, see you there! —Michiel Sikma, 06:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't re-read the Good Article page recently. I've been waiting for someone to make a references page before I relisted the page as a good article, but completely forgot that the pictures need references, too. Got a little ahead of myself, my apoligies. Sonic3KMaster 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you brought up a discussion on the WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy. I suggest that you join it, I think it would be nice to have more people aboard. Icelandic Hurricane #12 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for your Peer Review feedback. It'll be taken into account in the next edits. Ryu Kaze 22:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, if you don't mind, could you give the page another look? I've taken all your suggestions into account (except for dropping the gameplay sub-headers, though I might still do that or something similar). Thanks for the suggestions. Ryu Kaze 00:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that I nominated Super Smash Bros. to be a good article. What I meant to do was nominate Super Smash Bros. Melee, but I am on dial-up from this location and was pissed at the speed... Alvin6226 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that last bit, removing past vandalism gets tricky after a few legitimate edits. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 10:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up my redirects. Maurreen 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Remember me, I requested a Peer Review for Fan fiction? Well, I've made some tweaks to the organizational structure (though not much to the writing itself, though somebody else may have in the interim). What do you think? Improved a bit, at least as far as organization goes? Runa27 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

You reverted SSBM so fas7.71.225.139.105 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for nominating all those VAs for WP:V0.5N, to give us some things to get our teeth into! If there are others like yourself, we might get several thousand articles on this CD! Thanks Walkerma 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you moved some stuff to a gaming wiki. There is a lot more blitzball content at Wikibooks, which will be deleted soon. We have been moving it to FF Wiki but you are more than welcome to get it fo the gaming wiki you mentioned Renmiri 22:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to probably split off the character information to List of Chrono Cross characters, since 90% of those links lead to that page anyhow. Anyway, just in case you haven't seen the CT peer review section lately, what would you assess Chrono Trigger as in its current state? I'm thinking the rom hacking / fan translation thing can be shortened into one brief paragraph, while the prerelease can similarly be made concise. --Zeality 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your adding of "mid-importance" to The Sims. Critics consider it a revolutionary game, and its either the top or within the top selling PC games of all time. What are you basing that on?--Crossmr 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Nifboy. I'll be bold the next time!  :-) Gnorn 19:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I just noticed you left a "B-Class" assessment for the F.E.A.R. article. I'm working with other users to enhance the quality of this article and (hopefully) bring it to FA level: if you have some time to spare, could you please send me (or post on the F.E.A.R. talk page) a list of things that should be enhanced/added/changed to bring the article to a higher status? Thank you. Berserker79 10:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Nifboy. I've been thinking about a slightly different way to apply your idea to 1.0. You might be interested in this note. Maurreen 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy. Thanks for rating The Last Express, albeit as "Start". I now know that I need to do some serious work on the article, and I thank you for alerting me to that. I noticed in your edit summary you said, "a bit too editorial". Could you possibly elaborate and provide a few examples (just so I get the general idea)? Thanks! Green451 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. I'll get right on it! Green451 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eh, I fiddled with it a bit. It doesn't "float" anymore. What do you think..? -Randall Brackett 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You added a tag to Shadow Man (video game) a while back that it needs to distinguish betweenf act and fiction. Could you please elaborate on the talk page what's wrong with the current version? Ace of Sevens 00:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!

To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.

I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.

You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.

Thanks a lot,

--Jaw101ie 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, I stumbled onto this article last night and began doing a little editting (I'm a noob contributor), and I've noticed you put up the wikify/edit box on the article. I'm at a loss as to whether it's acceptable for me to try and rewrite this article and cut through the game guide guff, or whether I should back off and see if someone transwikis it all. My line of thinking was "well it's just getting more creep in the form of little sentences which are pure game guide, nobody seems too bothered about transferring it or making the article good". Is that bad faith on my part? I'd really appreciate some advice if you've got the time, rather than blindly flailing about with the article and getting reverted back to nada. Thanks. QuagmireDog 14:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for such a quick response. Since I'm not bang out of line doing so, I'm going to start recycling the guide material into something which is hopefully not as bad, allowing more capable editors to do something with the results. Cheers. QuagmireDog 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy - thanks very much for your prompt response. I'll begin working on it in the morning. Ck lostsword|^queta! 21:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, would you be able to look over the computer game FAs at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_FA_Review#Sport and games? We'll try to get help with the sports articles, if that's not up your alley. I'm hoping we can tie up the loose ends on that section by Thursday - is that possible? Thanks! Walkerma 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Did you pass by Final Fantasy 8 and Final Fantasy X-2 for a reason, or did you not know they were featured? — Deckiller 15:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your help so far on the MapleStory page. I really like this game, so I have trouble deleting information from it. Your comments help put things in perspective :). -- Prod-You 00:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good luck changing anything on that page, every time I tried it got reverted by anon IPs (which I traced to Belgium, although that might mean exactly nothing) shas 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are horrible! Thanks to you linking to that "N" game on your page, my little bit of remaining productivity has just been reduced to zero. :P *plays some more* --Sid 3050 17:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help, I've responded on the talk page. · AO ^Talk 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm now officially treading in deep waters; question on the talk page. Thanks. · AO ^Talk 19:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I think I did them correctly. Is that fine? · AO ^Talk 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where can I find the discussion of updating the B-class grading criteria? Please post reply to: Template talk:Grading scheme#Proposal to update B-class criteria. 38.100.34.2 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you please tell me where the discussion for merging Pianta into Super Mario Sunshine is/was and show me if it was deleted? Thanks. Henchman 2000 18:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Restored, thanks. NawlinWiki 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am going to assume that this was a mistake. Could you please fix it? Corvus cornix 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess you're not around, so I've gone ahead and readded my comments. Corvus cornix 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am confused about this edit was Illinois Institute of Technology ever a WP:GAC? On what basis was it promoted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:MutantHockeyTitle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 11:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reallifecomic.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 12:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Bobgame1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. β^_command 21:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For commenting on World War II Online, I didn't even see the search capability at the Playnet forums. I did several searches but did not find the specific links. I couldn't see any posts that were older than 2006 (or 2005 when I checked the Archive). I'm still skeptical but at least I have another place to look. Awotter (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Reallifecomic.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on G-Mode, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because G-Mode is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting G-Mode, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I assume you have your list page on your watchlist, but fyi if you didn't notice, it's done. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you be a little more specific about how to pull up redirects/deleted articles still tagged with Project banners? I tried to follow your description here but ... — TAnthony^Talk 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

How's this? Nifboy (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you! It was step 7 where I had the problem, I didn't realize the Logs function existed ;) — TAnthony^Talk 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yea, there's a few odd, lurking features of AWB. Nifboy (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, instead of skipping the redirects and loging them as such, AWB seems to be following the redirect and logging the destination. For example, for Frank Barlow (Coronation Street) it logged List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)#Frank Barlow as "no change" and didn't log the redirected article at all. I believe I have everything checked as you say, #REDIRECT entered in "Contains" etc. — TAnthony^Talk 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Aha, OK, the instruction about making sure "Bypass redirects is off" was missing from your sandbox instructions. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per [1], can you tell me the steps to do that? I have AWB installed, but have never got it to work for redirected pages previously. (It would be helpful for my User:Sgeureka/Episodes, although I haven't merged all articles there yet.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Earthworm Jim 2 lvl1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Pvp5cover.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just as an FYI, I have nominated Megatokyo to be the Today's Featured Article here. :) BOZ (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Any game, move, book having multiple installments and spin-off's has a series article since Vector Man has a sequel and will eventually have more installments, it is best to have a series article for it. I did redirect the route so if any one was searching for VectorMan1 they would automatically reach VectorMan1 in the series article.

I did post my idea in the talk page and I think it is best that all series should have a series article, that is what I plan on doing for alot of franchises that still lack a main article.--Cube b3 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, tell you what i'll minimize the Vectorman 1 & 2 articles with only essential information and then make a series article? You can do that as well?

--Cube b3 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice Work on the HeadHunter merging, I'll do the Vectorman. I really appreciate you taking the time to give me all the pointers, by the way my name is Bilal, I am a Wikipedia from Pakistan.

Thanks again--Cube b3 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am newbie at Wikipedia, and I am not really sure how things work here. In the Dungeon Keeper 1/2 section I saw other old fansites listed under the External links tab, so I tought I can add my own there, as it has useful articles and rare downloads.

If I misunderstood something, or I did something wrong, please explain me at my talk page. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katzzozi ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzzozi (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. :) I don't know if it would be too much trouble to go back and check, but I have added several articles for games debuting throughout 1980s over the past couple of months. If you're going for being a completist, in all likelihood I may have put some things up that you have reviews for. :) (See the first thread on the WP:VG talk page if you want to see my progress report.) If you're not worried about that, then you may catch some of the ones I added as you make your way through 1989 and on, and I have a bit of a head start on you at the moment anyway. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whew - I've only got 8 issues from 1993 left to go! I've been motoring. Granted, I've got the entirety of the "Eye of the Monitor" column to do, but I think I will take some time off after finishing "The Role of Computers". :) BOZ (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Six Sigma Pricing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Damiens.rf 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd gotten so worked up with Jinnai that I'd forgotten why I'd really wanted to use the infobox there in the first place. If I had I probably spelled that out better in the edit summary this might've worked out a lot faster...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, does that mean you support 220–250px? Tony (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it means I support leaving it at 180 and I don't really care if it goes up to 200-220. I've edited my oppose to that effect.Nifboy (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy. I wasn't sure by the end if you supported keeping a guideline to include reviews in EL, or if you are quite happy to have them treated the same as other sources. If you could pop over to: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Should_reviews_be_specifically_considered_as_external_links.3F and say if you support or oppose removing the guideline. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's not a matter of weather or not the content text looks strange or not. It's a matter of not having enough space in the column because it does not have enough space in the column. Some browsers (or monitors) have enough room to display. Maybe yours does not. If we have a title that was 20 words long, would you say the same thing?174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

If it looks like a sheer wall of text, then I think your looking at the page for the sake of looking at the page. When we write articles, we write articles that say something, not because it looks nice.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's an opinion, and it doesn't help the article. Also, I turned my resolution to your specs and it looks fine.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I read the article you linked, and this case is not the same as that. We have information comparing kanji, english, romanji, and descriptions. Information must be tabulated clearly.174.3.111.148 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I disagree with you. I've read the page, like I said, and it still does not apply to Touhou. If you look at the page history, at least one other editor agrees with the table. If you have concerns with the wp:table, then discuss on the talk page. Like I said, I did not write it to vandalize.174.3.111.148 (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I want to let you know it is rude to call people IPs. In the case we are both in, we are both editors. Do not call me an IP because it seems like you are trying to defame me. I want this to be a warning: if this comes up again, I will seek resolution media.174.3.111.148 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, you said "an IP". You never had and never will (but maybe now you do) intention of being humanly respectful.174.3.111.148 (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

No there are no sociological repercussion for registration, and that's a blatant offense. You even admit it. Cease and desist!23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.111.148 (talk)

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. 174.3.111.148 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note the above IP made a report on you at the AN3 board, which was quickly dismissed here [2]. Dayewalker (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You've also made it to WQA: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Inflamatory Comments. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just ignore him and keep being civil. Eventually he'll figure it out. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned that the Romanji is just the run in with the English backwards. Could you explain?174.3.111.148 (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good one - this one had been deleted via PROD at one point, but we have now given it two reviews to demonstrate at least a sort of minimum for notability. :) BOZ (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your reply is requested at Wikipedia_talk:When_to_use_tables#Change_On_Guideline174.3.102.6 (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Nifboy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your input is required. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 51 supports, 4 opposes, and 3 neutrals.

MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for redirecting that!! Buckshot06 (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just doing my job. Nifboy (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

my intention was not to stop the merger, but to infact make certain because the series spans multiple media that the information was not inmpoperly redirected without preserving relevant information of which there is a lot of it to warrant not an outright redirect.陣内_Jinnai 20:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tokimeki Memorial 4, Tokimeki Memorial Girl's Side, and Tokimeki Memorial Girl's Side: 2nd Kiss already have character lists that are more complete than the ones on the list, which is why I didn't copy anything to those pages. Unless you want me to copy the kanji (which I don't feel is at all necessary) there's nothing to add to those pages. Nifboy (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the kanji isn't already used, it should be copied as it is expected for any feature article since the work was originally published in Japan.陣内_Jinnai 21:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for removing the how-to. You are correct. It was covered even in more depth on help:table.174.3.98.236 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

The current version of the guideline has be reverted. I hope you can help me gather consensus on the disputed versions of the guideline.174.3.98.236 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know what this was all about: User:Paradoctor#The_Literature Nice to see I'm not alone. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Nifboy. You have new messages at Ipatrol's talk page.
Message added 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Ipatrol (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for patiently allowing us (those of us in favor of a WP:Research like thing) to pick apart your criticisms. I'm confident that through coming to an understanding, we can make whatever comes of WP:Research much better for Wikipedia. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Freefall (webcomic). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freefall (webcomic). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think this idea is very good. If this is the idea you had when suggesting the trial run, I apologize for my thick skull. Thanks for sticking around. Your patience with us research folk continues to be invaluable. --EpochFail^(talk|work) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a contributor to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters, you may be interested to know I have renominated this article for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neglected Mario Characters (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this needs more changes? Or is there a other reason why you don't support it ? I would like to work to address community issues Gnevin (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm still turning it over in my head. I'll probably post something later this weekend, now that my immediate concerns have been addressed. Nifboy (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks. Gnevin (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Talk:Dope Wars. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. don't Rat 20:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinator (talk • contribs)

Please can you stop removing WikiProject banners from talk pages of redirects? Quite a lot of projects like to keep track of redirects within their scope. (See Category:Redirect-Class articles.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{vgproj}} doesn't support redirect-class, and I use Category:Video game articles by quality as the basis for my sweeps, so the collateral damage should be reduced to mixed-scope redirects that haven't been changed from Stub-Class or whatever other class the article was. Of the pages I removed banners from today, only Talk:Ghost in the Shell: Megatech Body had a redirect-class banner on it, which I've since reinstated the two banners that do support it. Nifboy (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. I think it might be safer to only remove {{vgproj}} banners in future. In some cases (e.g. Talk:Return of the Invaders) articles are redirected but the assessment ratings are not updated at the same time. So just because a redirect is not tagged with |class=redirect does not mean the project does not use Redirect-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I never knew there was an AFC project, and I can see why AFC would specifically want a redirect-class, in contrast to other projects for which every article with a redirect would have those redirects be "within scope" and thus impossible to make any sense of. Nifboy (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, I got your name from the Editorial Team participant list, and I think you had expressed some previous interest in the project. I wanted to tell you that we will be testing out assessment metrics in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nifboy, welcome to the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team. I am excited to get started, the discussion of project details will be on the WP:USPP/Assessment Talk page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team. There is a request for you to review some articles and a description of assessment logistics on the WP:USPP Assessment Page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, thank you for assessing articles in the Wikiproject: United States Public Policy. This project is probably different than other assessment drives you have worked on, it involves more assessment of lower ranked articles, it has input and staff from the foundation, and specific goals to improve and measure content of public policy articles. It also involves collaboration from some university classes, we are using an experimental assessment rubric, and most articles will be assessed by multiple reviewers to get a range of scores for each article. I have learned a lot from many of the assessors comments (you left really detailed notes, thanks!) and am really excited about the insight from this group of Wikipedians. I hope you are finding some benefits to involvement in this project. 1) your assessments are part of research that is attempting to increase credibility of Wikipedia in academic circles, 2) there is a great group of assessors involved in discussion of what is article quality and how to measure it, 3) WP:USPP is also piloting the Article Feedback tool, so if interested, those involved in assessment on the project will be asked to help improve and rate this tool as well, and 4) subject matter experts are assessing articles alongside Wikipedians and comparisons of results will provide some insight as to the rigor of Wikipedia quality rating.

To give you an update on assessment, about half of the assessments are complete for the first part of this first assessment. I had some trouble finding public policy experts to join us in assessing, but finally managed to recruit a group last week, hopefully some of them will join the discussion on the assessment talk page. Next week, I should have some preliminary results to share with you, I will also post the second assessment request very soon. The discussion on the talk page is very exciting, and I hope if you are interested, you will provide input on the Article Feedback Tool which is being piloted on articles in WP:USPP. Please let me know if there is anything I and the project team can do to make working on this project a more positive experience. Thanks again, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for contributing to WP:USPP, your assessments are a part of a deeper look at assessing article quality in Wikipedia. The quality and rationality behind the assessment scores by the Wikpedians on this project is really impressive, it is an insightful and knowledgeable group. There is some information about preliminary results of assessment data on the project assessment talk page, I hope you check it out and add your thoughts. There is also an additional article assessment request for you. This assessment set will wrap up the first experiment which analyzes the consistency of the quantitative metric and compares subject matter expert assessment to Wikipedian assessment.

The second experiment will start in November and you will be asked to assess articles and also provide feedback on the Article Feedback Tool. The results of that experiment will compare your idea of article quality to the ranking from the Article Feedback Tool and your input will help improve that tool. I hope you enjoy being a part of this research, I am pretty excited about the results so far, and am looking forward to continuing to work with you on assessment. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This message is just to tell your assessments are awesome and thanks, Nifboy. Your contributions are very appreciated. (Your comments on the Public Citizen article cracked me up - that was great, very succinct.) There will be weekly updates about the research for this project posted here, look for the first one tomorrow. The next assessment request will come in early November. There is a lot of expertise and discussion about article quality happening in the project, so stay tuned. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy! Since Amy Roth's out on maternity leave, I'm pushing out the next round of assessments she needs. This time, we're comparing your assessment to readers' assessments. And instead of us assigning you articles, we're letting you pick! The full list of topics is on a subpage of the Assessment tab on our WikiProject. Please choose 10 of the articles to assess. Use the link in the section title to go to the appropriate version of the article.

Also, as a thank you for all your help, I'd like to send you a small package of Wikipedia swag. Please email me your address.

Please let me know if you have any questions! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy! Thanks so much for your help on the Public Policy Initiative assessments. I really appreciate all your help -- we'll be in great shape when Amy gets back, thanks to all of your efforts! The next round of assessments is ready for you to review. Like the previous round, please pick 10 of the articles to review from the list, and it's especially critical that you use the version I've linked to for these.

This round measures the baseline quality of articles before our students started working on them. Many of these articles have undergone drastic revision already, so it may not be useful to leave comments about them on the talk pages. We'll be asking you to review the same set of articles once students have finished them too, so please be sure you're using the links provided so you're getting the versions immediately prior to when the students made their first edits. Ideally, these assessments should be completed by December 1.

I anticipate this taking a lot less time than previous rounds, as many of these articles are quite short. If you have extra time and want to help, please go back to round two and do a few more assessments -- especially on any articles that have only one or two assessments completed. I need a minimum of three assessments for each article, and some of the articles farther down the list still need attention.

Once again, thanks so much for your help and let me know if I can clarify anything at all! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, just wanted to ping you on this again -- there are only a few left to assess, so I don't even need you to do 10, even 2-3 would be awesome. Any chance you can get to the assessments this week? Thanks! --Ldavis (Public Policy) (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I kind of dropped off the map this month - new job, new city, etc etc. I haven't had a whole lot of time or energy to convert prose into numbers. Nifboy (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Nifboy, for all your work assessing articles with WP:USPP over the past few months. I will have some results to report to the assessment team in January. The next semester should be pretty exciting there are over 25 university classes signed up with the project. Your input is helping to gauge how successful the project is, not just at improving the quality of public policy articles, but at incorporating Wikipedia as a teaching tool and recruiting and retaining college students as editors. We still need you in 2011, but it will mostly be assessments of student articles. Currently, there is another round of assessments to look at the improvements students made to their articles. If possible please assess by 5 January 2011; these results will be presented at an international conference later in January! Have a wonderful holiday season, all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a discussion going on here intended to rename the Doctor Robotnik article to the Dr. Eggman article.--SexyKick 23:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, thanks NifBoy, I am in awe of the work the assessment team did for this project. The results from the quantitative metric assessments were amazing, really. Check out what your work shows about Wikipedia article quality - I think it’s exciting, but you’ve probably figured out by now that I’m a bit of a nerd. A summary is posted on the Assessment page and a report will be on the Outreach wiki.
I see you are not as active as you used to be, if you get inspired I hope you will check out what's happening on WP:USPP there's lots of exciting stuff, and we still need assessors if you're at all interested. Especially if you get a chance the Student post articles needs assessments, so please do a couple if you can; articles toward the bottom have only 1 or none assessments. I know some of the material is pretty dry, but this assessment is the most important one for the fall semester and this assessment will be the primary method of showing article quality to the project grant funder. So please do a couple if you possibly can. HUGE Thanks - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy, Your work assessing article quality is really valuable and generated some excellent results from fall semester. The assessment process has been streamlined and dates are clearly posted for the upcoming assessment rounds. The Initiative has a lot more classes signed up for spring, so I would like to recruit some more Wikipedian assessors, and I was hoping you could help with that. I think community members would be more likely to participate if they are recruited by Wikipedians like yourself who have a good reputation. The strategy that worked last semester was to leave an individual message on the talk pages of non-adversarial Wikipedians. I looked for people by contributions to public policy related articles and those active on the 1.0 Editorial Team. I usually mentioned in the message what specifically about their work history made me think they would be a good assessment team participant. This is super time consuming to contact like 50 people, but only doing a few is not so bad. Also, I am looking for feedback about assessing with PPI, so please check out the discussion on the assessment tab, and let me know there if you have a chance to recruit some other assessors. I hope you are looking forward to another great semester working on this project. Drop me a line - ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the fictional characters WikiProject, we're discussing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters, about whether it should be deleted/merged/redirected/made into a bridge task foce between WP:FCHAR and WP:VG/etc. You might be interested. Harry Blue5 (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Characters during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk) 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi Nifboy,
I hope you are active enough to assess with WP:USPP, because A new assessment round is posted. This round is mostly starts and stubs, so evaluation should be really quick. WP:USPP Assessment 2.1
The Public Policy Initiative is super exciting this term. The topics are really interesting this term and the student's are producing some really good quality content. Recent numbers indicate that our project is actually contributing a significant amount of content to Wikipedia. There is a group of about 20 subject matter experts who are assessing, but the Wikipedians are so consistent, that I really need your scores to measure article quality.
On another note, are you going to Wikimania? I am looking for people to co-present with, so let me know if you are! Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

hi Nifboy,
If you are still active, another assessment round is posted. This round is the follow-up to the previous assessment, so it should reflect some big improvements to the articles. WP:USPP Post Assessment 2.1 We would love to have you on WP:USPP.
There is a group of about 25 subject matter experts who are assessing, and last week I sent them a tutorial video on how to leave comments on talk pages. So if you see any newcomers on the discussion pages, please help me welcome them.
The assessors are doing a really amazing job, in fact, here at WMF, we are using your ratings as the “gold standard” to test the Article Feedback Tool and see how well it works. I will be presenting lots of research in the coming months. Best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thanks Nifboy for your work assessing articles.

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

hi Nifboy, Your assessment work is appreciated. if you have the time I hoe you will join WP:USPP for the last 2 assessment rounds of the spring. all the best, ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Had you noticed this has reopened? I only did today. I stopped looking in after discussion faded away. Now I've put it on my watchlist. I've just checked and find the preceding one was opened just over two years ago and has still not been closed and archived. Peter jackson (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MutantHockey001.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MutantFootball1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Quackshot mexico.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Bang! Howdy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject,  . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Banaticus (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading File:MutantFootballTitle.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ShiningDarkness1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Sluggybook1.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SuperHydlide001.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Social issue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social issue until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 08:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Nifboy,
WP:VG's Newsletter department is looking for editors to interview for our Featured Editor column, and your name has come up in discussions during previous quarters as a likely candidate. From your edit history it is apparent that you are not currently as active an editor as you once were, and it's completely understandable if you don't have the time to be interviewed any more. But if possible, we'd love to hear your story from you.
The interview consists of some 15 questions that you can answer however you like and which you can tinker with up until the newsletter is published. Our hope is to have a small number of interviewees cued up for upcoming Featured Editor columns so your interview would most likely appear in a future issue. You can review previous interview questions here to get a sense of the kinds of questions you would be asked. If you see this note, please let me know at my talk page if you would be willing to answer some questions for the Newsletter. Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just letting you know the above article has been prodded. (not by me). 86.165.116.166 (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of 8-Bit Theater characters‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge Builder, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Builder (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect .hack Character Classes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#.hack Character Classes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. JsfasdF252 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Characters of 8-Bit Theater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of 8-Bit Theater (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply