User talk:Thibbs/Archive 7

Read this.
A few hours ago, I added some stuff to the article about the bootleg videogame "Somari". I changed a word ("spoofs" into "modifications", added a "See also" section linking to that other bootleg game "Kart Fighter" and added a link to the Somari article on the Bootleg Games Wiki. I saved the changes I did but then I discovered a misspelling I did by accident. The 1st time it was reverted, I thought it was because of the typo, so I corrected it and added some more stuff about the variations of the game that I forgot to put down the first time. I also added back in the other stuff not by me that you also deleted because I thought bulked up the article a bit. I honestly taught my edits were constructive and I was only trying to make the page better. I am an expert of videogames and also bootleg videogames and I've played Somari and most of it's variations so I know what I'm doing. I don't want to make this seem like advertising but the Bootleg Games Wiki is genuinely a good wiki if you want to know about bootleg games. I posted that there because I saw wikis being linked to at the bottom of certain pages. For example, at the bottom of the the "Bionicle" page, there is a link to the "BIONICLEsector01" wiki which documents the Lego "Bionicle" series. The page on the superhero "Spider-Man" does something similar. I didn't know that I shouldn't have linked to wikia.com. I thought that if you link to something, it has to related to the page and it has to have a some information on the subject. I would be happy to add sources but those will most likely get deleted because of other rules unknown to me until it's reverted a few minutes later. Sorry for any trouble I might have caused, it wasn't on purpose. It's advisable revert the changes you made to the page, if you don't, I will. --109.76.38.159 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: the bootleg games Wikia, you might be interested in WP:ELNO#12. (And after reading through Talk:Bionicle, there doesn't appear to be a reason for BS01's inclusion other than persistence on the part of affiliated editors.) As for Somari pruning, the paragraphs were unsourced and parts of it were video game trivia. I'd only add that stuff back if you can source it in verified, secondary reliable sources (ideally those approved here). czar  ♔  04:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to help and I can understand why you thought the material you added was helpful. I'm sorry if I came off as overly brusque. I've seen far too many cases where this degenerates into revert wars and sadly there are a number of unfriendly administrative hurdles that have to be passed in order to get action on such cases. So I was actually going through the early motions required to eventually get the article protected. You aren't to blame here, though I would suggest using the article talk page in the future if an edit you've made is reverted. Anyway in this case I'm clearly dealing with a reasonable person and not a vandal so again I apologize for immediately launching into the page-protection pathway. -Thibbs (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Menacer article
Not to make you into the Russian source, but is there any chance you'd be able to find...

That's the listing I found on Google Scholar in the depths of a Menacer search. Just thought I'd ask (in case you have the magic) czar  ♔  05:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting topic. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate this source but if you're looking for another editor whose Russian is almost certainly better than mine, you might contact User:Hellknowz. If he isn't busy he might be able to help you with some of the Russian sources. Incidentally, there's a bit of coverage of the Menacer in RetroGamer Issue #14 (the article covers Radica's 2005 Menacer re-release). I could get you that article if you'd like. Good luck either way. -Thibbs (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay—sounds good. Would you be able to pull that RG source? I was trying to search their archives all morning but didn't find any Menacer coverage listed czar  ♔  03:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll send you a note tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Some Additions to the Bop It Article
Hi Thibbs

There is still a lot of additions you can make to the Bop It Article.

First, Bop It Smash has been re-released as a Black Onyx special edition and re-released in the UK in a black model with light blue cuffs. Second, Bop It Tetris has been released in a Silver, a special edition. Third, there is a new Bop It game called Bop it Beats. The game features five game modes, Classic, Classic Party, DJ, DJ Party and Remix. It has has three levels of difficulty, Rookie, Expert and Lights Only. The commands are: Bop It, Spin It, Flip It, Scratch It, Reverse and Repeat. Finally, There is now a mini version of Bop It XT. There are also pure black versions of Bop It Shout and Bop It XT and a black onyx version of Bop It XT. The is also a sonic green Bop It XT and a Caliente Version. --188.29.39.167 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Polyphemus
Thanks for your hard work on the article, which serves as an admirable practice guide. I'd already used the Gallery format for sculptures in the Acis and Galatea article. By the time of your intervention, however, I was rapidly running out of time. Soon after, I left for Taiwan to put my experience of (paper) editing to use cleaning up after other editors in an art encyclopedia and, working a six-day week, have no leisure for Wikipedia. One point, however - now you've reformatted references, would it be a good idea to modify the list of things wrong with the article at its head? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know all too well about time pressures. The reason I didn't remove the cleanup tags (and I'll mention this in talk) is that I worry that some of the other textual sources are likewise flawed. When the article makes a claim like "In Act 2 of XYZ's Opera of 1777, Polyphemus discovers Acis and Galatea and accidentally causes a landslide in his efforts to eavesdrop upon them" then it's fine to cite the opera itself as a source, but when the claim is "In 1777, XYZ wrote a politically allegorical opera depicting a clumsy and feminine Polyphemus who represented the Hapsburg Maria Theresa," or even simply "In 1777, XYZ wrote an opera," then the opera itself usually makes no such claim. The references that are not used to back up claims but rather to point to an example of the issue under discussion (e.g. the current Refs #21 and #26) should be removed from the reference section and I think these would best be converted into a notes section. They aren't references, but they are potentially helpful to readers. I'll set that up now. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Dr90s back?
Any thoughts on Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s and Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time? Cheers.  Я ehevkor ✉  11:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me. I'll take a look. -Thibbs (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I looked it over. It's hard to say. The edit warring over that one line is definitely the closest link. I notice that they're also quite aligned in terms of favorite topic areas. Zelda, Mario, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, and Metroid are all top areas of interest to Dr90s. The thing that makes me most suspicious that it may be a new editor, though, is that the IP address is Irish instead of Japanese and last I knew Dr90s was a Japanese editor. I hope that helps. Thanks for working to restore the information and guard against this kind of vandalism. -Thibbs (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I know there's not a whole lot to go on but I figured it was worth a look-see.  Я ehevkor ✉  09:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely worth scrutinizing. It's suspicious considering how that was one of Dr90s' favorite edits. And he's been quiet for a while so that would have been my first thought as well if I'd noticed the edits going on. -Thibbs (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure
I've indicated my willingness to participate. Andrevan@ 23:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DieHard errors
I finally sat down to look at your EarthBound sources, and the first DieHard GameFan source is rife with content errors and typos. I'm not sure this source is reliable at this stage of its life. Thoughts? czar ♔  15:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "at this stage of its life". Are you saying that the early issues of the magazine weren't reliable but the later ones got more reliable as time went on? That's probably true. GameFan used to be well known for its coverage of Japanese games way earlier than their release in the West. The staff had one or two writers who had contacts in Japan and they would translate a lot of material by hand. That probably explains spelling differences like using "Nes" instead of "Ness" (The original Japanese "ネス" really translates to "Nesu" so its Anglification is somewhat up to personal interpretation). I wouldn't really call those errors, but I'm sure that's not the only issue with the article. The truth is that GameFan was no stranger to scandal back in the day, and I definitely remember a translation scandal where aspersions were cast against the sometimes amateurish efforts and consequent errors made by the staff. In particular I believe some of Des Barres' translations were criticized (although if I remember correctly I think it was mainly due to the fact that he was quite young when he joined the staff). GameFan's coverage of Japanese games was sometimes months to years earlier than the games' Western releases, so I think GameFan can be a valuable source of info on Japan-exclusive content and coverage of details of Japanese versions that were lost during localization. But yeah, errors may well exist as well. My understanding is that the number and severity of errors decreased in later issues as scandals broke and time went on. The periodical has actually just seen a relaunch as of a few months ago. I'd be surprised if it had errors.
 * As far as how to use the source, I'd obviously exercise my editorial discretion and avoid repeating obvious errors, but I wouldn't worry about using it for its opinion-related coverage such as its rating. There's little cause for concern that they were unreliable in reporting their own opinions. I personally wouldn't be too concerned with someone citing it for factual matters that are probably true (especially if backed up by other sources), but I can understand your concerns over using it in light of the errors.
 * Sorry for the long response. I hope that helps. -Thibbs (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read about one of the scandals on the mag's WP article. There was the "Nes" but there also was amateurish "it's" and "they're" grammar stuff in those articles (which I imagine would be picked up by a basic copyeditor). Also a bunch of that first article's description is just flat-out wrong, and the claim that the Japanese version sold millions of copies... I don't know how much of this is made up. I used some of the review for its critical opinion, but not for facts. Anyway, might be a WP:VG/RS conversation to have, or at least worth adding a note about citing from this era of the mag's life. Thanks again for your help czar  ♔  16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. There's tension between needing coverage from any usable source and Wikipedia's reliability standards for sure. Some WP:VG editors operate under the assumption that Wikipedia's goal to to cover every single game so if whole genres lack RS coverage (e.g. early browser-based flash games) then the project has to come up with an RS that covers this new genre. Obviously the idea behind WP:VG/RS is not to create RSes but to determine sources to be reliable based on the facts. If no RSes cover a genre then the fault is with the press, not with WP:VG/RS's standards. But I do sympathize with cases where coverage only exists in Japanese and English sources are in short supply. This issue has come up periodically at WP:VG/RS, and the particular situation is complicated by the fact that the source seems to be of variable reliability (not so reliable early on, and more reliable later). So it might be good to bring up in talk. Anyway glad to help. -Thibbs (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I found out a bit more about the translation controversy by looking around online. Apparently Victor Ireland of Working Designs had become incensed at the GameFan review of Lunar 2 and began a campaign against Des Barres (who had written the review under the name "Nick Rox"), claiming that he had not played the games and that he did not understand Japanese well enough to translate it. A flame war developed on usenet, Ireland offered to give Des Barres a Japanese proficiency test, and a mocking website was erected against Des Barres. Big drama for the 1990s internet. There's more info on this and other scandals here, but I'd take it all with a grain or two of salt since so much of this stuff is bound up in petty personal politics and childish grudge-holding revenge. -Thibbs (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Casper10
Seems to be making up unsourced dates again, as you complained about at their talk page in November. I expect to be quite busy for the next few days, so I figured I'd mention it to you - I don't know what the "third-party review" you requested then was. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh the review I requested was posted to the WikiProject Video Games talk page (here). One of the admins there took a look and said that it didn't appear to be vandalism. I don't understand why Casper10 is unable or unwilling to communicate at this collaborative encyclopedia project, but that's his decision. Just revert anything that's unsourced and looks suspicious. Or add "citation needed" tags. I'm kind of snowed under for work just currently so I doubt I'll be able to look too closely into this situation. You could also post another note like I did at WT:VG, but no guarantees that this will have any effect obviously.
 * Thanks for caring enough to follow up on this, though. A lot of others would have just ignored it. -Thibbs (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I fear we are quite weak against the insertion of plausible-sounding facts. I'll do what I can. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree. Especially when coupled with a lack edit summaries and an unwillingness to communicate, I find the unsourced addition of dates and other minutia (like height and weight, cost, sports statistics, etc.) to be frankly indistinguishable from vandalism. I'm not sure how it should be handled. There's a lot of apathy toward addressing it. You might want to check out WP:SVT if you're interested in this topic. -Thibbs (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Interview response from Frεcklεfσσt

 * Thanks Frεcklεfσσt! This is perfect. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Interview
Wow this interview is a bit long. And I'm not sure I have a lot to say about most of the questions. I will see if I have time later to write a bit more, but hopefully this glommed together comment is better than nothing. I joined the then-CVG project early on in my work on Wikipedia. I started the WikiProject Computer and video games/To Fix initiative to add infoboxes to all video game pages, which started in 2004. I was also involved in helping Super Mario 64 become a featured article, also in 2004: Featured article candidates/Super Mario 64/archive1. I also spent time on the history of first person shooters, adding Faceball 2000 to the list, and in dungeon crawlers discussing the influence of Gauntlet on subsequent games. I know a bit about the early history of Nintendo especially in the USA. Some articles I created related to video games were Sega Sammy Holdings, N (game), Minoru Arakawa, Howard Lincoln, Howard Phillips, Nester (character), Shigesato Itoi, Camerica, XIII (video game), List of Star Control races, Universal Media Disc, Kirby Super Star, Mr. Do!, and various others. I also spent a lot of time uploading box art (this was before fair use doctrines evolved to where they are today). I was really a kid in those days - I spend a lot less time playing video games now, and my editing is mostly elsewhere too. #7, Wikipedia's broader policies take precedence over WikiProjects, this also applies to common name issues ie #8 (which is why the article is Sega Genesis). For #9, I completely disagree with you - civility and IAR are both extremely important, and contributions do not negate incivility, and similarly I disagree with #12 that experts or any kind of stratification can or should be implemented. Expert editing really never existed and couldn't. I'm not sure how the project or Wikipedia will change in the next 10 years. #15/#16 I started gaming on the NES and my favorites were SMB3, LOZ, Contra, the usual suspects. Kept playing through SNES Super Mario World, Yoshi's Island, Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 1/2/3, etc. Also a big fan of Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, and come N64 Mario 64, Smash Bros., etc. Had a Pokemon phase as well. Went through phases of Halo, Diablo II, Counter-Strike, etc. as well as Starcraft, Civilization, and another favorite is Star Control II/The Ur-Quan Masters. Through emulation I have played many games that I missed the first time around, exploring the evolution of the medium through sometimes obscure titles that paralleled the Nintendo first-party games I mostly played as a kid - the Adventure Island/Wonder Boy/Monster World saga, Solomon's Key, Castlevania: Rondo of Blood, the Bonk series, the Sonic games, Popful Mail, Fantasy Zone. These days I may play a game of Starcraft 2 every once in a while. Love indie games like Cave Story or Luftrausers as well. I am also a software developer and have made some small forays into game development. Anyway, I hope this adds some color to your survey and I'm sorry for not answering everything or formatting it nicely. Feel free to refactor my comments. Cheers, Andrevan@ 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks great Andrevan. I'll work it into the final product and let you know when it's up. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Interview
Sorry about not being able to get the re-interview in. I tried to sit down and do it, but didn't really feel motivated to complete it and just went and played video games instead. It's a shame, the interview seemed like it would be enjoyable. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah well, it would have been nice to include your thoughts but I gave you little forewarning. I think I held out for too long hoping that more of the seriously ancient members would respond, but I guess it's just been too long and they're busy with other things. You may get a mention when we run a piece on prolific article creators, but that won't be for a few issues. Anyway thanks for reading the newsletter. -Thibbs (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File an ABUSE report!
Hey Thibbs!

Do It! You know who I am!--81.168.45.127 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Kallmann syndrome page
Hello,

Thank you for the edit. I was meaning to have another look at the page today after the anonymous user had made those changes the day before. I am glad to see you did not change any of the English spellings of the scientific words back to the US version. I am trying to keep the spelling consistent throughout the article. Neilsmith38 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm glad to help. That particular vandal has been plaguing Wikipedia for years and years. -Thibbs (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GameZero coverage
Thanks for any help you can throw at the issue. I understand where you're coming from and as I find the time to add material to the userfied talkpage, I will. Maybe I can revisit the request down the road. Cheers! BcRIPster (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I did go ahead and added it to the List of video game magazines page, since that is simply a list of magazines that have been published in reference to the history page, and the magazine is solidly referenced on there under the web based magazines. I put an initial ref to the period Internet Yellow Pages index for historical reference.BcRIPster (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that and it looks good to me. I'm generally interested in increasing coverage of VG journalism as much as possible. There's a wide world of journalism that is distinctly lacking from Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question
About changing links, what if the information is just wrong? Like an article says the Super Bowl took place in Chicago when it actually took place in Dallas. Would it be violating my terms to fix that?.  TJ   Spyke   15:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like deleting links, I'd say replacing Chicago with Dallas (in the situation you outlined) would be a grey area. You should ask the person who unblocked you since he's the one that laid out the conditions. Or failing that I'd just post on the talk page so that someone who watches the article can make the fix for you. What I wouldn't do is what you did here. That looks very much like a third violation of "TJ Spyke is banned from changing the target of any wikilink for a year" to me. You should give the unblocking admin a link to that edit when you ask for clarification on your restrictions since your "Chicago gets changed to Dallas" example is rather misleadingly innocuous. -Thibbs (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

re: landmaker
hi... um... what are you talking about? and how did you even find this talk page? please, stop calling me this despatche already. if they're doing some of the things i do, that's great i guess? more people need to bring these things up. 75.177.119.25 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I'm just talking about the fact that you are using IP accounts now instead of your normal (previously blocked) user account. Don't get cocky. It's true that nobody detected your sockpuppetry until it was too late to do anything about it, but that doesn't mean you're dealing with complete idiots. You are very clearly the same person who was operating the User:Despatche account in November and the same person who was using an IP address to evade your block in late November and December. How many obscure-Japanese-video-game-title-obsessed Wikipedia-crusaders do you think are located in Davidson County, North Carolina? You can be sure that you're the only one. Your Despatche account has been unblocked now. I suggest you return to using it and stop sneaking around and pretending to be someone else. -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...why did you revert those edits? you linked to VG/NONENG... which specifically says to do that. the japanese titles for both progear and shadowland are different from the english ones, so the other title needs to be pulled out. 75.177.119.25 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll take another look through those and all of your other edits this weekend. It's sure to be some interesting reading. -Thibbs (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * look, i really don't know what you're talking about. i may have edited as some past ip, but i have never made an account on this site, nor do i plan to, and this is exactly why. i do what i do and i move on.


 * please don't try to sell to me that i'm some kind of japanophile. i apologize that all of these video games happen to be japanese products made in japan, and i apologize that the most obscure topics are the ones that have these kinds of problems, but that's kinda why i'm doing this. problems, need to fix, etc.


 * all i care about is getting the right information in, and making that information look consistent. i don't like how overbearingly english-centric this place tries to be, to the point where important information gets hidden in plain sight seemingly because it's "ugly" and nothing more. never mind that it's inconsistent with various articles that don't do this, or that policy has never stood out against these kinds of changes. i'm not the iar type; if policy shuts me down, so be it. i just want consistency, and stability.


 * i'm not the only one to complain about all of these things. 75.177.119.25 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I'm talking about. These games are childish in the extreme. You're fooling exactly nobody. -Thibbs (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * okay then... one, i'm looking at this editor right now; not so active, seeing as they haven't edited in half a year now, plus there's a giant good-bye letter on their talk page. two, it's kinda hard to "avoid scrutiny" when what i'm doing is apparently extremely controversial and everyone thinks i'm someone else anyway. three, you've kinda thrown the rest of my above comment under the bus over this, and that's kinda scary... i don't know what you had against this person, but can you please let it go? 75.177.119.25 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh boy... Look, deception is kind of a pet peeve of mine. I hate to think that there are people who imagine that they can do whatever they want regardless of the community and that all of their "ignorant peers" will fail to recognize their little games. I used to be quite active in the sockpuppetry arena and trust me when I say that there are others who are much more adept at hiding their true identity than you. I don't have anything against you if you return to above-board editing under your actual username and abide by the community rules, but I do despise a rat who tries to slink by the wayside and carry on with the same nonsense he was engaging in before he got blocked. Sneakiness is not a solution to community-based rules. If you have a problem with the rules then you have to build up a case to change them; use persuasive rhetoric and demonstrate that you're a reasonable person with a good idea. The wrong way to handle such problems is to force your ideas on the community by aggressive rhetoric, demonstrate your contempt for the rules by knowingly and repeatedly violating them, and then to use sockpuppetry and deception as a backup plan.
 * Like I said, if you want to make a WP:CLEANSTART then feel free. If you want to carry on editing as a reformed Despatche then that's fine as well. It's not OK to use IP accounts to pretend you're a group of different people who also happen to agree with Despatche's counter-consensus point of view. This isn't a playground. If you want to play pretend games then find someplace else to do it. I will discuss whatever topics you want to discuss when you actually use your real username and stop pretending to be a different person. Until then I really have no appetite for these stupid games. -Thibbs (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Cut the bullshit, Despatche. I've always been patient and forthcoming with you, but if you continue to play us for fools and keep denying who you are with dumb, unconvincing, evasive reasoning like this, then I will be no longer. Avoiding scrutiny in the way you do is a blockable offense and any further subterfuge will just make it worse.--Atlan (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Mischief Makers
Hey Thibbs—I saw that you have GameFan #57 (Sept '97), which has a feature or something on Mischief Makers. I can't find it online—would you be able to provide a scan? czar ♔  02:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be glad to. I'll probably get to it tomorrow. Poke me if I haven't sent anything by Monday. -Thibbs (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I found it. I have the spread from pages 76 to 81 and the Viewpoints review. Is there anything else I might be missing, e.g., another review section? czar ♔  11:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For GameFan's review articles there's always a review score posted in Viewpoints and then the actual review. That's all. In this particular case there's also the magazine cover image and an image in the ToC, but nothing worth searching for or uploading. Just pics. -Thibbs (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK: live and learn...
Thanks again Thibbs for your efforts to do the eval work on Template:Did_you_know_nominations/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program.

Things seem to have gone rather fast after that point a couple of days ago, and if I understand it right, the article ran in the DYK earlier today (UTC time). Cool.

Unfortunately, it did not run with the correct hook, and it ran early, not on the later date tied to a successful flight test as we had both thought. As you said, it was the first nom by me, and the first approval by you, so I get two takeways from how it appears to have run.


 * It was apparently an error on my part to not put the ALT1 hook we selected into the main hook part of the template, once we agreed that ALT1 was better than the shorter hook. It ran with the shorter hook that we didn't select.  Too bad.  I'll take a look at the article traffic statistics after another 24 hours or so (they are only updated about daily), but my guess is that, whatever upswing in traffic the article got, it would have got more with the catchier hook that included the Buck Rogers reference.  So that is a "live and learn" lesson for me.


 * The article apparently did not go into the holding pen for a later date-synchronized appearance in DYK, as we had both thought would be best. Too bad again.  On that one, I can only conclude that I don't know what to do to make that happen.  But whatever we did in the template this time, it was apparently not what was needed to get it tagged/classed as a holding-pen DYK.  Oh well, "live and learn."

I'm real glad I learned what I could on this first DYK attempt, and pleased you came along and helped it along on the eval side. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Argh. Sorry about that. I guess I assumed that the DYK clerks would do a better job reviewing the discussion. I have more experience on the nominating side of DYK than the reviewing side, and I know from experience that it's pretty important to keep a close watch on the hook as it goes from nomination to prep area to queue. I've had to request prompt action to change the text of the hook in the past, when the editor who moved it to prep changed the message from what had been agreed upon. Sadly it's kind of hard to follow the process since it's spread across several pages, and if problems crop up, the only recourse may be to contact the editor who moved it to the prep area. If he's not available, then maybe IRC...? I don't know. Anyway I was happy to help and I hope we see a good uptick of views despite the problems. -Thibbs (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. The article did get 3000+ hits as a result of the DYK posting, and we both had the opportunity to learn.  Looks like the "Buck Rogers" locution in a hook will wait for some other article about some aspect of reusable technology.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for PETA satirical browser games
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Crush 40 OCR
Could you do a search on your OCR'd texts for "Crush 40"? Would be interested in what you find. czar ♔  23:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I know you're also the king of Russian sources—any chance you can find:
 * Burring, Ethan. You're Nose is in My Crotch!" and Other Things You Shouldn't Know About" Sonic Team. Издательство Pubmix. com.
 * ? czar ♔  00:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well for Crush 40, I wasn't able to find too much... It's the right time period for me: I focus on collecting material from 1993 to 2000, but it's the wrong company. I collect material primarily on Nintendo. That said, I did find Crush 40's Jun Senoue mentioned in connection to Sonic Adventure in the "Company Profile: Sonic Team" article from Retro Gamer #26 (p.27). I could get you a copy of that if you want.

The "You're Nose is in My Crotch!" title appears to me to be connected to spamming... I don't really understand it, but Amazon.com lists titles including: And then supposedly you can download "You're Nose Is In My Crotch! And Other Things You Shouldn't Know About Yes! Book" by Grace Dilling online (you can search, I'm not going to post the link) And there's an incomprehensible Google Book with a chapter titled ""You're Nose is in My Crotch!" and Other Things You Shouldn't Know About Imtiaz Ali" I think they're just trying to dodge spam filters. I don't think it's a real source. The "Издательство Pubmix.com" part means that the publisher is Pubmix.com which is a Russian website that appears to be a vanity press... -Thibbs (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "You're Nose Is in My Crotch! and Other Things You Shouldn't Know about Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail" by Emily Rell
 * "You're Nose Is in My Crotch! and Other Things You Shouldn't Know about Birthing from Within: An Extra-Ordinary Guide to Childbirth Preparation" by Chris Skeat
 * Appreciate all that. Also found it curious that a nose–crotch article would have anything to do with Crush 40. Anyway, thank you. FYI & perhaps you'd want that Retro article if/when you work on Senoue's article czar  ♔  03:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Yeah if Red Phoenix would like a copy of the Retro Gamer article (or the part covering Jun Senoue anyway) then I can provide it for him too. -Thibbs (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thibbs, if you could do that for me, that would be fantastic.  Red Phoenix  let's talk... 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, any time. I put a note on your talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove IGN wikis and cheats and faqs from WPVGRS search
First, thanks for the RS search. I can't seem to use it with my adblocks and whatever in Chrome, but it's my go-to in Safari. Do you think you could exclude IGN's wikis? ( and   and  ) All three are user-submitted and unreliable. Would save some tweaking on my end. czar ♔   20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Same for GamesRadar though I'm not sure how to get rid of it (something with  ?) czar  ♔   21:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And  czar  ♔   21:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to. I'll probably get to it later tonight. Thanks for the request. If you ever notice any other obvious tweaks (i.e. exclusions) please let me know them too. -Thibbs (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I think I got it fixed up now. I'll update the records tomorrow. -Thibbs (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it czar ♔   03:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Found another:  czar  ♔   13:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. -Thibbs (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * czar ♔   02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. -Thibbs (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * the subdomain appears to be all user-contributed czar ♔   06:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added and updated. Thanks again for your vigilance, Czar! -Thibbs (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Bop It Article
Hi Thibbs

Are you aware that there is a new Bop It out called Bop It Beats?

The game has six commands: Bop It Scratch It Spin It Reverse Repeat Flip It

It has five game modes: Classic Classic Party DJ DJ Party Remix

It has three levels of difficulty: Rookie (voice commands with reverse occurring near the end of the level.) Expert (voice commands with "repeat" meaning performing the previous command." LightS Only (lights and sound effects to help guide the player."

In the Classic modie, the game plays just like the old style of Bop It. You can't choose the difficulty level on this mode. It starts from Rookie and finishes on lights only. At the end of the game, the announcer says "Master DJ in da club!" In the DJ mode it is basically like Simon where the player has to remember the commands in a sequence. The Rookie level goes up to 4 commands and the level is completable. The Expert and Lights Only levels cheats at the six command pattern and the levels are uncompletable. The Party modes have the "Pass it" command. The maximum score in classic is 263 and in the DJ mode you can get 139. 86.175.26.58 (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

re: Interview
Cheers, I'm in! Fire away. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 15:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've probably babbled on way more than I should have, but the interview's done. Now, do you want me by the pool for my close-up? CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No that's perfect. It's good to give the readership something to chew on. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Games scan
Hey, Thibbs. I'm helping User:GamerPro64 and User:czar on an Ion Storm collaboration, and the November 2001 issue of Games appears to have a long article related to the subject. If you don't mind, could you scan it for me when you have time? It would be a huge help. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem. It's in storage right now, but I'll get it out soon. Send me another note if I haven't gotten it scanned by the 8th. -Thibbs (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch. Even though it's a snippet, I'll see if we can find a use for it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help out. Good luck with it. -Thibbs (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

List of species decision
Hi! I was wondering, which list of species do you think the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous mammals (Erythrotherium, Rugosodon, Juramaia etc.) should go? Should they go in the List of fictional rodents or should they go in the List of fictional dinosaurs?

I also wonder if the List of fictional dinosaurs should be relocated from the Reptiles category to the Animals category, since Dinosaurs of the time consisted of a good mix of animal classes, although the word dinosaur generally refers to lizards.

So tell me what you think. Deltasim (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say the placement of List of fictional dinosaurs within Category:Lists of fictional reptiles and amphibians should be taken as prima facie evidence that the fictional dinosaurs are limited to reptiles and amphibians. As such I'd list the extinct mammals in their respective fictional mammal lists. I think this makes the most sense due to the generic meaning of the word "dinosaur" as you've pointed out. The lede of the List of fictional dinosaurs should definitely be tweaked to reflect this, though. Specifically I'd change "...and applies only to species that originated during or after the Triassic Period" to "...and applies only to reptile and amphibian species that originated during or after the Triassic Period." -Thibbs (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Quick question
Hi Thibbs,

It's good to hear from you again. Thank you for the offer and I'm glad to see that the newsletter has continued to flourish. I'd be happy to help out. If you don't need the interview anytime soon, then let me know where the questions will be and I'll find some time. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC))
 * The interview won't posted until October so we have plenty of time, but I'll get it up within the next few days and drop a link at your talk page. Thanks for helping us out again. The newsletter must go on! :) -Thibbs (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. :-) I'll wait for the link on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC))

Hi Thibbs, same here, I am flattered that I have been considered. It's been about 3 years since I've done regular editing, I do wonder if anything I have to say is still relevant! Still, it's nice to see some familiar names (hi Guyinblack!) Marasmusine (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah excellent. I've gotten a bit behind, but I'll try to get on this as soon as I can. Certainly I'll be done before my upcoming vacation. I'll drop a note at your talk page too. Thanks for your help! -Thibbs (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * And thanks again. I never used to like pie very much as a child, but now that I'm older it makes up an important food group in my pyramid of nutrition. :) -Thibbs (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey thanks, I appreciate it! :) I'm kind of addicted to collecting sources but I never seem to really have the time to put serious effort into converting them into articles so I'm just glad they can be profitably used by someone. -Thibbs (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Thibbs, I don't suppose you have either of these do you? They're used in the article but I can't find copies of them online to confirm the info and/or see if there is anything else useful therein.





Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sadly no. I don't have either one. -Thibbs (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to check with User:Muchness who made this edit or User:Eik Correll who made this edit, though. -Thibbs (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Secret of Mana
Hey Thibbs, can you provide me with the sections related to Secret of Mana from the 2007 May and 2008 December issues of Nintendo Official Magazine that you mentioned on the Secret of Mana FAC? As well as anything else you think might be helpful- seems I'm really missing out on hardcopy sources here. Thanks so much! -- Pres N  18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi PresN, I don't actually have any copies of Nintendo Official Magazine. The WP:VG Reference Library link I posted shows that User:Ashnard has that distinction. I'd contact him if I were you. I do have a copy of the review from GameFan, though. I'll send it your way later tonight. -Thibbs (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the sources so far, and bits on the series as a whole are useful anyways- I'm slowly working my way through the whole series to get them up to GAN. -- Pres N  02:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much again! Most of the sources don't have much dev info, just reviews, but that's helpful itself and the Retro Gamer source is a goldmine- I'm going to be using that for a lot of articles to come. I certainly wouldn't turn down any Famitsu information you have- that's always notoriously hard to get, but super-helpful for a Japanese game. Even just a review score would be useful. -- Pres N  20:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. I'll take a look through the Famitsus I have and see if I can find anything. -Thibbs (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Like I told Darkwarriorblake in the thread just above, I'm just glad to put these sources to use after having spent all this time collecting them. And the Secret of Mana article looks awesome. You've done a great job with it! -Thibbs (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and unfortunately I had no luck with the 1993 Famitsus that I have. I'm sure they covered the game but just not in the issues I have. -Thibbs (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in issue 243 czar ♔   12:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah! A fine discovery, Czar. Thanks. Sadly I don't have that issue on hand. I have to check my storage next time I'm back home, but I'm 99% certain I don't own that one. Anyway, pinging . -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Invitation
You are invited for a discussion at Talk:List of fictional ungulates. Deltasim (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gave my 2¢. -Thibbs (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You might want to check out Talk:List of fictional rodents concerning LittleJerry's edit. Deltasim (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Weighed in. -Thibbs (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Looks like a pink lemonade shandy on my busted screen... Very refreshing, though. Thanks, !

Tweaking My Article
Please let me know how I can tweak the article. I want to go look at the file they have about him at the art museum in Santa Fe to see if they have a list of collections that own his work, which would be important, and anything else I might have missed. But tell me what else I should do before I publish. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimi.roberts (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Sure, I'd be glad to give some pointers. The article looks pretty good already and is really ready to be published. There are a few small things that I would recommend, but they are for the most part not necessary. Anyway here are the minor issues that stood out to me:
 * Section capitalization - Per MOS:SECTIONCAPS we are supposed to use "sentence-style capitalization, not title-style capitalization, in section and table headings." So section 1 ("Biography") is fine, but sections like section 2 ("Artistic Career") should be changed to ("Artistic career"). Things get a little tricky for sections 3 and 4 since they contain proper names, but I would make the word "Years" in both sections into "years".
 * Typos - I'm not certain about this, but I'm guessing that the "I" in "WIlson-Powell" should be made lowercase.
 * Possible overlinking - Per WP:OVERLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated." You have "MaLin WIlson-Powell" linked twice which is OK since they're in different subsections, but that I just wanted to make sure you really want the name linked twice.
 * Duplicate sources - References 1, 4, and 6 are identical and should be merged. The process is outlined at WP:REFNAME, but basically it entails the creation of a code name for the source that is then referred to instead of the source. The first time a duplicated source is used in the article you should use tags that look like this:  instead of the normal reference tags . For all subsequent citations to the same source all you need to do is use this:.
 * Bare URLs - References 2, 5, and 7 all display bare URLS. This is just a style issue and it's not against policy, but the essay at WP:BAREURLS explains why it's a good idea to format references fully. In my personal view the minimum requirements for a formatted link include author's name, title of the work, publisher (if a journal or newspaper), and date. So for example with reference 7 I would change it from " " to " ". Note particularly how I linked the title of the work "Worth a Pilgrimage" to the URL. To do this you simply enclose the URL in brackets and put a space between the end of the URL and the title. Here is an example: . And in a reference it would look like this:  . You can link the titles to the URLs in references 3 and 8 as well using this technique. This bare ULR issue is really not a requirement, but many consider it neater to link them to the name of the work cited.
 * That's all I saw in a quick overview. I'd be glad to assist you in making any of these changes (especially the references/citations issues) if I've made them overly complicated. Remember, these are all little tiny details and you should feel free to ignore any of them and just publish whenever you wish because the article is already good enough even without these corrections in my view. Write me back here again at any time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thibbs! This is great. I think I will attempt them this weekend just to learn the ropes and will undoubtedly have questions as I go along. These same things apply to the Robert Colescott article that I expanded, so I can fix that as well. User:Mimi.roberts — Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service. :) -Thibbs (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Thibbs I made the revisions that I was able to do but I couldn't do the references because they disappeared when I clicked on "edit". I went ahead and submitted it for review because unfortunately I found out that the subject died on Saturday and I'm anxious to get it published. Mimi.roberts (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)MimiMimi.roberts (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry to hear that. It seems like he was an interesting character. I know what you mean about the references disappearing when you click "edit." The page automatically shifts them all to the bottom when you see the final results displayed but when you look at the raw wikicode they actually remain in amidst the text. I'll make a few edits to fix up the refs tomorrow and I'll link the results here so you can see. -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I just updated the article and I wanted to point out the changes. So...
 * The first thing I did was to merge the duplicate sources. I did that in this edit. You can see specifically what I did in this link by comparing the left side (representing the previous version of the article) with the right side (representing the new version). Anything deleted from the old version shows up on the left side highlighted in orange and anything added to the new version shows up on the right side highlighted in blue. At Wikipedia these comparison links are called "diffs" (see WP:GLOSSARY).
 * Next I started working on the bare URL situation by adding details from the LA Times article I discussed above. You can see what I did in this diff which can again be analyzed by comparing the left (old version) to the right (new version).
 * Continuing with the bare URLS, I made a small correction to the Taos News piece by simply shifting the URL so that it acts as a link from the title of the article. You can see that edit here. Then I completed formatting the Taos News piece in accordance with WP:REF. You can see what I did in this diff. Notice that I actually separated that reference into two because there are two sources listed: taosnews.com and 203fineart.com. But I didn't want to leave the link to 203fineart.com as a bare URL so I fixed that up as can be seen in this diff.
 * Then I finished up formatting the last 3 refs all at once. You can see all three of these changes in this long diff.
 * All of these edits are pretty wonky and are not necessary for the survival of a new article. They are really just polish. But hopefully you will find them helpful. Good luck with the review! I hope it takes place in a timely fashion. -Thibbs (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the edits on Gamergate. I had no idea of how much coverage revolved around it and assumed it wasn't exactly studied much until I just viewed it today, where it has greatly expanded with many sources. So again, thank you for the edits, the article is looking great. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh it was my pleasure. I actually used to work at an entomological museum years ago so working on the article brought back a flood of good memories for me. Thanks for noticing the expansion. :) -Thibbs (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Very nice work on the article, Thibbs! Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks. I appreciate it. It seemed like a good time to expand given how many views the article has been receiving recently. -Thibbs (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate disambiguation
I edited the Gamergate disambiguation in line with wikipedia's neutrality policy and encyclopedic style. It currently doesn't reflect those as well as they could. I am going to ask you to not engage in an edit war about it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.236.242 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess you decided not to look at the talk page I directed you to. No matter. I'm not one to edit war with someone who doesn't follow WP:BRD. Thanks for alerting me that you'd reverted yet again. I'll keep an eye on the matter. -Thibbs (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Famitsu
I was attempting to undo the Mario/Wario defacement from 11:06, 11 September 2014‎ by 217.133.82.76 - unsuccessfully it seems due to the conflicting intermediate edits. Maybe you could fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.170.115 (talk)
 * I see. Well thanks for your efforts then. As you can see, 101.163.72.91's edits were actually beneficial ones so you had reverted the wrong IP editor when I warned you... I thought you were the one vandalizing, but you were really trying to help. I'll leave a note on your talk page to that effect. Incidentally, the vandalism wasn't caused by 217.133.82.76's edits either. The culprit was 85.220.97.81, and he's now been warned. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gamergate
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -Thibbs (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hit me up
Call me sometime soon, bud. Hope you're doing well. Upjav (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey yeah, good to hear from you. Congrats on your thousandth edit! I'm doing fine. I'm kind of idly working on an article about China's first video game magazine but it's slow going. Funny too how a month ago I had planned to get work done in the field of women in video gaming but the atmosphere surrounding that topic has gotten so toxic that I've really put that on the backburner for now... Anyway I've got family visiting right now but I'll try to get in touch some time soonish. -Thibbs (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Haha, yeah. Stealth entomology lessons. Sadly DYK was a little too slow. The Escapist scooped the frontpage by ~6 days... There's another similar article in the DYK pipeline currently, though, so keep watching. :) -Thibbs (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of GamersGate
Hello! Your submission of GamersGate at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar ♔   18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I just started the cleanup but I have to take care of some real world stuff for a little while so I'll get back to it when I get a moment. -Thibbs (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No rush at all czar ♔   20:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I'll work away at it slowly then and I'll have it done soon. -Thibbs (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I think it may be done now, but the paraphrasing is probably still in need of work. I await your recommendation at the DYK page. -Thibbs (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women and video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. -Thibbs (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for GamersGate
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. -Thibbs (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Oh thanks! Yeah I thought it could do with a little update. :) -Thibbs (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional list of Fictional Ungulates parent list
Hello. I've been thinking, it might be ideal to split the fiction ungulates characters consisting of deer, moose, reindeer, elk and such like into "List of Fictional Cervine". This might cut down the huge numbers of ungulates in the "List of Fictional Ungulates in animation". Do you agree with the idea? If so, I'll get started on creating the list. Deltasim (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure. According to WP:SIZESPLIT, the size of "list of fictional ungulates in animation" article (at ~9.5k) alone doesn't justify further splitting. Even when we add the the sizes of "list of fictional ungulates" (~6.5k), "list of fictional ungulates in animation" (~9.5k), and "list of fictional ungulates in literature" (~2.4k), we're only approaching 18.4k. Frankly if it didn't mean messing up Template:Fictional biology navbox I might just as easily see merging the three into one. One key issue that jumps out at me, however, is the fact that none of these articles currently demonstrates that it meets the general notability guidelines. Taken together, all three articles share only one source which doesn't treat the topic (i.e. fictional ungulates) as a whole. That source doesn't appear to meet WP:RS and the link is broken so we're essentially looking at an ostensible collection of WP:IINFO at this point. I'm pretty sure that most of these fictional animal articles can be sourced properly, but it's not easy work. The place to start is in expanding the lede with reliable sources. Regarding the overall structure of all lists of fictional animals I would prefer a more consistent approach based primarily on taxonomic hierarchies and only secondarily on media type so in this sense I would support splitting ungulates into cervines before splitting ungulates into ungulates in animation if such a thing was warranted. Consistency really is essential here and I would possibly try to get a group of editors involved by posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters if I were you. Let me know if you need any help. -Thibbs (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Women and video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Online gaming. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh bother, not you again. Well thanks anyway. ✅ Done. -Thibbs (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. -Thibbs (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Games December 2001, Issue 176 - SSX Tricky
You mentioned on the WikiProject Video Games talk page that you have a copy of the feature for SSX Tricky from "Games", and it would be extremely helpful in expanding the article for the game. Thanks! BlookerG (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure I'd be glad to provide you with a copy. It's not a feature, however. It's just a review and a small one at that. Would you prefer a scan or a typed transcript of the review? -Thibbs (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Scan, please. BlookerG (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, scan it is. I'll try to dig it out from storage shortly. I've been intending to move some magazines from one storage spot to another so this will be a good excuse to tackle that project. Ping me again if I haven't produced anything by this Monday. -Thibbs (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. Thanks a bunch. BlookerG (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hindu holiday
Sorry for interjecting about an issue where I wasn't present, but thanks for the suggestion on Lucia's talk page about working on a "refimprove"-flagged article. I decided to peruse the categories myself, and I ended up bringing Mussie (a Loch Ness Monster-like legend from an obscure town in Canada), which had been flagged since June 2006, from a couple of uncited paragraphs to a GAN in about an hour. Interesting way to learn about new topics; this is obviously outside my normal scope. Tezero (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh that's fine. I don't feel like I'm making much headway there anyway. Lucia is upset and I think her closest allies have made matters worse by agreeing with her analysis that it is hopeless while offering her sympathy rather than by encouraging her to overcome the problems. She can be very stubborn and argumentative, but if she could just learn to avoid intractable arguments then she could be a real asset. Sadly tacking the refimprove articles is a good solo project but it wouldn't necessarily demonstrate that she is capable of collaborating... unless she first asked others to collaborate with her in cleaning up the article maybe. I don't know. Anyway, yeah good job on Mussie! I have connections to Canada so I approve of this heartily. If this is the only good result from my advice to Lucia then I'll take it. :) Those articles are good places to go if you're out of ideas and looking for some mini-projects. And they're definitely a good way to learn about new and interesting things. The whole encyclopedia is full of interesting topics if anyone cares to look. -Thibbs (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A few fictional character issues to clear up
Would you like to discuss in User talk:Bbb23 paragraph "Edit Warrior", a few points to clarify what belongs and doesn't belong in the List of fictional dogs in animation?


 * Whether fictional characters based on real characters like Balto should be put in the list?
 * Whether characters lacking nobility should remain in the list?
 * Whether characters that originated in literature or comics should remain in the list?

I am currently attempting to edit those fictional so that it is easier for other editors to add references and other notable characters. Your feedback would be very beneficial. Thank you. Deltasim (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I answered there and started a discussion at Talk:List of fictional dogs in animation. Hopefully we can work this out peaceably. -Thibbs (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid my talkpage
My talkpage is one of the very few places i have where i'm still in Wikipedia...i don't want to hear "just keep moving forward" from you anymore. I had every right to believe what i said about an administrator, especially when he clearly wasn't neutral. Now regardless....i'm not going to open up a dead discussion.

So i'm going to say this: If you want to help me in any way....in anyway...it has to be the fully. I cannot move forward, without having an answer.....if you were in my situation....you would know exactly why i need an answer. You have never been in my situation. And the fact that you don't answer just feels like i'm being undermined.

I'm going to attempt to edit one last time in another subject......if i can't even improve one article to where i feel it is significant...i'll ask to be banned by an administrator. But again....why bother? Lucia Black (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will avoid your talk page from now on. The only reason I have been posting there since August is in response to your pings anyway. I'll let you in on something: it's not actually very much fun for me to keep telling you how to help yourself emerge from your difficulties when you are so dedicated to sulkily wallowing in them. The solution to your problems is well within your reach, but I know that I can't help someone who won't help herself. So I'll put in practice what I suggested to you and simply move on now. You know what I think you are capable of and you know what I think is the best way to solve your problems. The rest is up to you. You can do whatever you feel like doing as far as I'm concerned. -Thibbs (talk) 12:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: If you have any more specific questions then feel free to write me here because per your request I won't respond to your pings at your talk any more. If you do post here, though, please don't waste my time. I'm happy to offer advice, but I don't want advice-seeking to be a pretext for further arguments about how impossible your the task is and how unable to contribute you have become. I don't think such discussions are healthy for you and they certainly waste my time. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Please stop pinging me with questions, . I have already told you that I will not be posting anything on your talk page any longer. I was serious. If you have a question then you can ask it here. But please keep in mind my previous note, though. -Thibbs (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I don't need to repeat the same question i have been asking in my talkpage just so i can get an answer. You know what i'm asking, you had every opportunity to answer such question and you have ignored it over and over. You have only recognized the question in my talkpage "after" i asked you to no longer come up to my talkpage for the very reason of ignoring and dismissing my opinions.


 * Now there's on key aspect that you and everyone else has ignored. Even with a supposedly significant number of supporters, the majority weren't there to avoid the worst situation. And no they wont pursue it either despite claiming it to be an injustice. You have this theory that if i make good edits elsewhere, the community will grace me with the topic i was originally banned. But honestly, your theory should've been proven in the last AN. The last sanctions put on me was actually the most neutral thing the community has done in a long time with me. And my editing literally quadrupled since and i was recognized by WP:ANIME. Heck there wasn't any disturbance in the Wikiproject for months. Not even a single mention of disruption from me since.


 * The entire process of the original "broadly construed" consensus was based on compromise of an even more unfounded proposed sanctions of banning me permanently, but not based on any new action that was deemed worthy for it in the first place. Now, i asked this in WP:AN, i asked this in my own talkpage...i have been ignored several times. The fact that you've ignored me, the fact that everything i say anything, it gets easily dismissed without even a chance, i don't feel the editors are really validating anything, just my "edits". After everything that has happened, the dismissal, the ignoring, and the insults (in my own talkpage), how can i return in good faith? Answering the question I've been asking in the previous AN and in the previous would show me that you are truly willing to help. If you can't answer, and you choose to ignore it, i have no faith in the community.


 * So far, you have only been helping from spectator's position. Given some light-hearted advice to what you think will help me, but choose to ignore the true solution that i want. Now....i'm going to say this....i CANNOT move forward....i cannot in good conscious move forward if i dont even know what i'm moving forward from....What does the community want out of this topic ban, what do they want me to learn, what is it that makes them believe i deserve an indefinite topic ban.


 * That's why i'm asking the same question OVER and OVER. Because if i ever want to get it repealed, there's going to be the same group claiming i learned nothing....and thy might be right if i dont even know the problems their claiming. If there's even a claim to have. Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm very short on time at present, Lucia, and I haven't even read your note yet. But I'll read over what you wrote tomorrow and I'll try to respond shortly. -Thibbs (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to again guess what you are asking. In repeatedly trying to answer your unarticulated question I have been assumed that you are asking this: The answer I have repeatedly given is that you were banned for being disruptively argumentative. Here are two quotes from my on your talk page that tried to answer your question: I have given the same answer several times in other talk pages as well. In order to settle the question once and for all I will now give a full explanation:
 * "Why was I banned?"
 * "I'm pretty sure the expanded sanctions came as a result of the persistently argumentative behavior." -Thibbs (12:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC))
 * "You said you don't know what the disruption was, but I think I already explained that. It was the large arguments." -Thibbs (04:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC))

Lucia, you were on probation for all articles due to previous disruption (i.e. what the community interpreted as huge and pointless time-wasting arguments). Under the terms of this probation you were later banned from the GitS articles subsequent to engaging in what appeared to be a huge and pointless time-wasting argument there. This ban was reviewed by the community at WP:AN (where all behavior of an editor is taken into consideration, not just the most recent incident) and the community was found to favor expanding the topic ban to cover all areas where these arguments had previously caused disruptions (i.e. "all Japanese entertainment related topics, broadly construed"). The expansion was then reviewed by an independent admin and found to be proper. Pretending that the reason for the ban is a mystery and that nobody has ever told you what you have done wrong is really disingenuous. I'm sure you disagree with the ban. Most banned editors do. But you have to realize that at the very least your behavior has given the appearance of disruption. That is the reason you were banned. And I'm not interested in hearing about your innocence. I know first-hand that your lengthy arguments can be disruptive. I think the sanctions were a little overbroad but they do not shock the conscience and they are not outside of the realm of reasonableness.

I hope this clears things up for you. You know how I think you should fix the problem. What you do is up to you. -Thibbs (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no pretending, the basis for the indefinite topic ban was not based on any new grounds. And this is me looking back in the past discussions several times. In WP:AN i asked that question 7 times...not a single one gave an answer... It also has nothing to do with innocence, but rather figuring out the true problem...what exactly is the problem...and that's what i want....i want to solve the ENTIRE problem.....Give me one situation where one editor at least attempted to validate what i have to say....


 * I may be the root of the situation, but at this point i'm not the cause. Let me paint it clear: The choice to call my lengthy arguments "disruptive" is purely based on perception. My lengthy comments can easily be productive if the community chose to at least validate the things I've been saying. Rather than dismissing it entirely (and editors who have lookedinto what i have said, have agreed or partially agreed) Let me ask you a question...has anyone ever and i mean "ever" gave me the benefit of the doubt at any point in these long disputes?


 *  If you think all that is too long and this is an example of what you're talking about, then let me cut it short: There's more to this than the community wants to get involved in. Banning me is the easy way out, but its definitely not the right way. confirming what you just said in WP:AN would've made amount of difference in what the problem is and if the ends justify the means....Now if you find my edits productive...you would know it doesn't. Not by a single bit. But now that i know...there really is nothing i can do...i can make a million good edits, it just takes one person bring back history...and it will take me to defend myself everytime...So it will be a never ending battle.


 * The community or at least the ones closely attached to the topic of me, are not innocent either in the situation...it doesn't matter if i'm innocent....i dont have to be innocent to know that this situation is wrong. Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The new grounds it was based on was the continuation of the arguments. These arguments have not ceased since the original GitS ban. Each new argument has represented proof for those involved in the discussions that the previous ban was ineffective in achieving its result: the protection of Wikipedia from this kind of disruption. At last a community decision was made to just ban you from all areas where you had previously gotten into these kinds of arguments and be done with it. As I said earlier it is essentially impossible to prove to the community that you are not disruptively argumentative by drafting more and more lengthy arguments in your favor all over Wikipedia hoping for a sympathetic ear. It's like if a vandal threatened to vandalize Wikipedia every day until he gets unblocked at which point he will stop. The community just doesn't trust someone who displays such a clear example of the behavior they were banned for in the first place. I know you don't like to hear this but you have the power to break the cycle. -Thibbs (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, but keep in mind, every time i respond it is due to the frustration of trying to venture somewhere else and failing. Everytime i fail, i feel like there's nothing more i can do but to continue. Nearly 100% of what you just said has some glaring holes. The ends (Not bringing up arguments) doesn't justify the means (removing me from a significantly large area of what i have been productive and non-disruptive in). If you want proof or do you feel the community needed proof of my good editing, why wasn't it relevant when it happened? Why is it suddenly relevant after the sanctions? it should've been looked into "during" the discussion, not after. Not only that, but there's always going to be those type of discussions when the topic has nothing to do with articles. If you believe all it takes is proving editing elsewhere will cause an argument, then what choice do i have? If i let people talk me down and not respond, they slander my reputation. If i respond, they pick my words apart, and try to ignore the original situation. So honestly, no matter what happens, i'm at a standstill. Even if i do have enough to prove i'm a good editor (which i don't need to prove if its true).


 * This is what basically sums up my entire point: the concept of "Duty of Candour (UK)": a public authority should not seek to win the litigation at all costs but to assist the court in reaching the correct result and thereby to improve standards in public administration. Regardless of who i am or how i'm presenting myself, one has to take a step back and really look at the situation and determine what is the true solution...Now i full-heartedly believe there's a better solution than stamping topic bans and sending me out to figure it out on my own only to get what you want to see (but not what's needed to be seen). Especially for the same people who complain about me "never learning a lesson" but never mentioning explicitly what they want. Lucia Black (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At the administrative boards each editor's entire editing history is taken into account, and your history was found to reflect someone who is overly disruptive. Your good edits and your bad edits were both relevant and were both presumably considered. Given the nature of your "crimes" I doubt that it would be helpful to ask the community to look back again over your edit history and come to a different conclusion. It is quite likely that those who don't find your edits since the ban to reflect any acknowledgment or change will again voice opposition, and you run the risk of irritating others who have grown tired of reading through threads about you at the administrative boards.
 * To prove that you can resume editing in the area where you were found to cause the greatest disruptions you must show that you have changed. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with everyone all of the time from now on, but you might consider ignoring slander and leaving short factual statements that cannot be picked apart like "I disagree with you because I believe the current claims violate WP:OR." If you reach a standstill at an article then remember that you still have the option of just giving up and moving on to the next article. From looking through your edit history in AN/Is past, I know that giving up is something that will not be easy for you, but it's an essential part of being a good editor here. Things don't always go our way. Giving up isn't fun, especially when you are in the right. But it is important for an editor at a collaboratively created encyclopedia. I can't give you an exact formula for how to prove that you are no longer disruptive. Perhaps a few justified clashes would not be a problem. But given your situation it would be better to learn how to simply avoid people with whom you disagree than to fight them. That doesn't make you a weak editor. It shows that you have the strength and intelligence to avoid problems.
 * One of the best coping mechanisms for "giving up" that I have found is to put the matter completely in the hands of consensus. If you find yourself on the minority side of an argument with many others then at a certain point it is best to simply acknowledge that there is a consensus against your position, state your disagreement with the consensus one last time, and then acknowledge that you gan go no further in the discussion and stop. If you have initiated the discussion you can even consider closing the thread if it is likely to only attract battleground comments. If the only participants in a disagreement are you and one other editor, then a very good proxy for consensus can be found by filing a request at WP:3O. If a neutral outsider disagrees with you then you can announce that you are understanding this as a proxy for consensus against you, state your disagreement with the consensus one last time, and then acknowledge that you can go no further in the discussion and stop. Learning when to stop arguing is an important skill. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You see...thats part of the issue. In your comment you recognize the bias of it all. ANd i fully believe that my "bad edits" have a particular pattern.....and it has always involved specific editors...The rest is based on WP:AN discussions, not the original topic, and thats sort of what bothers me....that it goes in a tangent and becomes something else.

If i give up on the community to ever treat me with the respect i deserve, then there should be no reason for me to stay in wikipedia. No one would stay in such horrible circumstances. I GUARANTEE though, if my ENTIRE edit history in Wikipedia has been taken into consideration, there are going to be strong glaring holes. Just like now. Lucia Black (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding both the "specific editors" and the "respect" issue all I can say is that when there are people who are genuine jerks - people who truly have no business working in a collaborative space and who deserve to be kicked out forever then in the vast majority of cases that is in fact the eventual result. Often it's better to walk away from such a person rather than let them get you involved in something you wish to have no part of (like an ANI). Given enough time, the jerks usually get their comeuppance. If there is no comeuppance then you have to question whether the person is really that much of a jerk or whether they were just going through a rough patch. -Thibbs (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

And for me, there these "jerks" could care less where i edit...and yet...i'm banned from the area i was productive. WP:ANIME actually wants me there...so where do i walk off to? Where? You realize you're not making my situation look any better. So you're right...i am going to walk away...from wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If I put myself in your shoes then I would probably take a break from editing too. It can be very frustrating. But I would come back even if it was just so nobody could say that they had driven me from the place. Reaching out to those you have disagreed with in the past is another very helpful thing to do after tensions have cooled. This is true both in cases where you have lost the argument as well as cases where your view has prevailed. I have tried reaching out to those I have disagreed with several times in the past and I often see good results. Most people are here to work together toward a common goal, not to puff themselves up and throw their weight around. Sometimes my efforts are rebuffed, but those are valuable experiences too because then I know for sure what kind of an editor the rebuffer is. Those types of editors tend to be the ones who eventually get booted from the encyclopedia. -Thibbs (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt you would stay if you were in my position, at my editing level, and specific tastes (especially when their little to no sourcing which makes this entire process feel even more torturous than anyone could). you try to refer to my situation in an overly generalized way....and you can't....i'm in a situation where a specific group of editors hold the faith of my editing. Its not that i have a group of problems with editors.


 * {| class="navbox collapsible " style="text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #CFC;" | The holes of my WP:AN history, and clear evidence of WP:GAME If the community (in this case, a specific group of editors) in WP:AN or feel exasperated, the choice to get involved in the discussion is on the individual, and another less-compromised, more neutral editor can get involved. I've personally have seen editors who have troubled me in the past several times get brought up in WP:AN, and i don't always go in and add anymore than the situation. Because i don't feel like it will solve anything and only cause more problems. Especially if all i have is how i personally feel about the person. But the self-entitlement of getting involved in a discussion that can be taken care of by someone else and claiming that the community doesn't want to hear it, is demeaning. Especially when i'm being ignored and dismissed, that only adds more fuel to the situation. It's always the same formula: They are always bringing up previous ANs, but never actually proving a point of what the previous ANs were about. Always instigating and adding more mudslinging and never actually solving the situation. Even if i was the problem, it was never solved in a way where it could have a lasting
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: lavender; " |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: lavender; " |

Worst of all in WP:AN, i feel like the community (again, referring to the specific group of editors) has made up their mind before they even get to look at the whole situation. They sling WP:BOOMERANG not because of what i did, but what i'm saying. Which isn't enough to ignore the others for what they've actually done. They use WP:IDHT as a way to say "we heard what you said but we don't have to address it" and its not even used right because there is no consensus. But whats even worst is that their using WP:IDHT to push action on the editor in question, and at the same time ignoring what the editor has to say.

This is what i consider gaming the consensus building process when it comes to WP:AN...when the consensus is built on instigation, when its no longer about the original subject or even tangent to it, yet demanding to take care of it. When the editor in question is being ignored, dismissed, and being talked down to. When their reputation is being muddied up just by hear-say but not actually providing proof. And especially if the only thing that is being reviewed is past history with WP:AN not with actual legitimate disruption or vandalism. This not only affects any real neutral editors who just want to help build the best consensus for that editor, but it only adds fuel. It shows these editors don't even "want" to help that editor.
 * }


 * Now, if you were in my exact situation: you would have been productive in a very specific but large quantity of interesting topic, had a large history with a specific group of editors in WP:AN over nothing relevant, they would have controlled your editing if you ever chose to bring anything up in WP:AN, and when you did, they would have provoked/instigated a response. And because they already have the "Multiple AN" you would have little choices in how ignoring it would work in your favor.


 * For me, I'm giving up in editing, because when you fully understand the situation, you just have nothing to get into. Sure, i still have a small list of articles i'm interested, and its slowly getting checked off as un-salvageable with my skill. And failing is just another reflection of what recently happened. I to this day do not believe i deserve this many sanctions from WP:AN. And if it were anyone else, i guarantee, people would be raising eye brows at the situation. I do believe a lot of what happened in previous ANs is instigated, and a lot of the facts are muddled. I want other editors to see what the true "Gaming the consensus" really means and what it actually does. What you want is what i see as a temporary solution, not a permanent one. And i honestly "can't" go out of my way to edit with someone who has never even attempted to give me a chance or has already made a decision on me and push for more sanctions and knowing absolutely NOTHING about me. And most importantly: i shouldn't even do that in the first place. Making a choice to add more sanctions is a heavy deal. Need i remind you, the original goal was to ban me from Wikipedia? As The Farix said, they got the next best thing and i will say this with a guarantee, they could care less what i do in Wikipedia. Lucia Black (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that at least one of the people you have conflicted with have been brought to the admin boards in the past because I participated in the ANI. This editor has since been banned. I have also had a very long and protracted disagreement with one of the others you have had problems with, and looking now I can see that this person has been blocked ten (10!) times since the date of that mediated discussion and is now involved in an ArbCom case where the majority of the evidence has been offered against him. I assume you wouldn't have a problem with the community considering evidence of the past misconduct of those two in order to come up with an appropriate solution to their disruption. When someone is accused of a habitual long-term pattern of disruption then it makes sense to consider examples of this person's past conflicts. And that's what happened to you. You have developed a history of long conflicts and you shouldn't be surprised that they are brought up when you go to ANI. Nor should you be surprised that people who have a poor opinion of you speak up about it at ANI. You have 42 people who have watchlisted your talk page, you know. You have to assume that a fair number of those are editors who believe you to be a problem that needs watching.
 * Staying out of AN/ANI discussions is a good idea from someone who gets into conflicts. I've been here for more than 8 years now and by my count I have only initiated one ANI against a named non-block-evading user. And even that case came at the end of a non-acrimonious 2-month-long discussion with him. And this is also at least partially why it is helpful to reach out to those you have disagreed with. Of the two problematic editors I mentioned (with whom both you and I have conflicted in the past), I have made my peace with both of them. If you are concerned that you will face problems from certain editors then it might make sense for you to contact the more reasonable ones privately, acknowledge that you hadn't reacted well to things in the past and explain how you are hoping to fix this in the future. A description of your plan for the future, and a request for their suggestions or understanding, and perhaps even an apology would more than likely eliminate their ill-will toward you. You don't have to repudiate your position or accept full blame for anything, but saying something like "I am sorry that our disagreement became heated" is a neutral expression that does not put the blame on you. Anyway just make sure that you enter into such a discussion as someone who wants to build bridges instead of someone who wants to lay blame and point fingers.
 * Or if you really want to leave then I can't stop you. I would hope that after some time has passed you will try again, but from your responses I won't be holding my breath for it. This is a volunteer project. It's supposed to be fun. If you don't find it fun then you have every right to do something else. Whatever you choose I wish you good luck. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It gets repetitious because you fail or choose to ignore the important details that make up most of my major point. every editor that i have had conflict within the article space that i ever brought up in WP:AN or ANI has been in WP:ANI as well and "barely" get away scot-free. Not just 1...thats where you have to know it gets fishy. Second, where is the disruption is actually happening? thats another area. Regardless of wat editors are feeling, objectively, nipping it in the bud is fixing the editor, first. These editors could care less and you can see it through the WP:AN and ANI process. When issues arise, its with other editors with a history. And that's usually by who choose to get involved in WP:AN and ANI extensively. Now, you're only looking at the the shell. you're not looking at the entire thing.
 * NOTE: I suspect that I may be archiving this discussion soon in accordance with my normal talk-page handling. (I always wait until I have 55 threads and then I archive the oldest 50.) If I archive this you can start another discussion thread in my talk, but please be aware that I don't have any power to restore your rights and some parts of the discussion have started to feel rather repetitious. -Thibbs (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

SO here's what i gather from your point: "of course their going to be watching me". and i could care less....because if they actually were watching me, they would see my edits that i have been doing, and all the progress. If they want to look at my talkpage and use that for WP:AN and ANI, then their not looking for how productive i am, their looking for anything i have within my right to edit and spin it into another reason in WP:AN and ANI. So here's my point that at this point i want you to address properly: regardless of how the specific group of editors feel about you, you can't deny the instigation that has been going on in the past WP:AN and ANI.

You saying "it seems that way" but you never confirm it. I've may not have been here as long as you, but i've been here long enough to know when something is just plain wrong and when certain editors aren't even getting the proper treatment and education in WP:AN and ANI. WP:GAME states to give warnings before to ensure that there isn't gaming, and i'm going to tell you not a single WP:AN about me has ever been addressed with a warning. And the fact that other editors see there's a specific group, i dont think what i have to say should be ignored. So not only am i missing out on something, but so are the others who feel its unfair.

So i have a theory: if i requested an interaction ban or maybe the topic of me in WP:AN from just 3 specific editors. It would make the biggest difference in the world. Just 3... Lucia Black (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "you fail or choose to ignore the important details that make up most of my major point." - I told you that although I am happy to offer you advice, I don't want advice-seeking to be a pretext for further arguments about how impossible your the task is and how unable to contribute you have become. You think there is a cabal of editors out to get you and that they get away scott free while you get topic banned. Fine. We've already established that. I disagree, but it really doesn't matter what I think because I have no power to unblock you. Spending time convincing me is fruitless. If I am ignoring anything you are saying it's generally because I don't think it's the sort of thing I can offer advice about. I'm not interested in arguing with you whether or not your situation is hopeless.
 * "So here's my point that at this point i want you to address properly: regardless of how the specific group of editors feel about you, you can't deny the instigation that has been going on in the past WP:AN and ANI." - You seem adamant about this so I'll answer it, but let's be clear: this line of discussion does not lead to you becoming rehabilitated. Even if I completely agree with you we'll still be left exactly where we are now. You'll still be topic banned. What I do think is that yes you've been instigated to argue at AN/ANI threads, but you've also instigated plenty of others yourself. Is it fair that you were sanctioned and they weren't? The question is kind of rendered pointless in the face of the fact that (fair or not) you are sanctioned and several more AN/ANI arguments to overturn the sanctions have failed. I have suggested that you should move forward by editing peaceably in other areas for a while to demonstrate that you are capable of editing without getting into huge arguments. I think that would likely be more productive than starting yet another AN/ANI thread to argue about the sanctions you are under. But it's up to you, of course.
 * - As I said earlier, I'm going to archive this now (since we're now at 55 threads). Please don't edit anything in my archive, but do feel free to start another thread on my talk page if you wish. Just keep in mind that this discussion is only worth continuing if it helps you return to editing in keeping with the community's behavioral expectations. It doesn't do anybody any good to go on and on about how hopeless everything is. We're just spinning our wheels with those talking points. -Thibbs (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)