User talk:ReyBrujo/Archive 15

About sockpuppet
OK, but im only saying stupid things, please, excuse me. -- MisterWiki  humour   da ya think i'm sexy and ya want to speak me?, come on sugar let, come here!  - 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:RFA Proposal
Hi ReyBrujo, I've edited the proposal on WT:RFA slightly to read < 90% rather than =75% to reflect my original intent. If this alters your opinion, can you edit your comment when you have a moment? Thanks, Avruch  T 02:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Metadata script gadget
Remember the script at User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js that I suggested we make into a gadget a while back? You found a bug in the script, which I managed to figure out how to fix. Since then, it seems everyone's forgotten about this script, seeing as no one has commented at Gadget/proposals in over a month now. Since you're an admin and have seen this script before, could you make it into a gadget? I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't be a gadget at this point; I think the only reason it isn't already is that WP:GP has so few people watching it. Pyrospirit ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a spambot
I am not a spambot, I am a person. Eplekake (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello how are you? For me, I wasn't good yesterday, but now I'm better. Anyway, I have changed genres of some Nghtwish songs, for an expression, see talk page. And I have a question for you: How can you make the notebook effect in your user page? I will be glad if you answer my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazzzz (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Late reply to a Village pump thread
I added some late information about the Google custom template to: Village pump (technical)/Archive 19. You were active in that thread, so I thought you might like to know. I did not see the question when it was fresh; another user called my attention to it later. --Teratornis (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also attempted a late reply to your question: Template talk:Google. If I did not understand the question, then never mind. --Teratornis (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

VGChartz
Hey, how's it going man? I know vgchartz isn't considered reliable by some members of Wikipedia, but still I thought you may wanna read this (if you haven't already seen it before). It seems Guiness World Records - considered to be one of the foremost authorities on statistics - uses VGChartz as a source for some (one?) of the records. It seemed interesting (but it's not really:)). Anyway, have a nice day! Frvernchanezzz (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Addressing multiple vandalism
You replied to an AN/I dispute [] regarding possible sockpuppetry. I just wanted to inform you that my talk page is now being vandalized by User:Kung Fu Man. I would appreciate if someone could look into this matter. Thank you. Nori198 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot activity
I was going over the list of bots and noticed that has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval since this is a rather widely-posted message.  MBisanz  talk 01:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Rey Brujo
Hola, como estas, che, vos sos de Argentina, que bien, conocí Argentina en el año 1978, antes del mundial´78, conozco zoológico de Palermo, Las Heras, Museo y Universidad de La Plata y espero donde te encuentres ahora, gracias por comunicarme y me alegro que sabes muy bien el inglés y yo más o menos que tendré que aprender más. Un abrazo.- --sir &#91;&#91;User:Csuarezllosa&#124;Carlos Suárez Llosa&#93;&#93; (&#91;&#91;User talk:Csuarezllosa&#124;Talk&#93;&#93;) (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status
I am aiming to improve Nintendo 64 to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have edited the article substantially recently. If you have time, please help out by contributing to the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Traducción
hola Rey cuanto tiempo. De verdad perdóname que te escriba solamente para molestarte, pero no sabia a que wikipedista confiable acudir (aunque aprendí de ti que hay que tener mas fe en los demás editores) para no ser insolente molestando. Quería saber si puedes hacerme un favor. Yo desde hace tiempo estaba prácticamente inactivo en la Wikipedia en español pero últimamente he estado colaborando mas. En el articulo Lineage II junto con otros wikipedistas he estado expandiendo el contenido, incluso pude resolver una disputa entre dos usuarios que llevaba mas de un mes xD, se que no es nada del otro mundo pero es la primera vez que lo hago, también expandiendo usamos de referencia la web oficial del juego lineage2.com entre otras, y aunque mi nivel de ingles es en-1 comprendo un poco y me las he podido resolver con otras webs hispanas catalogadas y con el conocimiento que poseo del juego. Bueno en fin, recientemente los desarrolladores (NCsoft) del juego han anunciado una nueva expansión para el mismo llamada The 2th Throne: Gracia y quiero colocar una sección de "evento futuro" en el articulo donde se hable de esa actualizacion, para eso he encontrado en una web oficial una noticia de esa expansión y esta en ingles, ¿Puedes ayudarme a traducir esa información? esta aquí. Espero tu respuesta y no te preocupes, si no puedes por no tener tiempo me dices y no hay problema.

Ademas de eso quería saber si no conoces a alguien que hable buen coreano y quisiera ayudarme a traducir esta web oficial de la expansión, no te alarmes es una web con muy poca información ya que los desarrolladores de NCsoft les gusta guardar silencio hasta el día del lanzamiento oficial. (la mejor forma de ver la web es con el navegador a modo pantalla completa).

Bueno eso es todo, si te molesto lo siento pero no conozco a mas nadie a quien acudir, de todas maneras si no es posible no te preocupes que yo lo entiendo, una ultima pregunta: ¿Como va el problema de acostumbro a hablar en ingles que a veces se te hace un poco difícil escribirnos en castellano? xD espero y lo hayas superado! --AS990 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Muchísimas gracias, esto de verdad que si me sirve, gracias también por responder tan rápido. Nos vemos. --AS990 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for English Citations
Thanks for your comment. The link to Wiki policy on Non-English sources was also useful.

I've been assuming incorrectly that someone responding to a tag would look through the editing history, but I realize, now that you mention it, that this would not necessarily be the case. So, yes, I'll add comments in the article discussion.

There's some slightly ambiguous language in the Wiki policy regarding what sort of quotation is most acceptable. What's iterated twice, in slightly different terms, is that it's important that "readers can verify for themselves" and "readers can check that it agrees with article content".

Citations are there as much for readers as for editors. It's especially important in Wiki, because someone who is normally a "reader" often has subject expertise in a limited area.

On a slightly different aspect, I've noticed that articles depending on foreign sources regularly fall into a couple categories: 1) The English article is a translation of an exceptional foreign language article, or 2) The English article is about a non-English city, company, rock group, sports team, video game, fan site, etc., where English translation seems likely to have the same non-notable, advertising, or POV problems that the original does. In the first case, I'm divided between being grateful for the quality material, and frustrated that there's no way to evaluate it. In the second case it seems that the writers sometimes use a non-English source to defend something potentially unacceptable to Wiki editors.

In both cases, though, I have an issue, which is that for me to make a fair assessment of an article, I must be able to consider exactly what the source says. Often, it's just a few words or a phrase that tip me off that a subject is misundertood, or being misrepresented. So, whether I'm acting as a reader or an editor, I need to be able have a very fine understanding of the nuance of every word. And I cannot do that, except when it's English.

Second best, as the Wiki policy points out, is a translation made by Wiki writer/editors, but except in the case of translating a non-English Wiki page, that doesn't seem to often happen.

24.130.11.107 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Answers for your comments:
 * Usually yes, people will check the history to see why the tag was added, so thanks for adding descriptive summaries. However, we can never know how long the article can become, or when will the article be checked. If tomorrow someone checks the article, he can easily find the revision in which the tag was added. However, if the article grows with hundreds of revisions, it may be harder to find the exact revision in which it was added (that is why it is a good idea to prefix your comment with the tag, like Adding unreferenced tag, article has so many paragraphs without reference that it justifies it so that, whenever the history becomes too long, one could do a search for the tag and find it in the history). Adding a note in the talk page is usually good because it encourages discussion (someone who arrives late to the article is able to quickly grasp why the tag was added, and either agree or disagree with it, give suggestions about text to remove or another course of action). In any case, just adding an edit summary is more than what many others do, so thanks for doing that!
 * I agree that the policy states "readers can verify for themselves" and "readers can check that it agrees with article content". However, we are built around the good faith assumption: you may not be able to verify the information (which contradict the verifiability policy!) but someone else could. Imagine if we were following the letter instead of the spirit of the policy (what is known as wikilawyering): I would not be able to add a citation to a magazine because you would not be able to verify that easily (you would need to buy that specific release number) or a historical book (which may be already out of print, or exist just a few volumes worldwide). I would not be able to cite a video (the program may not air anymore, you would not be able to get a copy, and I would not be able to share it because it is copyright violation). Thanks to the AGF policy, we trust in our fellow editors. You may not be able to verify it. I may not be able to verify it. But someone who knows Japanese may. This is similar to discussions about free pictures: Sometimes an editor will say "I cannot go to Japan to take a picture of this artist, that is why we should use a fair use image" to which I answer "The beauty of Wikipedia is that you are a link, not the full chain. If you cannot supply that free image, someone in Japan may. Trust in your peers."
 * True, sometimes it is possible an article that has been deleted in another wiki language comes here using references from other languages that make it harder to verify. However, we go back to the previous point: none of us can verify every single article in Wikipedia (even though that would be ideal), otherwise we would only be able to use very few references, mostly online (and even then, some countries block access to determined urls, so for those countries the articles would be unreferenced!). So, we go back to the previous point: trust your peers. Feel free to tag articles and open discussions about whether an article appears unreferenced or unverifiable, to request more references, or to put skepticism in the reliability of some references. Some day someone will come and fix the article for you, or reply demonstrating that you were mistaken.
 * Finally, about assessments: as a reader, anyone should be able to read an article and understand it, regardless of your technical level. When an article fails in that goal, it should be indicated in the talk page. So, it is possible that you can give a better assessment to English topics, but you can still give a good assessment to articles based in non-English elements. Truly speaking, every single article in Wikipedia would need a refimprove tag, because there can never be "too few" references. So, following the letter, you have the right to go through every single article and tag them all with that tag. But that is not very useful for us: we need to know the point of view of readers. If you find something fishy, feel free to point that out. As long as you are polite and demonstrate a minimum interest in resolving the issue (for example, having read the full section before commenting, following comments up and not just forgetting about them, and having an open mind, knowing that certain topics may have "fans" that will be hard to talk to), nobody will object if decide to take stronger measures (like deleting a full paragraph because it is not referenced, rewriting a long paragraph to make it clear, etc).
 * A last point: there is almost a template for every article problem. When needing more sources, you have the refimprove, for possible misinterpretations of references you have citecheck, for articles citing a single source only (which may bring problems since we need to weight all sides in a discussion) onesource, etc. I don't even know all of them, just the most important ones, but hopefully someone else (just as I did earlier) will point you out the right templates in determined situations. As you can imagine, this may bring some problems (like you adding a unreferenced tag but someone else removing it because there are a few references), that is why a post in the talk page of the user or the article itself to make your point even clearer than the edit summary will help others to understand why you used a template and point you to the right one in that situation.


 * Thanks again for your expanded point of view. Conversations like that let us, editors who have been around for enough time to view everything from the editing point of view instead of the reading point of view, know what is right and what is wrong in an article. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on the user's talk page. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Akira External Links
Can you please explain to me how BlueBladeAkira remains in the Akira (Manga) page and how Akira2019.com was removed? You was the last to edit it and it seems you removed one and not the other. It seems like you are taking an over zealous approach to what links can and can't be included based on your personal opinion. I've read the guidelines and still see akira2019.com as the most relevant link there is to any article about Akira. Seems like nothing more than a grudge against the site. Just explain how RottenTomatoes and BlueBladeAkira are deemed relevant and Akira2019.com isn't? as per these articles -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided

You seem to have zoned in on one singular part of the links to be avoided article, mainly this part 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. I think you are missing the point of this rule, the 'MAINLY INTENDED' part. if I was only 'mainly intending' to promote a site I would have linked any old irrelevant site, but instead I am linking a massive Akira resource, infact, the largest on the web. The site has also been part of the links section along with BlueBladeAkira since Feb 2006 when I was editing the page back then. I didn't realise someone would come along with a skewed perspective on what constitutes official and relevant, and what is allowed to be apart of Wiki. infact I often remove irrelevant links myself, such as Otomo's Freedom project link from the Akira (Manga) page because this is an irrelevant link, Akira2019.com on the other hand isn't. I've already spent too much time thinking about this, do as you wish, a better man walks away in the right. --Damn-Deal-Done (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)