User talk:Dancter/Archive 4

Removal of SD for Semi-hardcore gamer
Thanks for your input on this matter. However, I have restored this tag based on the following:


 * By the author's own admission on the Articles for deletion/Semi-hardcore gamer page, this article is to serve as a platform for his viewpoint and a showcase for his IGN game collection. These, I believe, are proper reasons to request an SD under A7.
 * Simply because an AfD exists on a topic doesn't mean it's improper to request an SD.
 * The topic in question has no notable sources and inherently can't be improved as a result.

In the end, I've always felt it best to let an admin make the judgment call in regards to taking down an SD tag, since they are generally better qualified to make that decision than the average editor. If you like, feel free to discuss this on my talk page, but I ask that you leave the tag in place until it can be properly reviewed.

Thanks! :-) Sidatio 14:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd prefer keeping the discussion here, where it was started. I expressed that I felt the speedy-tagging was out-of-process, and focused on the original content and the creator (who seems to be trying to address the issues in his subsequent edits), rather than the actual subject (the notability of which is best discussed at the AfD discussion already in progress). Plus, as difficult as he's been, I would prefer not to deny Renegadeviking a chance to discuss the issue and improve the article further, on the off-chance that he can be made into a better, more constructive contributor. Dancter 15:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can hold the discussion anywhere you like - I just think it's good manners to offer to host. :-)


 * I suppose it's semantic as to whether or not there's an actual speedy tag on the article, especially since all aspects of the vanity claim have since been removed. On the subject of whether or not something is "out-of-process" - I respect your opinion, but I feel that it would be more prudent to discuss removal of such a tag with the person who placed it before arbitrarily removing it, especially if the offending material is still in place at the time (which it was in this case). Now, if said material was removed, then sure, remove it by all means - there's no reason to waste an admin's time with a non-issue. However, I'm of the opinion that, should the article qualify for a speedy deletion under the criteria, it should be the admin who decides whether or not the material actually warrants deletion or not without discussing it with the nominator first. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter - I was just expressing mine to you in this case. :-) Sidatio 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I probably should've been better about discussing the tag with you directly. Part of my reasoning for the removal was that even as originally written, the article may not have met the speedy-deletion criteria. I consider this similar to a mistake I made at an AfD several months ago; where I recommended a deletion based mostly on the content rather than the subject, which I didn't research sufficiently. Especially considering the growing concerns which have led to initiatives such as the Article Rescue Squadron, I'm trying to be more sensitive to issues surrounding deletion. I very much appreciate your comments, though. Dancter 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Response
uw-vandalism1 notice posted at User_talk:Horatiohornblowerer Dancter 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. True, that Xbox was a bit of "vandalism" but I feel like I'm ready to be a mature Wikipedia contributer.  I'm not sure I've responded to this correctly. --Horatiohornblowerer 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. It took me a little while to determine that the "Vandalism" heading (which seems a little harsh) wasn't added by me. It's understandable if you were just testing. If you need any assistance, don't be hesitant to ask me or others for help. I've left a general welcome message with some good links to help you get up to speed. Dancter 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of The Automatic band members
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Automatic band members, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Automatic band members seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Automatic band members, please affix the template 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. CSDWarnBot 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't create that article. These were the only edits I made to the page. Dancter 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dancter,
I'm sorry but my cousin whose account name is Daisiesarepretty got in to my account which is Weather72787 and used it for vandalism and is blocked indefinately like her account. She also caused my account to become a sockpuppet of her account. Is it possible if you can unblock my account? Is it also possible if can remove my accout from the sockpuppets category? Please? Thank You. Weather72787 15:37 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.223.57 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 August 2007


 * It's usually not possible to confirm that an account has been re-secured after being compromised. The fact that recent edits (presumably by you) fit the same disruptive patterns does little to indicate that an unblock would be appropriate. Dancter 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Michelle Bier
My recents edits for Princess Peach

My edits are very good and I made the brawl picute even little bigger. 70.16.136.172 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How curious that after quite some time, two of the biggest troublemakers I follow decide to leave messages on my talk page on the same day. I hope you behave yourself, now. Dancter 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's Princess Daisy's page

TTN is in trouble and he merged Princess Daisy as an article but he will get blocked. 70.16.136.172 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll find out, won't we? Won't excuse any mischief you cause, though. Dancter 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Princess Daisy in Brawl

In this fact Princess Daisy possibly will be on Super Smash Bros Brawl, but she will fight as a character. 70.16.136.172 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by. Dancter 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Flight of the Conchords - "overrun with fan material"
Hi. Could you be more specific about the material in this artical to which you have an objection? BigBadaboom0 02:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must've overlooked this message somehow. Hopefully I can get around to discuss this when I have more time. I anticipate that a discussion about this would be somewhat involved. Dancter 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Gizmo Project Gear.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gizmo Project Gear.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Buddy List
Maybe they were trying to add themselves to Wikipedia's Buddy List? -- Orange Mike 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What is this about? Dancter 19:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edit to Talk:Buddy List. -- Orange Mike 19:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I don't know quite know what else I could have done about that. Dancter 19:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you did the right thing. I was just speculating on their motiviations. -- Orange Mike 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

ChannelME.TV sites
The sites were good for the Wikipedia materials. I thought it perfectly fit the material that is why i added the site. Cant we add good sites to Wikipedia materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewlman (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sites are very new, and don't have many members or viewers yet. The sites are basically personal selections of videos from other sources, by an small and unproven group of individuals. The yogalessons.tv site consists mostly of videos from Tara Stiles and Yoga Today, and rahulgandhi.tv features videos taken from sites such as Timesnow.tv and IBNLive.com, which explicitly prohibit republishing of their content without express written permission. I doubt such permission was actually procured. You are involved with both of these sites, so there is likely to be a conflict of interest. If you've read the external links guideline and still disagree with my assessment, you can always start a discussion on the article talk pages to determine a consensus. Dancter 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thnx 4 the Mssg
Hey this is Flaminglawyer and thnx 4 the mssg it was rly nice yeh im new and i was thinkin that was some hobo tryin to vandalize wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The PlayStation 2 conflict
Hello Dancter I would just like to inform you that I do not consider your recent edits to the introductory paragraph of PlayStation 2 [that state 120 million PlayStation 2's have shipped instead of sold] to be correct. As you already know we have been involved in a conflict over this and it needs to be resolved. There is a lot of evidence that supports the PS2 selling 120 million units not shipping.

Firstly note how source http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/070920ae.html states:

"PlayStation 2 still sees steady demands particularly in North America and Europe. Reaching the remarkable milestone of the 120 millionth shipment in the 7th year from launch"

Now does it give a date of September 2007? No it doesn't. Seventh year could be any month from 2007. Claiming "with over 120 million PS2 units shipped worldwide as of September 20, 2007." is incorrect as the source does not state this.

Also it is more reliable to read a live blog/timeline updated every minute of Kaz Hirai's Keynote, then to read a summarized press release which is not directly from Hirai. Also, this was not only a PlayStation Keynote, but the Opening Keynote of TGS itself, so it would be of more importance, and Kaz Hirai proved what he was stating with graphs. Also you would think that for such a large conference they would have done some research into what their own company is achieving than just bragging about nonsense figures.

This is also the correct source for the date September 20th, 2007.

Therefore I request you to read these carefully:


 * http://tgs.gamespot.com/story.html?sid=6178841&pid=926596&tag=top_stories%3btitle%3b8
 * http://www.tiscali.co.uk/games/news/2007/07/16/nintendo-wii-can-sell-more-than-the-ps2-.html
 * http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3163163

JTBX 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer this discussion take place in the article talk page, where more of the article's active editors can participate. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I won't be able to fully respond until later. Dancter 19:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is only me and you involved in this conflict, so I find it better to sort this matter here. When you have the time, please reply. It would be conveniant to reply on my talk page. Thank you. JTBX 19:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not just you and me; editors such as Silver Edge and Theaveng also involved themselves in making changes to the statements in question. Even if we were the only two editors currently engaged in the dispute, to me this is not a personal matter of conduct or opinion, but a discussion of article content, in which other editors should be free and encouraged to participate. It is article-relevant, and not the first time there has been reverts regarding this sort of content. To address your specific points, though:
 * Live blogs are often imprecise about the things they cover, as the reporters rush to get the information out as soon as they happen. Sometimes they get the details wrong. I'm not saying that is the case here. I already mentioned that executives often play loose with the terminology when proclaiming figures, even if there is a slide presentation with graphs. I haven't seen the graphs, so if you could show me some that you believe support your case, please point me to them.
 * Corporate press releases, on the other hand, are usually much more precise in what they claim, being very deliberate in their word choices. The particular press release I cited was released almost immediately after the keynote, indicating that it was probably prepared before Hirai even made his speech. I suspect it may even have been prepared with the same notes Hirai used for his keynote. As for the whether a statement that "over 120 million PS2 units shipped worldwide as of September 20, 2007" is incorrect; it can be somewhat misleading in that it may imply a stronger connection between the figure and the date than is actually the case, but to say that is incorrect is pushing the limits of literalism, in my opinion. Especially when you are trying to make an argument that as many consoles had been sold already by that date. All the links you've provided point to articles that are casually-worded. The Tiscali article was written July 16.
 * Sony only changed to reporting consumer sales figures with its first quarter of fiscal 2007, and even then, its internal data only goes back to fiscal 2006. Before that, the internal sales figures it reported were always for production shipments. This particular dispute reminds me of several other sales figures disputes, particularly this one regarding PlayStation 3 sales. You may wish to review that for some background.
 * These aren't the only issues I have with the statements, but I'm serious about my preference that this discussion take place in the article talk page. We can discuss my reasons why here, but I would request that any further comments regarding PlayStation 2 article content be made in an article talk page thread. Dancter 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Japanese N64 games
I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't remember expressing that sentiment. I actually don't like list pages in general, so I'm wondering exactly what I wrote that indicated to you that I would be supportive of keeping the page. I'm not saying that I won't be, but could you point me to my specific comment? Also, you may want to be careful about votestacking, which could be seen as disruptive. Dancter 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User Page Move
Yeh, thnx 4 the cmmnt. i ws just doin that to see if it was possible. (probly wont happpen agin, unless done by vandals [oh no!!!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaminglawyer (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: this edit
(removed) —Random832 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I got what your change was trying to say. I still think it's confusing, and the fact that only one LED is lit up at a time should be mentioned. —Random832 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the backup on the PS2's vandalism by Wikio475 I didn't want to warn him again because I thought it would provoke him if it came from me. Thank You. -- Vdub49 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
Dancter, I have run into a dilemna. I would like to have one of those fancy signatures, but the "my preferences" thing won't take Wiki formatting, only HTML (which I know absolutely nothing of). Could you direct me to somewhere where I could learn some of this? (you can probably see my problems from my signature) &#91;&#91;user:flaminglawyer&#124;FlamingLawyer&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;user talk:flaminglawyer&#124;TLK]]&lt;/sup&gt;]] —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can help you with this, at least not at the moment. I don't use the raw signature feature, so I'm not very familiar with it. Dancter 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NES references
Good work ! Will you specify the page numbers for reference 10? Thanks. Anomie 12:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still haven't addressed the "most successful"/"best-selling" issue, but that will probably take a bit longer. Dancter 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PS2
I have reverted your edit because you did not read the source I added, its from October 26th 2007 on gamespot, and sony SOLD their 120th by the 7th anniversary of the PS2 (U.S. launch October 26th 2000) Please read the source. Thank you.JTBX 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you read many of my other comments in this long-running discussion, I made the point that the gaming media often gets these details wrong. I read the Gamespot article, and was unconvinced. The news was derived from the press release I pointed to. If you e-mail the author, I'm sure he'll confirm as much. Dancter 22:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm shifting this discussion to the article talk page. Please respond there. Dancter 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? This is confirmed, the citation before contained it in the middle of the article, but this news was written 4 days ago, and now it si CONFIRMED. NOW! JTBX 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand what I'm talking about, you either have not read all my comments in the article talk page, or do not understand them. In either case, I don't know what else that can be done on my side of the discussion. I've responded point-by-point to nearly every one of your arguments, explained myself numerous times, and yet both you and Ciao 90 seem unwilling to extend the same courtesy. If there's one I missed, point it out to me. It is irresponsible to merely parrot the statement for the average reader who will overwhelmingly assume that those sales are sales to the end consumers, when more knowledgeable people will know that this is often not the case. I'm going to leave this alone for a while, as I didn't mean to spend so much time debating this (which was for naught, anyway, considering that it's gone mostly ignored and unanswered), and have other tasks to work on. Dancter 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Link Removals: bridgerack.com
I noticed you removed a bunch of links added by. I also noticed that these links were all from the same website and all content written by the same author. You don't think that this guy is trying promote his work here do you???

Anyway... I just wanted to say good looking out.--Isotope23 talk 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he is. I left some of the interview links as possibly valuable and unique resources, but other links, such as reviews, were too brief and not substantive enough in my opinion, especially from a site that doesn't seem to have established itself. Dancter 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I see you've been talking about me! I understand that the site I'm linking to is new, but I respectfully disagree in your views. Its concise perhaps, but no less substantial.  In the David Lynch external links case, I'm a little curious as to why a poem written in Spanish presumably about a film of his would be pertinent enough to be allowable while a highly relatable theory about the man's work is not. Any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated . . . I sincerely only want to add to Wikipedia's integrity, not take away from it.--Jamesrejoyce 31 October 2007


 * I admittedly did not review every link in the articles I edited, but did what I thought would help keep the listed links as concise and informative as possible. I would be willing to review the aforementioned poem link, as well. As the list of external links in an article expands, their usefulness to the reader declines. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a comprehensive collection of links. If you wish, you can open discussions in the articles' respective talk pages, to get a better sense of community consensus regarding the value of any particular links, including yours. Wikipedia is a magnet for self-promotion, and it's likely that editors whose contributions are primarily adding external links will be subject to scrutiny. The types of links that are definitely need are those that are used as references for article content, so if any of your links could be used as reliable sources for in-text citations to verify particular facts, that would be much appreciated. More information can be found at Citing sources. Dancter 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Japanese game titles
Hi Dancter,

I noticed you removed the Japanese title from the Super Mario Galaxy article twice today. I reverted it back to include it based on precedent, but when I dug around a little more I realized there's no clear consensus on whether or not Japanese titles should be included in video game articles.

As such, I've submitted a proposal on the talk page of the video game article guidelines essentially suggesting that games developed in Japan have the title included while those developed outside of Japan be accompanied by their English title only. If you have a chance, I'd appreciate it if you would stop by and make your opinion known. Thanks! --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just to clarify, the actual reference comes from the same site, but I have to look for it. Meanwhile, I've removed the "surprise" claim and the tags. Regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Link Removals: Nabaztag
Hi, still feeling my way around Wikipedia and not sure how to start my own topic on a user talk page, my apologies for crashing this one. One of the NABAZTAG links you edited was mine ( profiled here) but my objection is mostly unselfish.

Most the links that were there are well known sites within the Nabaztag Community (community being the basis of Nabaztag), linked off its main page, featured in outside articles and part of its culture. Anyone seeking to learn about or immerse themselves in Nabaztag would likely find the links helpful/enjoyable. I did.

Personally, I pour over the external links as well as the articles when I research a topic on Wikipedia. The thoroughness of coverage is, for me, one of Wikipedia's highlights/strengths. Links allow me to explore a topic more if I choose, and usually I'm obsessing so I do. While I see the limiting of links as weakening Wikipedia (at least for me), I absolutely think links should be checked for relevance. In the case of the Nabaztag links the relevance was there.

I'm sorry if I violated format with my edit. I tried to do it correctly by notating it, but it looks like I have a lot more to learn about Wikipedia protocol.

Thanks, Rebecca username: beckynot 11/8/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckynot (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 November 2007

Tagging articles
I have the same philosophy as you regarding tagging articles. I see tagging as basically constructive and a way of alerting editors of needed improvements. I have often tagged my own articles when I feel tags were needed. Regards, -- Mattisse 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, there no longer seems to be any imminent danger of the article's deletion, and it now seems to have a decent group of editors that are actively working and discussing improvements, so I don't think the tag is necessary. Good luck, and I apologize again for any hard feelings I had caused. I probably went a little overboard with the tags in my initial edit. Dancter 17:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Social network
Thanks for your input. I have given up trying to point out basically what you were saying, I do not edit war and so backed off. I am surprised, because one or more of the contributing editors usually show more understanding of such matters. I will not, however, rejoin the (edit summary or talk page) debate. Thanks once again. Ref (chew) (do) 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)